Campaign News

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was on the hot seat Tuesday when he faced Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and other angry lawmakers at a Senate Banking Committee hearing designed to investigate the bank’s widespread rip-off of its customers.

Warren told Stumpf, who earns $19 million a year: “You should resign... You should be criminally investigated.”

Wells Fargo is the nation’s fourth largest bank by assets and its leading home lender.

Warren’s verbal assault on Stumpf generated considerable publicity. But this issue wouldn’t have surfaced in the first place without the hard work of several grassroots community and labor organizations, especially the Committee for Better Banks, that first brought the scandal to the attention of the media, elected officials and regulators.

Warren demanded both the Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission criminally investigate Stumpf for Wells Fargo’s practice of pressuring its low-level employees to create over 2 million unwanted checking and credit-card accounts without consumers’ knowledge or permission in order to grow the bank’s stock price. Warren reminded Stumpf that during the years Wells Fargo engaged in this “scam,” Stumpf’s own portfolio of company stock increased by $200 million.

She urged Stumpf to return the compensation he received while these practices went on.

“So, you haven’t resigned, you haven’t returned a single nickel of your personal earnings, you haven’t fired a single senior executive,” Warren told Stumpf. “Instead, evidently, your definition of accountable is to push the blame to your low-level employees who don’t have the money for a fancy PR firm to defend themselves. It’s gutless leadership.”

“You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket,” Warren said.

Wells Fargo’s official line is that the employees were acting on their own to skim extra pay from the bogus accounts. Warren questioned Stumpf about the fraudulent accounts, asking how such an operation could have occurred without the knowledge of top management.

Wells Fargo employees say they did so because of what they call the bank’s “sell or die” quota system, which put pressure on employees to engage in these practices in order to keep their jobs. They said it was a routine practice employees referred to as “sandbagging.”

Activists are up in arms over Wells Fargo’s double standard in dealing with its employees. After the scandal was exposed by grassroots advocates, the media, and government regulators, the bank fired at least 5,300 employees and refunded millions of dollars to customers. But bank reform activists are skeptical that so many employees could have acted on their own without the knowledge of higher-up bank executives.

Meanwhile, in July, in the wake of the scandal, Carrie Tolstedt, Wells Fargo’s director of consumer banking, the operation that opened the fake accounts, abruptly left the bank where she had worked for 27 years. She took with her a $124.5 million bonus. After her retirement announcement, Stumpf praised Tolstedt as “a standard-bearer of our culture” and “a champion for our customers.”

Warren criticized Stumpf for failing to withdraw Tolstedt’s bonus (a practice known as a “clawback”) in light of the revelations about her division’s behavior. Stumpf said it was up to the bank’s compensation committee, comprised of board members, to decide whether to rescind Tolstedt’s bonus.

“If you have no opinions on the most massive fraud that’s hit this bank since the beginning of time, how can it be that you get to continue to collect a paycheck?” Warren asked.

Moreover, activists say that the problem goes well beyond Wells Fargo and is an industry-wide scandal.

Ruth Landaverde, a former employee at both Wells Fargo and Bank of America, said the pressure from her supervisors at both banks was so intense she developed a tic in her eye and had trouble sleeping. She told the Associated Press that in order to keep her job she was required to sell four credit cards and four auto loans each week in addition to three home mortgages or refinances.

“I wasn’t going to do something unethical, but the sales pressure was very real,” she said. “I can see why some employees did what they did.”

Landaverde is now a member of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, a statewide advocacy group that works on housing and banking issues and is a member of the Committee for Better Banks, a coalition of community and labor groups. In an email this week to ACCE members and supporters, she wrote:

“When I worked for Bank of America, I felt uncomfortable when I was given a list of bank customers and told to call them and push new accounts and credit cards that could end up sticking them with unnecessary fees and debt. What’s worse, we were targeting customers in low-income communities of color much more than the customers in more affluent zip codes.”

Landaverde said that “there are still many more banks that have not committed to stop requiring their employees to push unnecessary products in order to keep their jobs. And now, Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf is throwing his own employees under the bus rather than accepting responsibility for the outrageous high-pressure sales culture that he and other Wall Street executives are creating!”

