Blacks Nearly Four Times More Likely Than Whites to Be Unemployed in Minnesota
Minneapolis City Pages - March 6, 2015, by Ben Johnson - A new study reaffirms a refrain equality advocates have become quite fond of in this state: Minnesota is a great place to live -- for white...
Minneapolis City Pages - March 6, 2015, by Ben Johnson - A new study reaffirms a refrain equality advocates have become quite fond of in this state: Minnesota is a great place to live -- for white people.
The Center for Popular Democracy and the Economic Policy Institute released a study yesterday showing the statewide unemployment rate for black people is 11.7 percent, compared to 3.2 percent for white people.
Black Minnesotans' unemployment rate is 3.7 times higher than white Minnesotans'. The study analyzed all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the only places with a larger gap were Wisconsin (4.6 times higher) and D.C. (5.6 times higher).
Minneapolis unemployment rates are lower than statewide, but the racial gap (3.9x) is even higher.
When these figures came out yesterday protesters from across the country lobbied the Federal Reserve to keep its interest rates low.
When interest rates are low it's easier for businesses to borrow money, and in theory, easier access to money means businesses can hire -- and pay -- more people. On the flip side, if interest rates are kept too low for too long inflation becomes a concern.
"Unemployment is slowly, slowly heading in the right direction, but raising interest rates at this point would really set minorities back," said Becky Dernbach with Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, which held a rally yesterday at its headquarters. "We think the Fed needs to pay special consideration to how the recovery has not hit certain communities at all."
NOC and its allies are supportive of Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, who favors keeping interest rates low, but he's stepping down in a year. Protesters made it clear yesterday they want a say in who takes his place.
"On a fundamental level, we need to have a voice in the process," said Dernbach.
Source
Donald Trump pledge to target "sanctuary" cities could cost Denver, Aurora
Donald Trump pledge to target "sanctuary" cities could cost Denver, Aurora
DENVER - President-Elect Donald Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from cities that don’t tow-the-line on immigration.
“We will end sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many...
DENVER - President-Elect Donald Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from cities that don’t tow-the-line on immigration.
“We will end sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths,” he said on August 31. “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayers’ dollars.”
That threat has raised concerns in cities like Denver and Aurora, where police departments have said they won’t enforce federal immigration law, because they don’t have the resources and because that's the federal government’s job.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock says that doesn’t mean the cities don’t cooperate.
“We follow the law,” he told Denver7. “We still cooperate with agencies and ICE (Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement) but we won’t do anything unlawful or unconstitutional.”
That means Denver won’t detain someone for ICE officials once their adjudicated sentence has been served.
When federal courts began to rule in 2014 that cities lack the authority to hold inmates in local jails beyond the term of their sentence, Denver modified its policies in regard to detainers, to conform to constitutional standards, as did numerous state and local agencies throughout the United States.
When asked if Denver is a sanctuary city, the mayor replied, “Denver never adopted a formal policy to be a sanctuary city. What we are is a very welcoming and inclusive city.”
The inclusive city of Denver received $175-million from the federal government in 2015. Much of it was spent on transportation, affordable housing and other forms of public assistance.
Hancock said he doesn’t think the federal government will withhold money from Denver and other big cities, but Denver City Councilwoman Robin Kniech, who chairs the Finance Committee, said, “We accept the possibility of that risk.”
Kniech said federal funds are important but not more important than people.
“We, as a city council, discussed that yesterday, how strongly we support our residents and our obligations to those residents. If that’s the risk, we will face that risk.”
Kniech said Denver has seen the federal government turn its back on financial obligations for many reasons.
“Whether it’s due to government shutdowns or other political shenanigans in Congress, we have to have contingency plans in place,” she said. “We work to mitigate the impact on our residents.”
Kniech said if they have to face that challenge, “I’m confident we would use all the tools in our toolbox to help protect our residents.”
The councilwoman said she is interested in collaborating with other cities and towns.
Kniech is a member of the Board of Local Progress, which includes people who serve on city councils and county commissioners, who are committed to the values of inclusiveness and a stronger economy for their most vulnerable constituents.
“I have been working with colleagues in Austin, Texas, New York City, Los Angeles and other cities all across the country who are standing up to these threats just as Denver is,” she said. “I’m confident we have a national movement.”
The mayor’s staff pointed out that between 2006 and 2013, the State of Colorado adopted and enforced a law (SB 06-90) which required the state to withhold certain grants from any city that had adopted “sanctuary” policies, and defined the term to mean: “Local government ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state.”
During that time, no state grants were ever withheld from the city, because Denver was not deemed to have adopted a “sanctuary” policy within the meaning of that statute.
