I Love Working at Starbucks—But Conditions Have to Change
Caitlin O’Reilly-Green is a member of Rise Up Georgia, a partner of Center for Popular Democracy.
Too many employees have to deal with inconsistent work schedules
...Caitlin O’Reilly-Green is a member of Rise Up Georgia, a partner of Center for Popular Democracy.
Too many employees have to deal with inconsistent work schedulesOver the past 18 months, I have been working as a barista at Starbucks–and I love it here. I love making coffee, and I love chatting with customers. Despite the love I have for my work, I have to speak up on behalf of my co-workers: Something has to change in the way Starbucks is treating us.
This became clear to me when I met other Starbucks workers through Rise Up Georgia, a racial and economic justice organization based in Atlanta that is a partner of Center for Popular Democracy, the union-supported group that released a report Wednesday criticizing Starbuck’s labor practices. Through talking with my co-workers, I realized that I wasn’t the only one having a hard time planning my life around my work.
I have seen many co-workers quit on short notice because they couldn’t earn enough to make ends meet or their work schedule was too erratic to plan important things like child care. Though I faced some of the same issues, the hardest part of the job for me was without a doubt the so-called “skeleton-shifts”–severely understaffed shifts that left me stressed, exhausted, and, as a result, sick.
Earlier this year, I worked four days in a row with only my shift supervisor in the back to support me. A co-worker called in sick each day, so I was alone serving the entire store. My store has a drive-through, two registers in the front and a coffee bar–and I was the only one tending all of them.
The work was so grueling that I eventually developed a muscle spasm in my back and was forced to stop working for three months in order to recover from my injury.
When I took my struggles to Starbucks, the company listened and showed me that it cared about my problems. I was offered the opportunity to transfer to a store closer to my home so that I could have a shorter commute, and I now know how to indicate my preferred availability for shifts, so that I have a better chance of planning my life outside of work.
I’m so happy that Starbucks heard me, but I’m just one person. Unfortunately many Starbucks workers don’t speak up and voice their struggles.
My co-workers silently work “clopen” shifts, where they shut down the store at night and come back the next morning to open it. They silently deal with inconsistent work schedules. They silently cope with not knowing how much work they’re going to get each week, making it impossible for them to budget—and budgeting is already hard on $8.25 an hour.
The solution should be obvious for Starbucks. Instead of relying on every worker to bravely speak up about their struggles, Starbucks should change a system that is fundamentally broken.
I’m grateful for the improvements in my schedule, but I strongly believe that all of us deserve hours we can count on. I am speaking up and writing this op-ed in the hope that Howard Schultz, the CEO, will listen to the workers of his company and see that store-level problems don’t happen because of individual managers. It’s the company-wide structure that is failing us.
I think Starbucks is a great company, and I still believe that it wants its employees to be happy. But to get there Starbucks workers need a seat at the table.
Source: Time
New York’s Progressive Experiment Tees Up
Politico - November 4, 2013, by Edward-Isaac Dovere -
Even New York liberals weren’t expecting things to go this well.
Tuesday, voters in America’s most...
Politico - November 4, 2013, by Edward-Isaac Dovere -
Even New York liberals weren’t expecting things to go this well.
Tuesday, voters in America’s most prominent city are poised to elect Bill de Blasio mayor and turn over every major lever of municipal government to a new breed of politics that’s been on the rise but never close to this level of power: a mix of young progressives, reconstituted ’60s- and ’70s-era lefties, newly active minority voters and deep-pocketed unions that have transformed themselves into expert campaign organizers.
What that will mean as they try to translate that ideology into a governing philosophy is a question that even people who’ve been leading the charge are still asking. And in New York, where there are more than 8 million residents (plus close to a million more who come in daily for work), 300,000 city employees and a $70 billion-plus budget, there’s a lot riding on the answer.
These are the people who formed the labor-funded, liberal-favorite Working Families Party and sparked Occupy Wall Street. They say government shouldn’t just allow for change — it should force new change on the city and private sector. That means universal pre-K; closed tax loopholes; pensions divested from fossil fuel companies; family-friendlier work policies, including financial support for single parents; and paid sick leave requirements. And on the housing front: more market regulation, leveraging of privately owned real estate that’s in trouble and greater community power over developers’ plans.
