Jersey City Could Be Next To Guarantee Workers Paid Sick Days
ThinkProgress - September 4, 2013, by Bryce Covert - Jersey City, NJ Mayor Steven Fulop (D) is pushing a bill that would require most businesses to offer workers paid sick days. Employers with 10...
ThinkProgress - September 4, 2013, by Bryce Covert - Jersey City, NJ Mayor Steven Fulop (D) is pushing a bill that would require most businesses to offer workers paid sick days. Employers with 10 or more workers would have to provide up to five paid sick days a year, and workers would earn a day off for each 30 days they work.
Fulop will propose his bill to the City Council next week, where it is thought to have good chances of passing given that the majority of the members are aligned with him. He has called such a law a matter of “basic human dignity.”
If the bill passes, Jersey City would join New York City; Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Washington, DC as cities that guarantee paid sick days, as well as the state of Connecticut. A statewide push in New Jersey to have such a law cover the entire state began with a bill that was introduced in the spring. Massachusetts is also fighting for such a law.
Across the country, 40 percent of private sector workers, including 80 percent of low-income workers, don’t have access to paid sick days. While opponents of such legislation usually claim that it will add too much of a financial burden on businesses, research has shown that the opposite is true. Washington, DC’s law has had no negative impact on business. San Francisco’s had little negative effect and strong business support, while it was even found to have spurred job growth. Connecticut’s has come with little cost andhuge potential upsides. On the other hand, lost productivity due to sick workers who can’t take days off costs the average employer $225 per employee per year.
Source
The Activists Who Helped Shut Down Trump’s CEO Councils
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15...
The CEOs who made up two White House advisory councils have fled like rats on a sinking ship. Their exodus — a dramatic rebuke of Donald Trump — came within 48 hours of the incendiary August 15 press conference where the president praised some of the participants of last week’s white supremacist rampage in Charlottesville, Virginia.
But many of the CEOs on these councils had been under heavy pressure to disavow Trump’s agenda of hate and racism even before Charlottesville. That pressure came from grass-roots activists.
The Center for Popular Democracy, Make the Road New York, New York Communities for Change and several other immigrant and worker advocates had led that activist campaign, targeting the leaders of nine major corporations affiliated with the Trump administration. The campaign, working through a website called Corporate Backers of Hate, detailed the connections between the nine companies and the Trump administration and encouraged people to send emails to both the CEOs involved and members of their corporate boards.
Read the full article here.
S&P 500, Nasdaq end at records after Fed speech
Several protesters from the progressive group Fed Up stood outside the conference room where Powell delivered the speech.
...
Several protesters from the progressive group Fed Up stood outside the conference room where Powell delivered the speech.
Read the full article here.
Hillary Clinton wants to shake up the Fed
Hillary Clinton wants the Federal Reserve to look a lot different.
The Democratic candidate's campaign said Thursday that it supports a plan presented by Democratic lawmakers calling for...
Hillary Clinton wants the Federal Reserve to look a lot different.
The Democratic candidate's campaign said Thursday that it supports a plan presented by Democratic lawmakers calling for more diversity at the Federal Reserve and removing bankers from the boards of regional branches.
A statement from Clinton campaign spokesperson Jesse Ferguson argued that the changes were necessary in order to make the central bank more representative of the American people (emphasis ours):
The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the well-being of our middle class, and the American people should have no doubt that the Fed is serving the public interest. That's why Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole and that commonsense reforms -- like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks -- are long overdue. Secretary Clinton will also defend the Fed's so-called dual mandate -- the legal requirement that it focus on full employment as well as inflation -- and will appoint Fed governors who share this commitment and who will carry out unwavering oversight of the financial industry.
The biggest issue raised in Secretary Clinton's statement is that employees of banks make up a considerable portion of the boards of the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks.
The original letter, signed by Congressional Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, was sent to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Thursday morning. It cited some gains made by the Fed, but said there is more work to be done.
"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," said the letter.
The Democrats' letter also cited statistics that showed that 92% of regional bank presidents are white; 100% of the current voting members of the Federal Open Markets Committee are white, and 75% of the regional bank directorships are male.
The Fed's leadership is made of three levels. The lowest level is made up of the 12 regional banks' boards of directors. Those elect the next level, the presidents of the regional branches. At the top level are the seven members of the Fed's Board of Governors appointed by the US president, including the chair.