Other Colorado cities concerned
Aurora received $11-million from the feds last year.
When asked if they’re concerned about a loss of federal funds, Lori MacKenzie, a spokeswoman for the city, said, “We don’t want to speculate because it’s simply too early to know what will take shape at the federal level.”
Trump’s threats are also a concern to the city of Boulder.
In an emailed statement, Boulder Communications Director Patrick von Keyserling told Denver7 that Boulder’s City Council asked staff to conduct research into the impacts of declaring Boulder a sanctuary city.
He said no decision has been made, but acknowledged that the issue of declaring sanctuary is one that has legal and financial implications.
“The city’s research will take into account the potential loss of federal dollars, impact on existing city services and programs and staff’s ability to serve Boulder residents, as well as our community’s strong commitment to social justice,” he said.
By Lance Hernandez
Source
Families, Lawmakers to Speak at Rally in Washington, DC on Six-Month Anniversary of Hurricane María
Families, Lawmakers to Speak at Rally in Washington, DC on Six-Month Anniversary of Hurricane María
“Protesters will gather for a rally at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then march towards several congressional offices to voice their demands. The event is...
“Protesters will gather for a rally at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then march towards several congressional offices to voice their demands. The event is organized by Power 4 Puerto Rico, a coalition made up of the Hispanic Federation and Center for Popular Democracy, among other community organizations.”
Read the full article here.
Fed Makes Right Decision Not to Raise Rates
1/27/2016
Statement and Booking Opportunity : Ady Barkan, Campaign Director for Fed Up, released the following statement regarding...
1/27/2016
Statement and Booking Opportunity : Ady Barkan, Campaign Director for Fed Up, released the following statement regarding the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting today:
“In December, the Fed voted to slow down the economy by raising interest rates despite economic indicators and the real experiences of working Americans suggesting it was still too soon. The Fed made the right decision today not to raise rates again. Ongoing labor market slack, low wages, and major racial disparities in the labor market suggest that it should continue this ‘wait and see’ approach.”
“In recent weeks, Fed officials have said that instability in global financial markets is influencing their decision about future rate hikes. The declines in domestic and foreign stock markets this year certainly suggest that investors are uncertain about the strength of the economy. Further slowing down the economy in the face of such instability would be a serious mistake.
“Most important, however, is that Fed policymakers keep their eye on the prize: genuine full employment for all. The Fed has a mandate to pursue full employment, and should therefore look first and foremost at labor market conditions here in the US. Low labor force participation, the inability of millions of workers to get the hours and wages they need, unemployment rates for African Americans that remain above pre-recession levels in most states and cities, and very low rates of price and wage inflation should be the primary factors Fed policymakers consider in the coming months.”
# # #
www.populardemocracy.org
The 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.
Media Contact:
Anita Jain, ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761
Sofie Tholl, stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558
Why it’s hard to legislate good corporate behavior
San Francisco, the country’s premier laboratory for new Internet services, is also used to innovating in municipal regulation.
But in its latest experiment, it’s...
San Francisco, the country’s premier laboratory for new Internet services, is also used to innovating in municipal regulation.
But in its latest experiment, it’s starting to find that legislating good corporate behavior isn’t as easy as pressing a button on your smartphone.
In July, the city started implementing a first-in-the-nation law aimed at curtailing the trend towards “just-in-time” scheduling, where managers call in employees to work on short notice. The new measure requires large chain retailers— such as Safeway and Walgreen’s — to publish schedules at least two weeks in advance, and to compensate employees with “predictability pay” if they make changes less than a week ahead of time. It also mandates that additional hours be offered to existing employees first before new hires are made, and that part-time workers be paid at the same rate as people who work full-time.
So far, it’s been easier to publish schedules than live up to the spirit of the law.
"The two-week notice seemed to be instituted right away, but the other stuff is lagging,” says Gordon Mar, director of San Francisco Jobs With Justice, a labor-backed group that pushed for the “Retail Workers Bill of Rights” and has been monitoring its implementation.
The sluggish response may be because fines don’t kick in until Oct. 3; the city is still hashing out the rules. But the spotty compliance so far highlights the difficulty of attempts to mandate worker-friendly practices — especially the kind that touch the most fundamental aspects of business operations, rather than those that simply require higher pay and better benefits.
San Francisco employers fought the new ordinance, but couldn’t prevent its passage. Now, they complain it’s impacting service.
“We’re hearing from members in San Francisco that it really is not working well at all,” says Ronald Fong, president of the California Grocers Association. Stores can’t always predict surges in foot traffic, which might be brought on a sunny day, leaving managers without the option to bring in more staff. That was a problem during the heat wave that swept over San Francisco this summer.