The reaction of the city’s business, real estate, finance and high-tech industry leaders to its new governing class-in-waiting has ranged from panic to scoffing at the stuff they say pipe dreams are made of. The political establishment in the city is skeptical any of it can work, especially without igniting a budget disaster. And the progressives in charge are superstitious enough that, despite their candidates’ long and overwhelming lead in the polls, they’ve avoided doing too much planning before election night.
One thing all sides agree on: A new era has arrived. Barring major upsets, former political-labor strategist de Blasio will be the mayor, longtime Upper West Side official and political maven Scott Stringer will be the city comptroller, and Tish James, a product of Brooklyn African-American activism and politics, will be the public advocate, roughly the equivalent of the city council president.
The city council speaker most likely won’t be picked until January, but even the conservative choices are liberal Democrats. And whoever gets the job will face a newly empowered City Council, in which the rapidly multiplying Progressive Caucus members include many unconnected to the traditions of go-along legislators, and have made clear they’re going to push for their own changes.
That array of progressive victories is “a dream,” de Blasio said on his way out of a late September fundraiser for Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the godfather of this strain of progressivism in the city, that seconded as an advance celebration for the impending takeover.
“For a lot of progressives who’ve spent a whole lot of time on the steps of City Hall, this is the chance to get inside City Hall,” Stringer told POLITICO. “The challenge for all of us is to come together and govern and build our city for every New Yorker.”
Expectations are high, and made higher by the spirit of achieving what seemed impossible with unexpected election wins including de Blasio’s late surge and Stringer’s fending off Eliot Spitzer.
So what happens next, when these are the people confronted with a complicated and tight city budget, multiple costly labor contracts that are coming due for renewal, a crime rate that seems like it will statistically have to edge up at some point? How do they manage when they’re in charge, and not the outside instigators? And what happens when they’re heading into office promising major changes in rent costs and education, realignment of investments in city services and a detailed agenda of “broadly shared prosperity” — along with other liberal priorities like confronting climate change and improving senior care? When many competing interests are all going to be demanding attention from people who’ve never before been in positions of major power?
“There’s a lot you can do with really good leadership throughout the city that shares this agenda,” said Brad Lander, a city councilman who leads the progressive bloc and helped organize “Toward a 21st Century for All,” a collection of policy essays that’s become one of the main touchstones of progressive planning. “New York City is going to be an exciting laboratory.”
“What a pleasure it will be to have a city administration united with people who believe that you can increase the minimum wage, who believe that you can have paid sick leave, who believe that it doesn’t harm the city to treat workers and low-income people right, who believe that the purpose of an economy is not just to get the numbers on television but to help people live their lives, and who believe that the purpose of city government is to help all people — not just the 1 percent or the 5 percent or the 10 percent,” Nadler said, riling the crowd at an Upper West Side rally over the weekend.
At the rally, the talk was of how subway tokens cost only $1.25 and that Miley Cyrus wasn’t yet born the last time a Democrat was elected mayor. But that was a very different type of Democrat than what’s coming now — much more rooted in traditions of government spending and programs than the current strain’s emphasis on activist intervention, rethinking budget priorities and reeling in what they see as runaway wealthy interests.
“‘Liberal’s’ too soft,” actor-singer-activist Harry Belafonte declared at the rally to describe what he said was the most exciting political moment in his life in New York. “’Radicals.’ It’s time for radicals.”
There are limitations. Taxes — including the one on high-income earners that would pay for de Blasio’s signature expanded pre-kindergarten proposal — have to be approved by the state government, which also has the authority to take over city finances at any point if they begin to veer off track.
“It should be a comfort to people who are worried about the city going off the rails in a crazy far-left direction that Albany is not going to let that happen,” said Kathy Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, which represents business and financial interests across the city.
“I don’t think the primary concern is whether the mayor’s a lefty,” she said, reflecting the private-sector leaders she’s talked to. “It’s whether we’re going to have a mayor who can effectively manage 300,000 city workers and an $80 billion budget and not allow the city to run off the rails.”
“We have to govern,” Stringer said. “We have to do things through the lens of what we can afford and also what we can’t afford.”
At a meeting of municipally elected progressives in Washington state in late October, the same “tale of two cities” line that’s dominated de Blasio’s campaign kept coming up as people talked about how they could build support for many of the ideas that de Blasio’s about to have the power to do.
“It’s happening all over the country,” de Blasio said in a taped message to the Local Progress conference. “This is a tremendous moment for progressive activism.”
The mayors of Richmond, Calif., and Fitchburg, Mass., both attended, but as people there acknowledged, the importance and size of New York make de Blasio and the incoming officials a much bigger deal for the movement, in both spotlight and potential.