The seven governors and the regional presidents make up the Federal Open Markets Committee, which determines monetary policy for the US.
The letter from Democrats also advocated for caution in monetary-policy decision-making at upcoming meetings, taking into consideration how policy would affect average Americans.
"Moreover, as you make crucial monetary policy decisions in 2016, we urge you to give due consideration to the interests and priorities of the millions of people around the country who still have not benefited from this recovery," said the letter.
"We share the vision that you laid out in Chicago two years ago: an economy in which all working families 'get the chance they deserve to build better lives'."
There has been a push among Democrats in Congress urging the Fed to keep interest rates near their historically low levels in order to allow more workers to find jobs and increase wages.
Chair Yellen said in her regular testimony before Congress that she is sympathetic to the position.
By Bob Bryan
Source
Activists Rally in Front of Federal Reserve, Calling for End to ‘Economic Racism’
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an...
The St. Louis American - March 5, 2015, by Rebecca Rivas - African-American residents are sick and tired of hearing about an economic recovery that does not apply to them, said Derek Laney, an organizer for Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.
In St. Louis, the unemployment rates for the black community remains triple the rate of white residents, 14.1 percent compared to 5.7 percent for whites, he said. However, some economists claim that the economy is rapidly approaching full employment.
“Is there only one set of the population that matters?” he said. “And if they are alright, we’re all alright? That’s something we can’t accept.”
Today (March 5,) activists attempted to ask James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, those same questions. At noon, a coalition of community-based organizations, faith leaders, elected officials, labor unions, and service organizations gathered in front of the bank in downtown St. Louis City, as a part of the national Fed Up Campaign (whatrecovery.org). They pointed to a new report released this month that details the difficulties for African-American families to find living wage employment. The report is titled, “Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate.”
In response to the protest, a St. Louis Fed spokewoman stated in an email to the St. Louis American: “We are aware of the protest at the St. Louis Fed and respect people’s right to protest peacefully.”
The coalition asked Bullard to prioritize full employment and rising wages for all communities. Laney said as the economy starts to recover, some are calling for the Fed to raise interest rates to prevent wages from rising – which would severely impact families still struggling to recover from the Great Recession. Tomorrow, the St. Louis Fed will release new numbers regarding unemployment, and in mid-March its leaders will meet to discuss its policies. Laney said they hoped the action today will help “shape those discussions.”
The report emphasizes that the Federal Reserve is responsible for keeping inflation stable, regulating the financial system and ensuring full employment.
“These mandates reflect the tension between the interests of Wall Street on the one hand and Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the other,” the report states. “As a general matter, corporate and finance executives want to limit wage growth— or, as they call it, ‘wage inflation’—and to maximize their future profits from lending money.”
The report argues that in past decades, the Federal Reserve resolved this tension in favor of banks and corporations, intentionally limiting wage growth and keeping unemployment excessively high.
“The Fed’s policy choices over the past 35 years have led to increased inequality, stagnant or falling wages, and an American Dream that is inaccessible to tens of millions of families—particularly Black families,” it states.
Since the Ferguson movement began, local and national leaders have emphasized the need to address the “structural racism” in the region.
“Economic racism cannot be delinked from racism by law enforcement and other governmental entities,” according to the coalition’s statement. “However, James Bullard has been silent on issues of economics and their impacts on communities of color in the region over the past seven months. Today, we are bringing these issues to his front door.”
Source
Immigrants in US illegally see this election as crucial - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/immigrants-in-us-illegally-see-this-election-as-crucial-1.2472426#sthash.BroJZxQz.dpuf
Immigrants in US illegally see this election as crucial - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/immigrants-in-us-illegally-see-this-election-as-crucial-1.2472426#sthash.BroJZxQz.dpuf
NEW YORK, N.Y. - There was never any doubt Juana Alvarez's 18- and 20-year-old American-born daughters would be taking part in the election this year. Alvarez did her best to see to that.
"...
NEW YORK, N.Y. - There was never any doubt Juana Alvarez's 18- and 20-year-old American-born daughters would be taking part in the election this year. Alvarez did her best to see to that.
"I had two people I wanted to get registered and I registered them," Alvarez, a 39-year-old housekeeper in Brooklyn who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a teenager, said through a translator.