“I know first-hand that predatory sales exist across the U.S. banking industry,” said Cassaundra Plummer, a former teller at TD Bank and member of the Committee for Better Banks. “At TD bank, sales goals made it impossible for frontline bank workers to help customers find the financial products best suited to them. My manager would encourage customers to take out home equity lines to go on vacation which is the worst financial advice I’ve ever heard. We need to end predatory sales goals across the industry, not just Wells Fargo.”

Last year the Committee for Better Banks delivered a petition signed by more than 11,000 people to Stumpf, along with a letter noting that workers faced “pressures to meet sales quotas under strict monitoring and threat of losing their jobs, often forcing them to push unnecessary products and fees on to their customers, causing them stress and financial hardship,” and that loan servicing departments have been using similar tactics to push consumers toward riskier products they can ill afford.

The group has now launched another petition asking elected leaders in Los Angeles and other cities around the country to ban all city business with banks that force their employees to meet sales goals for high fee products such as credit cards, new accounts and home refinance loans. They say that these incentive programs create a system where bank workers are forced to engage in predatory practices against their professional and ethical beliefs.

“Wells Fargo’s action to eliminate sales quotas is a hard-won victory for front-line bank workers who have been denouncing abusive sales goals for over two years,” said Reuben Traite, an organizer with Committee for Better Banks. “The fact that Wells Fargo turned a blind eye is appalling. But these high pressure sales goals are rampant across big banks and we need to end it across the industry.”

Activists with the Los Angeles chapter of ACCE brought the issue to the attention of the Los Angeles Times, which broke the story in 2013. Once it made the papers, Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer conducted his own investigation and then sued Wells Fargo.  All that got the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank reform law.

Last week, CFPB director Richard Cordray, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry, and Feuer announced that they had reached settlements with Wells Fargo over its “major breach of trust.” Wells Fargo agreed to pay CFPB $100 million (the largest fine the agency has ever imposed) in addition to $50 million to the city and county of Los Angeles and $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Wells Fargo did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlements, although it issued an apology to its customers, promised to revise its sales practices, and agreed to refund consumers for fees assessed on checking and credit cards accounts they didn’t authorize.

Activists point out that the fines being levied against Wells Fargo are a drop in the bucket compared with Wells Fargo’s 2015 profits of $20 billion. It is even less than the more than $200 million in company stock that Stumpf owns. He serves on the board of directors of Target Corporation and Chevron Corporation, and until recently, on the board of the Financial Services Roundtable, a powerful industry lobby group.

The bank’s apology and refunds won’t make the issue go away. Many consumers are suing the bank as are former employees who say they were fired (or forced to resign) when they refused to engage in the fraudulent practices in order to meet the bank’s unrealistic sales quotas.

The issue first emerged in 2013 when the Los Angeles Times uncovered Wells Fargo’s illegal practices. In response to the Times story, Feuer initiated his own investigation and sued the bank, alleging it had “victimized their customers by using pernicious and often illegal sales tactics,” including unattainable quotas that pressured bank employees to “engage in fraudulent behavior.”

The CFPB undertook its own investigation and discovered that Wells Fargo employees opened as many as 1.5 million checking and savings accounts, and more than 500,000 credit cards, without consumers’ knowledge or permission.

The LA and CFPB investigations, the resulting media coverage, and Wells Fargo’s attempt to blame its lower-rung employees for the scandal led five Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee — Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Jack Reed (R.I.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), and Warren — to push its Republican chairman, Richard Shelby of Alabama, to holdTuesday’s hearings. They sent Strumpf a letter last week expressing concern that consumers and low-level employees will bear the burden of the bank’s misconduct “while senior executives walk away with multimillion-dollar awards based on what the company later finds out are fraudulent practices.”

The San Francisco-based Wells Fargo has long been a target of bank reform activists for its troublesome track record of risky and reckless behavior. For more than a decade, grassroots groups have challenged Wells Fargo’s racially discriminatory lending practices and aggressive foreclosures. They have picketed at the offices and homes of the bank’s top executives, sued the bank for violating laws against racist mortgage lending, and testified before Congress, state legislatures and city councils demanding that they investigate and rein in Wells Fargo’s troublesome practices.

The activists have primarily been bank consumers and residents of neighborhoods harmed by Wells Fargo’s redlining and other practices. But the two-year-old Committee for Better Banks is comprised of bank employees as well as consumers, representing a new and potentially powerful coalition. Not surprisingly, the Committee for Better Banks is now part of the broader movement to raise wages for service-sector employees like bank tellers to $15 an hour.