“It’s easy to talk on the outside than to be on the inside, actually preparing the meal, so that means they’re going to be judged on what kind of meal they prepare,” said Nick Licata, a former Seattle City Council president who’s the chairman of Local Progress. “It’s going to be a challenge — it’s always a challenge for any advocate group, left or right, when you go from proposing something to actually implementing it.”
John Del Cecato, a political consultant who was one of the main architects of de Blasio’s campaign, said there’s a clear reason why the revolution started in New York.
“There aren’t just pockets of extreme wealth and pockets of poverty anymore. We’ve got close to 400,000 millionaires, while half the city lives at or near the poverty line,” Del Cecato said. De Blasio’s appeal, he said, is the fact that the current state of affairs “is deeply troubling not just to those who are living the struggle every day, but to those who’ve done quite well who fear that New York is losing what’s made it such a special place for generations.”
Recalibrating the enormous city government to focus on pre-K, after-school programs, community hospitals, better wages and affordable housing is going to be difficult, and certainly won’t be fast, Del Cecato said.
But this year’s elections, he argued, are an important start to “move New York in a direction that acknowledges where we’re slipping behind, puts us on a new path and establishes a mind-set that we’re a city that leaves nobody behind.”
Source:
Behind the Business Attire, Many Bank Workers Earn Poverty Wages
The Committee for Better Banks (CBB), a Communications Workers of America (CWA)-affiliated community and labor coalition, was created in 2013 to put an end to that. Cassaundra Plummer, a Maryland-...
The Committee for Better Banks (CBB), a Communications Workers of America (CWA)-affiliated community and labor coalition, was created in 2013 to put an end to that. Cassaundra Plummer, a Maryland-based CBB member currently employed as a bank teller at TD Bank, told In These Times, “A lot of the issues within the banks are not discussed, they’re kept really quiet. As a young woman, I always thought that working at a bank was more of a prestigious job than retail. Once I actually got into banking, I realized that it’s not a whole lot different.”
The CBB, which has grown from eight lead members in April to approximately 60 in six different states today, with thousands more either engaged through petition signing or attending rallies. CBB is hoping to expand and create a critical mass of organized workers by bringing these issues out in the open.
A study released by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) early this month shored up CBB claims, finding that 30.4% of the 1.7 million retail banking employees across the country—more than 500,000 workers—are paid less than $15 an hour. Nearly three-quarters of low-wage bank workers are bank tellers, 84.3% of which are women.
Another report, published by the UC Berkeley Labor Center last year, found that these low-wages led 31% of bank teller families toward enrolling in public assistance programs (compared to 25 percent of the entire workforce). “The cost of public benefits to families of bank tellers is nearly $900 million per year,” says the report.
Though it was labeled an “occupational winner” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for its 84% throughout its growth in the 1970s, the introduction and proliferation of automated teller machines helped put the brakes on that, leading to a projected 1% growth over the next decade. As Timothy Noah noted for Slate in 2010, banks tellers earn “slightly less than [they] did in 1970,” putting the job at the center of wage stagnation that has become common-place throughout the middle class, especially within the context of expectations of higher productivity.
CEO compensation and executive pay indeed remain at worrying heights. The NELP report found that CEOs of Wells Fargo and Bank of America made amounts equal to more than 500 times the annual earnings of an average bank teller. Stephen Lerner, the architect of SEIU’s famed Justice for Janitors campaign, summed up the wealth disparity among bankers at the top and bottom of the pay brackets in a 2010 New Labor Forum article, writing, “We could increase pay by $2.00 per hour and provide employer-paid health insurance for over 550,000 tellers with just 3.6 percent of the bonuses paid out to executives.”
“The constant focus on making more forces the people working in the bank to take on more work, but we’re being paid the same amount,” says Plummer. “We’re not expecting to become wealthy off of entry-level positions. But the corporations make a lot of money off of the things that we do—the sales goals, and all that we have to do to create wealth for the bank. It should be reciprocated back to the employees.”
By shifting traditional banking services toward automation, low-wage bank workers such as bank tellers and personal bankers have also become the frontline for pushing financial products on to customers in an effort to increase profits. The pressure of sales quotas imposed by management and executives at the top keeps low-wage bank workers under more scrutiny than ever before. Customer service employees in retail banks must not only attempt to hook patrons onto core retail banking services like checking and savings accounts, but must also resort to hawking mortgages and credit cards in ways CBB organizers say can be predatory. Tellers risk termination if they fail to meet quotas for such products.