For Alvarez and the estimated 11 million other immigrants living illegally in the U.S., this is a potentially crucial election, with Republican Donald Trump talking about mass deportations and a border wall and Democrat Hillary Clinton pledging to support immigration reform and protect President Barack Obama's executive actions on behalf of immigrants.
Come Election Day, these immigrants will be watching from the sidelines, their future in the hands of others. Under the U.S. Constitution, only full citizens can vote; legal immigrants who are green card holders also are not allowed to cast a ballot.
Trump has spoken of fears of election fraud or that immigrants living illegally in the country might vote. More broadly, he has said all immigrants should play by the legal rules.
Alvarez and others like her say although they can't vote, they have been taking part in get-out-the-vote efforts among citizens.
In places like New York, California, Arizona and Virginia, they have been knocking on doors and making telephone calls, registering people, urging them to go to the polls, and telling their stories in hopes of persuading voters to keep the interests of immigrants in mind when they go into the booth.
"For me, it's important that those who can vote come out of the shadows and make their voices heard," Alvarez said.
Isabel Medina, a 43-year-old from Los Angeles who has been in the country illegally for 20 years and has three sons, two born in the U.S., has worked phone banks and taken part in voter registration drives for U.S. citizens, making sure that "even though they're frustrated, they are disappointed, they still realize it is really important, that they know the power that they have in their hands."
She says she emphasized the need to vote for all the races, not just the presidency, and the importance of taking part in referendums and propositions.
Even though these immigrants can't vote, their pre-Election Day efforts make a difference, said Karina Ruiz, 32, of Phoenix, who came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico when she was 15 and is acting executive director of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an immigrant-advocacy group that has been doing get-out-the-vote work.
"It is making an impact because those people who wouldn't vote otherwise, when they listen to my story and hear their vote does count and make a difference, they're encouraged to participate and be my voice," said Ruiz, who has a work permit and an exemption from deportation under Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. That policy was created by executive order, one that could be undone by any president in the future.
"I think to myself: I could just vote once, if I had the power to," she said. But "if I can influence 50 to 60 people to go ahead and vote, that's my voice multiplied by a whole lot."
As for what will happen after Election Day, "the uncertainty, it is there, I don't know what's going to happen," said Medina, who avoids talking about the election with her U.S.-born sons because she doesn't want them to get scared that their parents might be deported. "I am worried, yes."
By Deepti Hajela
Source
How Democrats can neutralize GOP tax law
Republicans managed in the last throes of 2017 to push through a tax bill that was both widely loathed and widely predicted to hurt the economy. Democrats across the country are expected to use...
Republicans managed in the last throes of 2017 to push through a tax bill that was both widely loathed and widely predicted to hurt the economy. Democrats across the country are expected to use the law as a weapon against Republican opponents come the midterm elections.
But we can do more than just oppose the law. This is also an opportunity for governors, mayors, and state and local lawmakers to craft responses that both lessen the damage and provide a launching pad for better, fairer fiscal policies that win broad popular support.
Read the full article here.
Starbucks vows to do more to ease barista schedules
An internal memo from a Starbucks executive this week urged store managers to "go the extra mile" to improve workers' schedules.
The letter was distributed on...
An internal memo from a Starbucks executive this week urged store managers to "go the extra mile" to improve workers' schedules.
The letter was distributed on Tuesday and refers to a New York Times story that was set to be published the following day titled, "Starbucks falls short after pledging better labor practices."
The Times story referred to a survey by the nonprofit advocacy group Center for Popular Democracy.
Based on interviews with 200 baristas in 37 states, the survey says Starbucks "is not living up to its commitment to provide predictable, sustainable schedules to its workforce."
In 2014, Starbucks said it was changing its policies telling managers to post schedules at least a week in advance and not make store employees work an opening and closing shift back-to-back.
In this week's memo, Cliff Burrows, Starbucks (SBUX) group president of the U.S. and Americas, said the findings of the new survey "suggest" that neither commitment was being met -- "contrary to the expectations we have in place."
In his letter, Burrows urges managers to improve scheduling for coffee baristas, who the company calls partners.
"To our store managers, I want to stress that as we continue to evolve and improve the usability of our system, we have to go the extra mile to ensure partners have a consistent schedule -- free of back-to-back close and open shifts that are less than 8 hours apart -- that is posted 2 weeks in advance," he wrote.