The CBB is aligned with the Center for Popular Democracy, a national network of local activist groups that work on housing, banking, and workers rights issues. CPD helped set the stage for the current campaign with its study of bank workers. The CPD report revealed that some of the nation’s largest banks, including Wells Fargo and Citigroup, pressure front-line employees to engage in fraudulent practices to keep their jobs. According to the report, the bank employees try to serve customers responsibly, but feel pressure from higher-ups to meet the quotas.

A report last year by the National Employment Law Center on banking industry wages found that almost three quarters (74.1 percent) of U.S. bank tellers and almost half (44.2 percent) of bank customer service representatives earn less than $15 an hour. The median hourly wage for bank tellers is $12.44. A study by the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that nearly one-third of the families of all tellers are on public assistance. In New York City, the capital of the nation’s banking industry, 39 percent of tellers and their family members are on some form of public assistance program.

Other groups involved in the better banking campaign include Move On, the Communication Workers of America, New York Communities for Change, ACCE, Jobs with Justice, Make the Road, and Americans for Financial Reform, a DC-based watchdog group.

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has called for dismantling nearly all of the Dodd-Frank reforms. In contrast, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton last week touted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's “forceful response” to the Wells Fargo scandal, adding that it was “a stark reminder of why we need a strong consumer watchdog to safeguard against unfair and deceptive practices.”

Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, a DC-based watchdog group that has played an important part in defending the CFPB from its opponents, said, “The current Wells Fargo scandal reveals why we need a strong regulatory agency that has the backs of bank consumers as well as employees.”

“Wells Fargo’s action to eliminate sales quotas is a hard-won victory for front-line bank workers like me who have been coming together in the Committee for Better Banks and working to end to high-pressure sales goals that hurt our families and communities,” said Julie Miller, a former Wells Fargo branch manager and a member of the Committee for Better Banks.

“Wells Fargo got into this scandal because it turned a deaf ear to the alarms sounded by consumers and its own workers, and its experience proves that these sales goals have no place in the consumer banking industry,” Miller said. “Predatory sales goals are rampant at big banks across the country, and we will keep on working and organizing to make sure Wells Fargo makes good on its word and that other banks follow suit by implementing fair business practices for workers and customers.”

By Peter Dreier

Source

The New York Times - August 12, 2013, Editorial - Judge Shira Scheindlin of Federal District Court in New York upheld the bedrock principle of individual liberty on Monday when she ruled that the tactics underlying New York City’s stop-and-frisk program violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens. She found that the city had been “deliberately indifferent” to police officers illegally detaining and frisking minority residents on the streets over many years.

Judge Scheindlin was clearly speaking of Mayor Michael Bloomberg when she concluded: “The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner. In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of singling out “the right people” is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”

The judge made clear that she was not striking down the program — which remains an important tool for law enforcement — but requiring the city to use that tool in a way that does not discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics and that comports with constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. Given the city’s refusal to alter its practices significantly, Judge Scheindlin had little choice but to appoint an outside monitor to oversee sweeping changes in how the New York Police Department trains its officers and carries out the stop-and-frisk policy.

Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can legally stop and detain a person only when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Over the years, however, the Police Department has adopted a strategy that encourages cops to stop and question mainly minority citizens first and to come up with reasons for having done so later. This has resulted in people in some neighborhoods being stopped without reason scores of times a year. These unconstitutional stops, Judge Scheindlin wrote, have exacted a “human toll” in demeaning and humiliating law-abiding citizens. She is currently overseeing three lawsuits against this troubled program. The ruling issued on Monday, in Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed by plaintiffs alleging racial profiling in street stops.

At the heart of the Floyd case are statistics showing that the city conducted an astounding 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Of these, only 6 percent resulted in arrests and 6 percent resulted in summonses. In other words, 88 percent of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further action — meaning a vast majority of those stopped were doing nothing wrong. More than half of all people stopped were frisked, yet only 1.5 percent of frisks found weapons. In about 83 percent of cases, the person stopped was black or Hispanic, even though the two groups accounted for just over half the population.