“Wells Fargo creates an environment of hostility and humiliation. Multiple times I witnessed management behaving in a condescending fashion to those who did not meet ‘goals’ even though their customer service was excellent. Wells no longer cares about customer service or the best interest of their customers; they are only looking to push products and most of the time they are unnecessary products,” one bank employee told the Committee of Better Banks when they surveyed 5,000 workers for the aforementioned study at the group’s conception.
According an April 2015 report by the Center for Popular Democracy, since 2011, 17 different lawsuits across the top five banks in the country (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and US Bank) have been settled for nearly $46 billion, “highlighting a range of alleged illegal and unethical business practices.”
A 2013 Los Angeles Times investigation reported that the pressure of sales goals, which increase U.S retail banks’ profits, has led some bank workers to commit fraud, forging signatures, opening secret checking accounts with fees attached, or even credit lines for customers in order to keep up with their sales goals. This has led to lawsuits from customers and even cities decrying the rigid and unfair sales culture fostered by the banking industry. When these practices become public, banks fire employees and managers in alleged attempts to uphold ethical finance.
But as Khalid Taha, one of the first Committee members in California, currently employed at Wells Fargo in San Diego, describes it, the “impossible” sales goals come from the top and workers ultimately have no other option. “They fire the entry level employees which is us, but if you think about it, yes we are responsible for it, but we are also victims,” says Taha. “We have to keep our jobs, pay our rent. We have no way but to go a little bit shady when we deal with our customers because the company wants to meet their quota. They don’t care how.”
Beyond low pay, CBB has been working to connect these pressurized work environments to their detrimental effects on the economy caused by the bank’s business practices.
The top four retail banks in the country (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo), part of the too-big-to-fail banking institutions that some, like presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, have called to be broken up, now collectively possess assets equivalent to 45% of the U.S economy, a slight increase than what it was in 2008 before that year’s financial crisis.
Lerner, who is currently advising CBB as a fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, told In These Times, “This campaign is different from many union campaigns that say ‘our sole goal is winning better conditions for workers.’ Those campaigns are important, [but] in this case we’re saying that you can’t win better conditions for workers unless you reform the industry—and you can’t reform the industry unless workers are helping reform it.”
At an April 2015 rally in Minnesota where they delivered 11,000 signatures on a petition calling for an end to sales goals, the Committee for Better Banks released a proposed bill of rights for bank workers. One of the planks of the bill addresses what they say is community suffering at the hands of banks: “We must eliminate unreasonable sales goals or performance metrics that force us to push unnecessary products on our customers. We are here for our neighbors—for the child who opens his first savings account, for the newlywed couple planning ahead to retirement, for the senior citizen opening a credit card. We want to be honest brokers of your financial security, and that means an end to pressure tactics that only serve to line shareholders’ pockets.”
“We’re at the very beginning of a baby-steps campaign to build working support for the idea that we need to do two things, and that come simultaneously: We need to address how bank workers unfairly—low pay, etc., but we need to connect with how the finance industry behaves is bad for the overall economy,” Lerner says.
In 2010, Lerner was launching SEIU’s new plan to organize bank workers. Mike Elk described that effort as emanating from his realization that banks influenced the rest of labor organizing through its close connections to the pensions and investment banks that intertwined with financial decisions made not only by workers but their communities, as well.
At the time, fellow journalist Steve Early told Elk, “[Successful organizing] require[s] a long-term commitment that few unions are willing to make, even when dealing with a strategic multinational target that’s not going away.” Lerner left SEIU later that year under disputed circumstances, and his work organizing bank employees was abandoned by the union.
CEO and President of union-owned Amalgamated Bank, Keith Mestrich announced in early August that the bank’s employees would be making at least $15 an hour under their new collective bargaining agreement. He told Buzzfeed, “We think it’s the right thing for our bank to do, and frankly we think it’s the right thing for all banks to do. … If any industry in this country can afford to set a new minimum for its workers, it’s the banking industry.”
But in the rest of the nonunionized retail banking industry, CBB, like the Fight for 15 and OUR Walmart, will be agitating for improvements.
“It was a little bit scary at the beginning, but we have to do it. If we don’t talk then the banks will do whatever they want to do,” says Taha.