"Supplies weren’t able to get out to the shelves,” Fong says. "It just kind of snowballed, and our customers have a bad experience, or the stores lose sales.”
Some businesses don’t mind the rules in principle, but object to the red tape. "Everybody pretty much operates on a predictive schedule,” says Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Association. “But the process of implementing this, with offering the employees hours in writing and waiting three days for a response, it’s a lot of government intrusion into very minute detail.”
Also, not all industries schedule their workers in the same way. Milton Moritz is president of the National Association of Theatre Owners’ California and Nevada chapter, and says the theater business is by nature unpredictable, making the new law particularly difficult to comply with.
“We might not know until the Monday before the Friday a film shows, and even then we’re hiring, firing, scheduling people based on the business that film’s going to do,” Moritz says. “This ordinance flies in the face of all that. It really complicates the issue tremendously.”
The San Francisco ordinance hasn’t just been irritating for big companies. Some workers grumble the law discourages employers from offering extra shifts on short notice, because they would have to pay the last-minute schedule change penalty — even if workers would be happy for the chance to pick up more hours.
Rachel Deutsch, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Popular Democracy who has been helping local jurisdictions across the country craft fair-scheduling legislation, says that’s something that might change in future iterations.
"I think that’s the thing with any policy where it’s the first attempt to solve a complicated economic problem,” Deutsch says. "It’s been a learning process.”
So far, fair scheduling laws aren’t spreading as quickly as minimum wage and paid sick leave laws. A statewide bill in California failed a couple weeks ago, and no other local ordinances have passed besides San Francisco’s, though there are active campaigns in several cities including Minneapolis and Washington D.C.
Meanwhile, several companies have acted on their own to curb some of the practices that workers have found most disruptive, like on-call shifts, where workers have to be available even if they aren’t ultimately asked to work. But in some cases — like that of Starbucks, which committed to eliminating many of those practices — those voluntary changes haven’t been any more effectivethan government mandates.
Erin Hurley worked at Bath & Body Works and campaigned for an end to on-call shifts. After she left the job, parent company L Brands said it would stop the practice at Bath & Body Works as well as another of its chains, Victoria’s Secret. But Hurley says she’s heard from current workers that managers are still doing effectively the same thing, by asking employees to stay a little longer.
“On-call shifts were replaced with shift extensions,” says Hurley. “Basically what L Brands did was change the name of the practice.” Keeping people on-call is very convenient for employers, and letting it go can be easier said than done. (L Brands did not respond to a request for comment.)
Still, advocates in San Francisco think the Retail Workers Bill of Rights has already done some good, and will be more effective when the city’s enforcement kicks into high gear — just like overtime rules did, when companies got used to obeying them.
Take Michelle Flores, 21, who has worked part time at Safeway for two years to support herself while in going to college. Unpredictable schedules made that difficult: She would only know her shifts a few days beforehand, which sometimes didn’t leave her enough time to hit the books.
"I would study from midnight until 5, 6 a.m., sleep for two or three hours, and then go to the exam,” says Flores, 21, who attends San Francisco State. This year, she expects that to change. "If I know that I have a shift scheduled, I’ll just study another day,” Flores says.
Also, the law came with some funding for community organizations to make employees aware of what workers are entitled to. That has ancillary effects — like getting people interested in joining a union, which can be better equipped to make sure companies are following the rules.
“It just creates an opportunity to talk to more workers about their rights under the law, and that leads to conversations about other issues in the workplace,” says Gordon Mar, of Jobs with Justice. “And that could lead to getting organized.”
Source: Washington Post
Are Superstar Firms and Amazon Effects Reshaping the Economy?
Are Superstar Firms and Amazon Effects Reshaping the Economy?
“Wage stagnation is not a puzzle,” said Marshall Steinbaum, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, who spoke on a panel organized by the activist group Fed Up outside the lodge where the Fed...
“Wage stagnation is not a puzzle,” said Marshall Steinbaum, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, who spoke on a panel organized by the activist group Fed Up outside the lodge where the Fed symposium later took place. “Cutting-edge research tells us exactly what’s going on, and yet the Fed seems to be considering this for the first time.”
Read the full article here.
Gap Says It Will Phase Out On-Call Scheduling of Employees
The move makes Gap the latest retailer to move away from “on-call scheduling,” which regulators, workers’ rights groups and some academics say is detrimental to employees ...
The move makes Gap the latest retailer to move away from “on-call scheduling,” which regulators, workers’ rights groups and some academics say is detrimental to employees and their families.