The city has consistently said that the disparity was justified because minority citizens commit more crimes. But Judge Scheindlin trenchantly rejected this argument. As she pointed out, “this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”

The evidence clearly showed that the police carried out more stops on black and Hispanic residents even when other relevant factors were controlled for, and officers were more likely to use force against minority residents even though stops of minorities were less likely to result in weapons seizures than stops of whites.

To remedy these ills, Judge Scheindlin laid out the steps that the city would be required to take in the Floyd case and in the related case of Ligon v. The City of New York, which was brought on behalf of people who said they were illegally stopped, given tickets or arrested in private apartment buildings. She chose Peter Zimroth, a respected lawyer and former prosecutor, to serve as the monitor. Mr. Zimroth’s immediate responsibility will be to develop a set of reforms governing Police Department policies, training, supervision and discipline on stop-and-frisk. The ruling also establishes a process that could be used to revamp other police policies and practices.

Mayor Bloomberg, who has steadfastly supported this corrosive and socially damaging program, seemed unchanged on Monday. He arrogantly dismissed the suit and this rulingas the work of “one small group of advocates — and one judge,” repudiating the outrage about stop-and-frisk that has been growing in the city for years.

He has promised to appeal, but, fortunately, he will be leaving City Hall soon. His successor should retract the appeal and begin the process of bringing New York City’s police practices in line with the Constitution.

Source

06.08.2017

Dear Chair Yellen and the Board of Governors,

The end of this year will mark ten years since the beginning of the Great Recession. This recession and the slow recovery that followed was extraordinarily damaging to the livelihoods and financial security of tens of millions of American households. Accordingly, it should provoke a serious reappraisal of the key parameters governing macroeconomic policy.

One of these key parameters is the rate of inflation targeted by the Federal Reserve. In years past, a 2 percent inflation target seemed to give ample leverage with which the Fed could lower real interest rates. But given the evidence that the equilibrium interest rate had fallen substantially even prior to the financial crisis, and that the Fed’s short-term policy rate remained at zero for seven years without sparking any large acceleration of aggregate demand growth, a reassessment of this target seems warranted. Such a reassessment is particularly appropriate when the lack of evidence that moderately higher inflation would harm Americans’ standard of living is juxtaposed with the tremendous evidence that a tighter labor market would improve Americans’ standards of living.

Some Federal Reserve policymakers have acknowledged these shifting realities and indicated their willingness to reconsider the appropriate target level. For example, San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams noted the need for central banks to “adapt policy to changing economic circumstances,” in suggesting a higher inflation target, and Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren cited the different context in which the inflation target was set in emphasizing the need for debate about the right target. (1) (2) In May, Vice Chair Stanley Fischer highlighted the Canadian system of reconsidering the inflation target every five years, saying, “I can envisage – say, in the case of inflation targeting – a procedure in which you change the target or you change the other variables that are involved on some regular basis and through some regular participation.” (3)

The comments made by Fischer, Rosengren, and Williams all underscore the ample evidence that the long-term neutral rate of interest may have fallen. Even if a 2 percent inflation target set an appropriate balance a decade ago, it is increasingly clear that the underlying changes in the economy would mean that, whatever the correct rate was then, it would be higher today. To ensure the future effectiveness of monetary policy in stabilizing the economy after negative shocks – specifically, to avoid the zero lower bound on the funds rate – this fall in the neutral rate may well need to be met with an increase in the long-run inflation target set by the Fed.

More immediately, new, post-crisis economic conditions suggest that a reiteration of the meaning of the Fed’s current target is in order. In its 2016 statement of long-run goals and strategy, the Federal Open Market Committee wrote: “The Committee would be concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below this objective.” Some FOMC participants, however, appear to instead consider 2 percent a hard ceiling that should never be breached, and justify their decision-making on that basis. It is important that the Federal Reserve makes clear – and operates policy based on – its stated goal that it aims to avoid inflation being either below or above its target.

Economies change over time. Recent decades have seen growing evidence that developed economies have harder times generating faster growth in aggregate demand than in decades past. Policymakers must be willing to rigorously assess the costs and benefits of previously-accepted policy parameters in response to economic changes. One of these key parameters that should be rigorously reassessed is the very low inflation targets that have guided monetary policy in recent decades. We believe that the Fed should appoint a diverse and representative blue ribbon commission with expertise, integrity, and transparency to evaluate and expeditiously recommend a path forward on these questions. We believe such a process will strengthen the Fed as an institution and its conduct of monetary policy, and help ensure wise policymaking for the years and decades to come.