Source: In These Times
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
Progressive campaigners say they have no remorse over Yellen era
Progressive campaigners say they have no remorse over Yellen era
Progressives played a key role in paving the way for Janet Yellen to become the first chairwoman of the Federal Reserve in 2014. And they don’t regret it.
Left-leaning Democrats in the...
Progressives played a key role in paving the way for Janet Yellen to become the first chairwoman of the Federal Reserve in 2014. And they don’t regret it.
Left-leaning Democrats in the Senate and their allies in Washington told President Barack Obama that they would not support Lawrence Summers, his first choice for the Fed job, clearing the way for Yellen to take the helm of the central bank.
Read the full article here.
Is the Federal Reserve’s Leadership Diverse Enough?
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has shown in the past that she is not afraid to aggressively confront members of her own party on issues that she is passionate about.
This...
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) has shown in the past that she is not afraid to aggressively confront members of her own party on issues that she is passionate about.
This has been especially evident on issues facing the mortgage industry. Warren famously grilled FHFA Director Mel Watt in November 2014 in a Senate Banking Committee hearing on why the Director had not yet instituted a principal reduction program for underwater homeowners. In September 2015, she and Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) led a protest in Washington over HUD’s and FHFA’s sales of delinquent mortgage loans to private investors. Both organizations are led by Democrats.
Now Warren has turned her attention toward the Federal Reserve Board and Chair Janet Yellen. On Thursday, Warren and 10 other U.S. Senators, along with 116 of the 193 Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives (led by John Conyers, D-Michigan) wrote a letter to Yellen calling for more diversity in the leadership of the central bank.
After starting off by calling Yellen’s tenure at the Fed “historic” and pointing out some economic gains the country has made since Yellen was appointed as the head of the central bank in February 2014, the lawmakers then addressed what they believe to be a problem in the demographic makeup among the Fed’s leadership.
“A lack of diverse leadership is hurting the Federal Reserve's policy decision-making process.”
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
“However, despite these gains, we remain deeply concerned that the Federal Reserve has not yet fulfilled its statutory and moral obligation to ensure that its leadership reflects the composition of our diverse nation in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, economic background, and occupation, and we call on you to take steps to promptly begin to remedy this issue,” the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers cited a law passed by Congress in 1977 requiring the Fed’s leadership to more reflect the country’s diverse makeup without discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. The letter pointed out that nearly four decades later, “the leadership across the Federal Reserve system remains overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male, while major financial institutions and corporations are overrepresented in senior roles.”
The letter cited a February 2016 study by the Center for Popular Democracy which found that 83 percent of Federal Reserve head office board members are white and nearly three-quarters of all regional bank directorships are held by men.
“When the voices of women, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Pacific Americans, and representatives of consumers and labor are excluded from key discussions, their interests are too often neglected,” the letter stated. Warren further tweeted on Thursday that “[a] lack of diverse leadership is hurting the Federal Reserve's policy decision-making process.”
In addition to what the lawmakers perceive as racial and gender disparities, they also expressed concern over a “persistent lack of occupational diversity, noting that only 11 percent of the Fed’s regional bank directors come from community, labor, or academic organizations compared to 39 percent that represent financial institutions and 47 percent that represent commerce, industry, and services firms.
A Fed spokesperson responded to the letter with the following statement: “The Federal Reserve is committed to fostering diversity—by race, ethnicity, gender, and professional background—within its leadership ranks.
“To bring a variety of perspectives to Federal Reserve Bank and Branch boards, we have focused considerable attention in recent years on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experiences. By law, we consider the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor, and consumers. We also are aiming to increase ethnic and gender diversity.
“Minority representation on Reserve Bank and Branch boards has increased from 16 percent in 2010 to 24 percent in 2016. The proportion of women directors has risen from 23 percent to 30 percent over the same period. Currently, 46 percent of all directors are diverse in terms of race and/or gender (with a director who is both female and a minority counted only one time). We are striving to continue that progress.”
By Brian Honea
Source
Community activists stage Cyber Monday protests in fight against Amazon’s HQ2
Community activists stage Cyber Monday protests in fight against Amazon’s HQ2
“Cyber Monday is a big day for Amazon, and Amazon coming to Queens is a big deal for New Yorkers,” Charles Khan, an organizer with the Strong Economy Coalition and the Center for Popular Democracy...
“Cyber Monday is a big day for Amazon, and Amazon coming to Queens is a big deal for New Yorkers,” Charles Khan, an organizer with the Strong Economy Coalition and the Center for Popular Democracy, told MarketWatch following the Herald Square protest. “It’s a trillion-dollar company run by the richest man in the world, and they don’t need any help from taxpayers to come to New York.”