Source: CNN Money
Más obreros hispanos de la construcción mueren en el trabajo a nivel nacional
Univision National – October 25, 2013 -
Los activista y expertos están poniendo en tela de juicio la seguridad de los trabajadores de la construcción en Nueva York, además, un...
Univision National – October 25, 2013 -
Los activista y expertos están poniendo en tela de juicio la seguridad de los trabajadores de la construcción en Nueva York, además, un estudio revela que los hispanos tienen el mayor porcentaje de accidentes de trabajo en ese sector de la ‘gran manzana’.
¿Qué opinas sobre la situación de los hispanos que se dedican a la construcción?
En Nueva York, anualmente 75 trabajadores de construcción mueren por accidentes, una cifra que a nivel nacional supera los 4 mil, reportó Blanca Rosa Vílchez a Univision.
El 41 por ciento de los trabajadores de construcción en Nueva York son latinos; sin embargo, cuando se habla de accidentes, significan el 74% de los muertos, una estadística que en sí refleja la magnitud del problema.
Líderes comunitarios exigen soluciones
En el mismo lugar en el que un trabajador de construcción fue la última víctima mortal de un accidente, la organización que realizó el estudio y líderes comunitarios discutieron los grandes riesgos a los que se exponen diariamente estos trabajadores.
“Había momentos en que el jefe le decía que tenía que subir a una determinada altura y él no estaba acostumbrado a eso y tenía que hacerlo porque eran órdenes del jefe”, aseguró Elsa Ramos, madre de un trabajador.
Una multa para los contratistas no supera los 2 mil dólares y la muerte de un trabajador los 12 mil, además se presentó un proyecto para eliminar lo que se conoce como la “ley del andamio”.
Muchos casos no se denuncian
“Quieren hacer ese cambio para que los trabajadores no puedan seguir juicio contra una compañía de construcción aunque haya violaciones, nosotros tenemos que seguir previniendo que se haga ese cambio”, mencionó Francisco Moya, asambleísta.
Sin embargo, muchos casos ni siquiera se reportan por temor de los trabajadores.
“Ya me hicieron cirugía de la nuca en 2010 y me hicieron cirugía de la espalda en diciembre de 2012, todavía tengo dolor, ese dolor lo voy a tener toda mi vida”, afirmó Pedro Corchado, trabajador accidentado.
Otro caso es el de Francisco, quien no ha vuelto a trabajar desde que se cayó de una altura de 11 pies, la compañía para la que trabajaba dice que le dio sólo horas de entrenamiento.
Source
Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
Fed official explains why he stopped trying to predict the future
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should...
JACKSON HOLE, WYO. -- The world's economic elite gathered here for an annual symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City last week to debate the strategies central banks should employ to safeguard the global economy. We sat down with St. Louis Fed President James Bullard to chat about when he might be ready for a rate hike, the limits of his powers and why predicting the future is futile.
The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity.
Wonkblog: Let’s start with the question of the day: Which month looks good to you for a rate hike?
Bullard: Actually, I’m agnostic on this. Our new framework calls for one, and only one, and then we go on pause for a bit. It’s not critical to me exactly when we make that move, so we wouldn’t have to go at any particular meeting.
I do like to move on good news, so if we have good information, and we’re at a meeting, it might be a good opportunity to go ahead and make that move. But what’s different about what I’m saying is I’ve got a real flat interest rate path — much closer to the markets’ interest rate path. I don’t have this march upward of 200 or 250 basis points.
If only one more rate hike is really needed to get to the Fed’s neutral stance, why does it matter if you move in September, December or next year? You would be willing to wait until 2017?
Certainly, I just don’t feel that there’s any urgency when you’ve got the framework I’m talking about.
[The Federal Reserve is debating how to fight the next recession]
So explain your framework for us.
What we wanted to do is break down this idea that we’re really certain about where the economy is going in the medium- and long-run. What most models do is they have something called a steady state, which is really an average of all the variables in the past: You look at the unemployment rate, and you take the average unemployment rate. You look at interest rates and take the average past interest rate. You look at inflation, growth — you take averages of the past, and you call those your normal values.