Sincerely,

Dean Baker Center for Economic and Policy Research Laurence Bell Johns Hopkins University Heather Boushey Washington Center for Equitable Growth Josh Bivens Economic Policy Institute Brad DeLong University of California, Berkeley Tim Duy University of Oregon Joseph Gagnon Peterson Institute Narayana Kocherlakota University of Rochester Lawrence Mishel Economic Policy Institute Manuel Pastor University of Southern California William Spriggs Howard University Mark Thoma University of Oregon Valerie Wilson Economic Policy Institute Justin Wolfers University of Michigan Gene Sperling Obama Administration Economist Joseph Stiglitz Columbia University Jared Bernstein Obama Administration Economist David Blanchflower Dartmouth College Jason Furman Peterson Institute Mike Konczal Roosevelt Institute Marc Jarsulic Center for American Progress Michael Madowitz Center for American Progress

 

(1) John Williams, “Monetary Policy in a Low R-Star World,” August 15, 2016.

(2) Sam Fleming, “Inflation Goal May Be Too Low, says Fed’s Rosengren,” Financial Times, April 20, 2015.

(3) Greg Robb, “Fed’s Williams Backs Changing Central Bank’s Strategy to Price-Level Targeting,” Market Watch, May 5, 2017.

DOWNLOAD LETTER

DOWNLOAD PRESS CALL AUDIO

Federal Reserve Board of Governors Constitution Ave NW & 20th Street Northwest Washington, D.C. 20551

El Diario – October 25, 2013, by Juan Matossian -

En el 60% de los casos de fallecimientos por caídas, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, la víctima era latino y/o inmigrante

Los obreros de construcción hispanos e inmigrantes sufren muchos másaccidentes y muertes por caídas que otros trabajadores del mismo gremio, debido a las pobres condiciones de seguridad en las que trabajan en el estado de Nueva York, según reveló un estudio.

El reporte, comisionado por el Center for Popular Democracy, muestra que en el 60% de las muertes por caídas en los accidentes, investigados entre 2003 y 2011 en el estado, el fallecido era latino y/o inmigrante.

En la ciudad, esta cifra se incrementa hasta casi el 75% – tres de cada cuatro – a pesar de que sólo supone el 40% de la fuerza total de trabajo en ese reglón.

Encuestas realizadas a empleados latinos evidenciaron que muy pocos se atreven a quejarse por las condiciones de seguridad por temor a represalias de sus jefes.

Problemas de seguridad

Ese fue el caso de Pedro Corchado, un obrero que cayó desde una escalera durante la renovación de un edificio hace cinco años, y sufrió graves heridas por no contar con un arnés de seguridad.

“Casi cualquiera que trabaje en construcción te dirá que es muy difícil negarse a las órdenes de escalar un andamio que no es seguro o subir una escalera sin equipamiento de seguridad”, dijo Corchado. “Para la mayoría de trabajadores como yo, decir ‘no’ al jefe simplemente no es una opción”.

El grupo que elaboró el estudio y otras organizaciones que defienden a estos trabajadores, argumentaron que la mejor manera de detener esta tendencia es aumentar los fondos deOSHA, porque ahora mismo la oficina no cuenta con los suficientes medios ni inspectores.

Calcularon que, para que OSHA inspeccione cada lugar de construcción que hay actualmente en Nueva York, les llevaría 107 años.

Por otro lado, hicieron un llamado para que se proteja la llamada “Ley del Andamio”, que ayuda a asegurar las condiciones de seguridad en los sitios de construcción y que varios promotores inmobiliarios presionan para que se derogue porque incrementa significativamente el coste de nuevos edificios.

“En lugar de invertir en la seguridad en el trabajo, la comunidad de negocios quiere que la responsabilidad por heridas y muertes pase a los que son más vulnerables y no tienen control sobre las condiciones laborales”, denunció Joel Shufro, director ejecutivo delComité para Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo de Nueva York. “Pondría a todos los obreros de construcción en riesgo, particularmente a los jornaleros y a los no sindicados”.

Una última petición es que se tomen medidas para asegurar que tanto los promotores, dueños y trabajadores de la construcción, reciban entrenamiento de seguridad de acuerdo con los estándares de OSHA.

Source