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
The incredible story of how “civil rights plus full employment equals freedom"
The incredible story of how “civil rights plus full employment equals freedom"
Washington, D.C.'s think tanks produce a tsunami of studies, reports and manifestos. Most of it has a readership that, outside of wonks and reporters, could be counted on the fingers of one hand...
Washington, D.C.'s think tanks produce a tsunami of studies, reports and manifestos. Most of it has a readership that, outside of wonks and reporters, could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
It truly matters that this not be the fate of a new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Fed Up, and the Center for Popular Democracy.
Read the full article here.
Parents, Community Leaders Want Dade Middle, Others To Become Community Schools
Parents, Community Leaders Want Dade Middle, Others To Become Community Schools
Dade Middle School in Dallas has had a history of problems. Some community leaders want the Dallas school district to boost neighborhood involvement and turn Dade into what’s called a community...
Dade Middle School in Dallas has had a history of problems. Some community leaders want the Dallas school district to boost neighborhood involvement and turn Dade into what’s called a community school. Some folks believe more community and parental involvement would make a difference there.
One weekend afternoon last fall, parents and children streamed into the auditorium at Dade Middle School. Music in English and Spanish blared from the speakers.
People from around the country showed up to speak at the school and they talked about getting parents and more of the Dade community involved in improving the school.
Yesenia Rosales was at the school with her two daughters ages 12 and 16. They moved to Texas from Maryland and she said things at Dade seem pretty good so far.
"Teachers seem very interested in helping students," she said.
Not long ago, though, things were pretty rough at Dade. Fights broke out regularly, principals were being replaced frequently and parent involvement was dismal.
Community leaders like Monica Lindsey told parents at that meeting last fall that it was time for a change. Together, she said, they could convince the district to adopt a new model at Dade and other troubled schools.
“And we’re pushing to have 20 schools turned into community schools by 2020. Can you repeat after me? 20 by 2020. 20 by 2020 …, ” Lindsey told the crowd.
So, what is a community school? According to the Coalition for Community Schools, it’s one that’s built on partnerships between the school and community groups.
A district’s best teachers work there and the school offers extra social services, like mental health counseling. There’s also more parent involvement and the school doesn’t automatically suspend students who act up.
The Dallas school district has worked to stabilize Dade by adding higher-paid and more experienced teachers. Texas Organizing Project and others involved in community school reform, however, envision a broader effort.
“At a community school, you would have 100 or 200 folks participate in some way or another in that planning process,” said Allison Brim, organizing director for the Texas Organizing Project. “You get real buy-in and also input from a larger group of parents and teachers at the school and students as well to make sure that we’re really addressing all of the needs of the entire school community.”
For the past school year, Brim and other members have been meeting with parents, Dade’s principal and district staff to talk about turning the school around. They’ve hosted several community dinners in South Dallas. And, Brim has sent school board president Eric Cowan a letter asking him to consider the issue at a future board meeting.
Brim says she sees some progress at Dade.
“I would say while it’s still not officially our standard that we’re working toward in terms of a community school, a lot of the foundation has been laid," Brim said. "And there’s been huge improvement in terms of the academics and a lot of the key indicators at the school as a result," Brim said.
Advocates point to progress with community schools in places like Cincinnati and Los Angeles.
Last month, The Center for Popular Democracy released a report citing two schools in Austin that went from facing closure to becoming two of the district’s highest-performing schools.
At one of the Austin schools – Webb Middle School – enrollment, attendance and the graduation rate went up. The school now has a full-time community school coordinator and a family resource center that offers parenting classes.
Dallas school trustee Miguel Solis said he’d like the board to consider adopting the community school model or some variation of it.
“That’s not to say that the model will be 100 percent effective if it is implemented the exact same way in Dallas as it is in these other school districts,” he said. “But the principles and tenets of the model are, I think, perfect for our community and particularly the areas that are the most underserved and need the most support.”
Even if the Dallas school board takes up the issue sometime soon, Solis said turning Dade or other schools into community schools wouldn’t happen overnight.
“What the board is likely to do is at some point just have a better understanding of exactly what a community school is, what the goals of community schools are … ” Solis said.
In other words, when it comes to making a commitment about community schools, Dallas school trustees will want to do their homework first.
This story is part of KERA’s American Graduate initiative.
Source
5 days ago
5 days ago