Seis meses después de “María”, Puerto Rico sigue en lucha por reconstrucción
Seis meses después de “María”, Puerto Rico sigue en lucha por reconstrucción
“Tuesday, March 20th from organizations across the nation take to the streets in DC to make sure that @fema, Congress, and the Trump Administration hear our demands.”
...
“Tuesday, March 20th from organizations across the nation take to the streets in DC to make sure that @fema, Congress, and the Trump Administration hear our demands.”
Read the full article here.
Has Starbucks Broken a Promise to Its Employees?
Baristas are among the 10 job titles that received the biggest pay hikes this...
Baristas are among the 10 job titles that received the biggest pay hikes this year, but CBS MoneyWatch reports that some Starbucks baristas may be getting shortchanged in another way.
Last year, Starbucks promised to start posting employees’ work schedules at least 10 days in advance after a New York Times article titled “Working Anything but 9 to 5” detailed the burdens employees faced because they were receiving only a few days’ notice about their schedules.
But by some accounts, Starbucks’ promise has yet to become a reality.
One student tells CBS that “wild inconsistency” plagues his Starbucks work schedules and that lack of advance notice forced him to pay a co-worker to cover one shift so he could take an exam.
A report released this month by the nonprofit Center for Popular Democracy — “The Grind: Striving for Scheduling Fairness at Starbucks” — questions six facets of Starbucks’ scheduling practices:
Unpredictable workweeks.
Inconsistency in days, times and amounts of work.
Insufficient rest due to working “clopen” shifts (when employees are scheduled to close one night and to open the store early the next morning).
Obstacles to taking sick leave.
Understaffing and insufficient hours.
Failure to honor employees’ availability.
Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy and a co-author of the organization’s report, tells CBS that even though Starbucks “has the values and wants to do right by their employees,” many troubling issues persist.
CBS reports that Starbucks did not respond to its requests for comment. In an internal memo later published by Time, Starbucks executive Cliff Burrows wrote that the company couldn’t validate the survey, but noted that:
“The findings suggest, contrary to the expectations we have in place, that some partners are receiving their schedules less than one week in advance and that there is a continuing issue with some partners working a close and then an opening shift the following morning.”
Burrows also asked store managers “to go the extra mile to ensure partners have a consistent schedule.”
Source: MoneyTalks News
Lawmakers' Vision for the Fed: More Diversity, More Congressional Sway
Lawmakers' Vision for the Fed: More Diversity, More Congressional Sway
Democrat and Republican lawmakers on Wednesday took issue with the current structure of regional Federal Reserve Bank boards, though they couldn't agree on how to reform the quazi-private-public...
Democrat and Republican lawmakers on Wednesday took issue with the current structure of regional Federal Reserve Bank boards, though they couldn't agree on how to reform the quazi-private-public firms.
The twelve regional Fed banks have come under increased scrutiny in recent months after Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton issued a statement in May saying she supports removing bankers from regional Fed boards and increasing director diversity. Her comments heightened the public profile of an issue that otherwise hasn't received much focus.
A key point of debate was concerns by consumer groups that having bankers on regional Fed boards creates a conflict of interest since reserve bank staff supervise big and small commercial banks in their districts. This contrasts to the central bank in Washington, which is a government agency with governors that are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
For example, among the nine directors who serve on the New York Fed board are Morgan Stanley (MS) CEO James Gorman and two community bank chief executives.
House Republicans indicated during a subcommittee hearing of the House Financial Services Committee that they weren't overly concerned by bank CEOs serving on such quasi-private boards while Democrats questioned the diversity of the panels.
"I don't object to bankers being on the boards," Gwen Moore, D-Wisc., told reporters after the hearing. "I'm concerned about the voice of other directors who are there and their efficacy to participate fully and about mobilizing and empowering them once they are there."
Moore, the top Democrat on the Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee, said she the boards need more diversity, noting that none of them have hired a Latino or African American as president of the regional Fed banks where they serve.
Meanwhile, demonstrators from a consortium of consumer groups calling itself "Fed Up" attended the hearing, dressed in green shirts with slogans such as "16 of 17 Fed leaders are white."
The group also took issue with bankers on the regional Fed boards and, in their view, a lack of board diversity.
"When these voices are excluded from the conversation, then our interests are excluded," Ruben Lucio, a representative from the Center for Popular Democracy and a member of Fed Up, told reporters outside of the hearing.
According to current rules, regional boards have nine directors divided into three classes. Three banking directors are elected by member banks, another three are designated by the same banks to represent the public and interests of commerce, industry, labor and consumers, and the final class is appointed by Fed governors to represent the public.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., said he wanted to delve more deeply into bank executives serving on the boards but noted that the Kansas City Fed, which covers the district he represents, appears to be quite diverse based on a variety of metrics.
It "has a diverse board ethnically, gender wise, labor wise, regional within the Fed and that was the template I'm using," Perlmutter said.
Two regional Fed presidents, meanwhile, pushed back against concerns about conflicts of interest during their testimony.
Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker noted that strict rules govern their conduct. "They simply have no avenue through which they can influence supervisory matters," Lacker said.
And Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pointed out that bankers who serve on reserve bank boards are prohibited from participating in the selection of bank presidents.