As you go along, you expect all your variables to go back to their normal values. That’s what we’ve been doing. That’s the old framework. And what we’re saying is we don’t like that framework anymore because it suggests we have a lot more certainty about where the economy is going than we really do.
These averages of these variables from the past — they can sometimes be high and sometime be low. You can be in a configuration where these things are low, and then you can switch to another configuration when they’re high. Then they’re high for a while, and you switch back to low. What you have to do is make policy given whatever regime you’re in.
We think that the regime that is dominant right now is a slow-growth regime that is characterized by low productivity growth and very low real returns on short-term government debt around the world. We think these regimes are persistent. These things aren’t changing any time soon. And because of that, we just have to take them as given, for now anyway.
Given that in this framework, it’s difficult to tell when the regime is shifted, how do you know that you’re not setting monetary policy for a regime that’s already expired?
You’re gonna know when the regime switches. These very low real rates of return on government debt, if you look at the ex-post return on one-year Treasurys, it’s about -135 basis points right now. If that starts to go up rapidly, we’re gonna know and we’re going to take note of it. We’re gonna say, “Aha! Our regime has changed, and we’re going to have to change monetary policy accordingly.”
But for forecasting purposes, I wouldn’t say that I’m expecting that to happen all of a sudden. It’s been that way for at least the last three years, and if you look at real rates of return, they’ve declined for the last 30 years. It’s also very clear that we’re in a very low productivity environment.
It’s not that you go to sleep. You stay alert to the possibility that the regime can change in the future, and probably will change at some point in the future. It’s just not good to be predicting that it’s going to change.
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's speech here laid out the argument that the Fed is not out of ammunition to fight the next recession. Do you agree with that?
I loved the speech. She made the case that we still have quite a bit of bandwidth to handle problems if they arise in the next couple of years, and I very much agree with that. But at the same time, it’s always good to be studying other possibilities. I actually have papers on nominal GDP targeting, so I think that’s an interesting topic. It's probably not ready for prime time, but I’m a believer in research.
What led you to the support for this regime-based framework. Can you talk about the evolution of your thinking?
Maybe some frustration with the dot plot. We were saying we were going to have to raise rates fairly aggressively over the forecast horizon in order to keep the economy on track, and that wasn’t materializing. We had that forecast for several years, and it wasn’t really working. For that reason, I wanted to get a different way to think about what we were doing.
We’ve only moved once on the policy rate, and markets are saying maybe one more move this year. That would only be one move per year — that’s really not normalization. If you’re going to say it’s going to take 10 years to get back to a normal value, you’re really saying we’re not going back there. That’s way longer than any sort of business cycle than you can reasonably talk about.
How do you feel about the division between monetary and fiscal policy currently? Do you feel it’s time to pass the baton here?
I do think that. And I think the regime framework is good for laying that out for people. Part of the story is that the recession has been over for seven years. The unemployment rate has gone down below 5 percent. Inflation is low, but we don’t think it’s that low, and it’s kind of coming up to target.
So the cyclical dynamics are all done. The dust has settled, I guess is the way I would put it.
You might say the dust has settled, and I don’t like what I see. But for that, you can’t solve that with monetary policy. You’ve got to have things that are going to increase productivity in the economy. You’ve got to make the economy more efficient. New ideas, better technology, better diffusion of technology, better human capital, better skills match — I think it’s a lot of small things that you have to do right to get an economy humming. The story of let’s keep interest rates low and that will help us, that’s kind of over for now.
Related to that are the demonstrations by Fed Up and the Center for Popular Democracy that were held Thursday. Any additional thoughts on their point of view, that there’s still more that the Fed can do?
I love the people that come here. I think they’re a really great slice of the American workforce. It’s really nice that they’re willing to take time out of their lives to come out here and talk to us boring central bankers.
They want to talk about low nominal interest rates as solving difficult problems of how our labor markets operate and how our labor markets are unfair to many people. I would like them to think about the German labor market reforms that were done over the last decade. Germany had very high unemployment for a long time. It was an endemic problem, and then they did these reforms and got their unemployment rate cut in half — even though Europe went through a double-dip recession during that period.
It showed to me that there are ways to attack these problems, and I think we could do that in the U.S. I think they should refocus their efforts on the labor secretary, so we could get those kinds of reforms going. People aren’t even talking about that.
By Ylan Q. Mui
Source
2 months ago
2 months ago