“At Gap Inc., we also believe that work-life integration enables all employees to reach their full potential and thrive both personally and professionally,” the company said in a statement on its blog announcing the change on Wednesday. “We recognize that flexibility, inclusive of consistent and reliable scheduling, is important to all of our employees.”
On-call scheduling requires employees to call ahead before a specific shift to see if they will be needed, a practice that gives workers little predictability in scheduling. Facing public and regulatory pressure, some retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Starbucks and Victoria’s Secret, have already begun phasing out the practice.
Gap said its five brands — Athleta, Banana Republic, Gap, Intermix and Old Navy — had agreed to stop on-call scheduling by the end of next month and have committed to providing employees with at least 10 to 14 days’ notice, according to Wednesday’s announcement.
In April, the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, sent a letter to more than a dozen retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J. C. Penney and Victoria’s Secret, requesting more information about on-call scheduling and questioning whether such practices were legal. In the months since, Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria’s Secret both announced they would discontinue it.
Mr. Schneiderman praised Gap’s decision in a statement on Wednesday.
“Workers deserve stable and reliable work schedules, and I commend Gap for taking an important step to make their employees’ schedules fairer and more predictable,” he said.
Gap had already begun scaling back the use of on-call shifts after starting a pilot program last year to test alternative scheduling practices. Mr. Schneiderman’s office told Gap last week that it would consider legal action if the retailer did not take steps to end on-call scheduling, according to Eric Soufer, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office.
A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal advocacy group, found that the children of parents who worked unpredictable schedules could have inferior cognitive abilities, in areas like verbal communication, and struggle with anxiety and depression.
“Parents’ variable schedules require irregular family mealtimes and child bedtimes that interfere with children’s healthy development,” the study said.
Correction: August 28, 2015
An article on Thursday about an agreement by five Gap apparel store brands to stop requiring employees to make themselves available for last-minute shifts misstated when the policy change will become effective. It is the end of next month, not the beginning of next year.
Source: New York Times
Schumer retira oferta sobre muro fronterizo de negociaciones sobre “DACA”
Schumer retira oferta sobre muro fronterizo de negociaciones sobre “DACA”
“Se sienten muy traicionados porque los demócratas habían hecho una promesa muy específica… no hay ninguna garantía, y sabemos que la estrategia de votar por el Dream Act como una ley separada ha...
“Se sienten muy traicionados porque los demócratas habían hecho una promesa muy específica… no hay ninguna garantía, y sabemos que la estrategia de votar por el Dream Act como una ley separada ha fracasado año tras año, no es una promesa que se traduce a un alivio para los Soñadores”, explicó Ana María Archila, del grupo Centro para una Democracia Popular.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Mayoral Hopefuls Cool to Plan to Lift Up Low-Wage Workers
Labor Press - February 13, 2013, by Marc Bussanich - While the city’s economy has been recuperating from the Great Recession, low-wage workers in the city face enormous difficulties in making ends...
Labor Press - February 13, 2013, by Marc Bussanich - While the city’s economy has been recuperating from the Great Recession, low-wage workers in the city face enormous difficulties in making ends meet in one of the nation’s most expensive cities. A new report, Workers Rising, reveals policy decisions the next mayoral administration can make to improve conditions and pay for low-wage workers.
Presented at a symposium on low-wage worker organizing at the Murphy Institute, the authors of the report, UnitedNY and The Center for Popular Democracy, write that the city should raise standards by guaranteeing at least five days of paid sick leave. The city should also regulate high-violation industries, establish a Mayor’s Office of Labor Standards to investigate complaints by workers and pass a resolution that’ll allow the city to pass a higher minimum wage than the state.
According to the report, the city’s economy is shedding living wage jobs, but is adding low-wage, service sector jobs such as restaurants (42,000) and retail trade (27,000).
Prince Jackson works as a security officer for the Air Serv Corporation at Kennedy airport and is part of a committee of security officers organizing for better pay and the appropriate equipment to do their jobs that ensures the safety of passengers.
He worked all night, but said it was important for him to be at the event.
“I’m very tired, but I will do anything that I can do to raise the standards for my fellow workers at the airport.”
Alterique Hall is a retail worker who said he’s behind his rent because he’s paid very low wages.
“It’s difficult. Some days I just want to lie down and cry because I’m being paid and treated poorly. We need to fight for higher wages to better our futures,” said Hall.
A car wash worker who worked for seven years at a carwash owned by John Lage in SoHo, owner of multiple carwashes throughout the city, will soon be laid off because Lage is selling the property to a developer. The workers at the SoHo facility voted to join the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union in November, but Lage said the property was up for sale before the election.
Council Member Gale Brewer welcomed the proposal to create a local office for labor standards.
“All the other cities and states that have paid sick leave have such an office. Right now, the only way to get a complaint on many of these issues is on a complaint-by-complaint basis. There isn’t currently any organization; the state doesn’t have enough staff. You need a local office that will be a partner with the employee and employer to come up with safe standards,” Brewer said.
Also joining Ms. Brewer were two mayoral hopefuls—Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former comptroller and 2009 mayoral candidate, William Thompson. They both said they support the movement to help low-wage workers, but they did not say they would enact the authors’ proposals if elected mayor.
Source
OPPOSING A MINIMUM WAGE HIKE COULD COST THE GOP THE SENATE
Labor Day has started the sprint to the November election. And with more than 40 percent of U.S. workers struggling on less than $15 an hour, our economy’s tilt toward low-paying jobs has become a...
Labor Day has started the sprint to the November election. And with more than 40 percent of U.S. workers struggling on less than $15 an hour, our economy’s tilt toward low-paying jobs has become a top economic issue this year.
Now, as GOP leaders fret that Donald Trump may drag down Republican incumbents, turning more U.S. Senate races into toss-ups, the Republican majority’s stonewalling of any action to raise the federal minimum wage could cost the party control of Congress.
New polling shows that close to 70 percent of voters in key swing states want an increase in the federal minimum wage—and that 60 percent or more support a $15 minimum wage in six of the seven states polled.
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Even more, the polling shows that candidates’ positions on raising pay could play a pivotal role in this year’s electoral battles for control of the U.S. Senate. The results show that the incumbent Republican U.S. senators locked in close races could lose critical support—and even their seats—over opposition to raising wages for working people.
In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, Democratic challengers Katie McGinty, Russ Feingold and Governor Maggie Hassan strengthened their leads over incumbent Republican Senators Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Kelly Ayotte when voters were made aware of the senators’ opposition to raising the minimum wage.
And in Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina, Democratic challengers Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, Jason Kander and Deborah Ross pulled ahead of Senators John McCain, Roy Blunt and Richard Burr, flipping those contests on their heads, when voters learned of the senators’ track records opposing raises.
For example, in Arizona—where John McCain has just emerged from his toughest re-election primary ever—a 43-43 tie turns into a 44-38 lead for Kirkpatrick once voters hear about McCain’s opposition to raising pay.
The polling comes as the National Employment Law Project Action Fund, the Center for Popular Democracy Action, the Working Families Organization and other grassroots groups in seven states begin to mobilize voters.
The coalition plans to engage in canvassing, hold candidate forums and wage debate protests, among other actions, to educate and energize voters around candidates’ positions on the raising the minimum wage.
While Donald Trump, who has been all over the map on the minimum wage, has announced he now supports an increase to $10, most Republicans in Congress remain opposed.
Leading Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s firm LuntzGlobal has warned minimum wage opponents, “If you’re fighting against the minimum wage increase, you’re fighting an uphill battle, because most Americans, even most Republicans, are OK with raising the minimum wage.”
Farm workers pick vegetables on a farm in Rancho Santa Fe, California, on August 31. Paul Sonn writes that Republican U.S. senators locked in close races could lose their seats over opposition to raising wages.
While Congress has refused to act, over the past three and a half years, more than 50 states, cities and counties, as well as individual companies, have stepped forward to approve minimum wage increases, delivering raises to 17 million workers.
And 10 million of those workers are in states or cities that have approved phased-in $15 minimum wages, raising pay for more than one in three workers in California and New York and beginning to reverse decades of growing pay inequality.
Historically, raising the minimum wage enjoyed the same bipartisan backing in Congress that it does with voters. But over the past 20 years, increasing polarization in Washington and the growing role of money in politics have led many Republicans to abandon their support.
As a result, the federal minimum wage today remains frozen at just $7.25 an hour. And taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab, as low-wage workers in the seven states just polled must rely on $150 billion per year in public assistance to make up for their inadequate paychecks.
Candidates’ positions on the minimum wage have made a difference in close U.S. senate races before. Ten years ago, in Missouri and Montana, Democrats Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester successfully used their support for a higher minimum wage to highlight the difference between them and their opponents, Republican Senators Jim Talent and Conrad Burns, who both opposed raising the wage.
McCaskill and Tester rode the issue to an Election Day victory, helping to break a logjam in Congress and delivering the first federal minimum wage increase in 10 years in 2007.
With the public demanding action to boost pay, the Republican majority and individual candidates this fall face a clear choice: stop standing in the way of a long overdue federal minimum wage increase—or risk their political future.
By Paul K. Sonn
Source
4 days ago
4 days ago