Republicans, meanwhile, focused much of their attention on whether too much influence over monetary policy is wielded by the East Coast, particularly the New York Fed.
Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and chairman of the monetary policy subcommittee, argued that lawmakers should back legislation he sponsored, the Federal Oversight Reform and Modernization Act, or FORM, which includes a provision that would reduce the influence of the New York bank.
The Federal Open Market Committee, the branch of the central bank that determines monetary policy, has 12 voting members made up of seven members of the Fed board of governors and five of the regional Fed banks.
The president of the New York Fed, which supervises Wall Street firms from JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to Goldman Sachs (GS) and Citigroup (C) , is a permanent voting member but the other regional bank presidents serve rotating one-year terms. Huizenga's legislation would put the New York Fed president into the voting rotation along with all the other regional bank chiefs.
"For crying out loud, the San Francisco bank has a tremendously important area," Huizenga told reporters after the hearing. "Silicon Valley, that stretches from LA to Seattle, has tremendously valuable input and to have them only be a voting member every two or three years doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said she was concerned that the Western states weren't well represented by the regional Fed bank structure.
"You have members on both sides of the aisle expressing concerns and I would like to know what might be done to rebalance the Fed to ensure that all Americans are represented in monetary policy decisions," she said.
Don Lamson, of counsel at Squire Patton Boggs in Washington and a former regulator at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, suggested that if the goal is to create greater accountability to Congress, legislators should require the Fed regional bank system to be funded through congressional appropriations instead of the self-funding that exists now.
With that structure, legislators could remove the regional Fed boards, transforming the quazi-private-public entities into government agencies.
An appropriations process, however, would destroy the independence of the Fed, which is vital to setting interest rates and supervising banks appropriately, Moore argued.
Expanding legislative influence would also open Federal Reserve funding to unrelated policy measures that might be attached in an attempt to get them passed. "Come meet with me I'm the chairman of the Fed's appropriations committee," Moore said facetiously.
By Ronald Orol
Source
Clinton offers fresh support for key progressive priorities
Over the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a whole lot to say about the Federal Reserve or monetary policy in general, which is why it was...
Over the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a whole lot to say about the Federal Reserve or monetary policy in general, which is why it was all the more interesting to see the Democratic frontrunner’s campaign yesterday endorse a change long sought by progressive activists. The Washington Post reported:
The Fed is led by a seven-member board of governors based in Washington and a dozen regional bank presidents based across the country, from New York to Kansas City to San Francisco. The governors are nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate, but regional bank presidents are selected by their boards of directors, whose occupants are chosen by the banking industry and by the Fed governors in Washington.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Clinton’s campaign said she supports removing bankers from the boards of directors and increasing diversity within the Fed.
In a written statement, a campaign spokesperson told the Post, “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.”
This brings Clinton in line with Bernie Sanders, who endorsed this policy late last year, saying he wants a system in which “the foxes would no longer guard the henhouse.”
The statement also came the same day Clinton wrote an op-ed for the Washington Informer, an African-American newspaper, vowing to be a “vocal champion” for D.C. statehood.
“In the case of our nation’s capital, we have an entire populace that is routinely denied a voice in its own democracy,” Clinton wrote, adding, “Washingtonians serve in the military, serve on juries, and pay taxes just like everyone else. And yet, they don’t even have a vote in Congress.”
Earlier this week, Clinton also emphasized her support for a “public option” in health care coverage, including a possible Medicare buy-in policy.
The broader pattern matters, and it’s not altogether expected.
When Clinton’s campaign got underway nearly a year ago, the former Secretary of State started laying out her platform, and on a variety of issues – immigration, criminal-justice reform, expanding voting rights, etc. – the Democrat not only endorsed progressive ideas, she endorsed an agenda that was even more ambitious and further to the left than many expected.
At the time, of course, the question that loomed over the race dealt with motivation: was Clinton throwing her support behind a series of bold proposals because she was worried about Bernie Sanders, or was she serious about these plans? It’s one thing to make appeals to the left as the Democratic race gets underway, but would Clinton follow through when she shifts her attention to the general election?
The answer to these questions is coming into sharper focus. While the Democratic race still has some primaries to go, the delegate math suggests Clinton is well positioned to prevail, and she’s already begun shifting her attention to Donald Trump and the fall election. If the cynics were correct, this would be about the time we’d expect to see Clinton move gradually towards the center, eschewing some of her more progressive goals.
Except this week, we’re seeing the opposite, with Clinton backing Sanders-endorsed changes to the financial industry and touting her support for a public option.
Maybe Clinton is hoping to win over Sanders’ ardent fans who aren’t yet ready to back her candidacy in the fall. Maybe she believes these progressive goals are popular enough with the American mainstream that she’s not really taking much of a risk. Maybe she actually believes what she’s saying and none of this is calculated in any meaningful way.
Whatever the motivation, Clinton may be focusing her attention on the general election, but many of her key progressive ideals, at least for now, remain very much intact.
By Steve Benen
Source
Center for Popular Democracy Names Jennifer Epps-Addison Network President
Center for Popular Democracy Names Jennifer Epps-Addison Network President
The Center for Popular Democracy Tuesday announced the appointment of Jennifer Epps-Addison as the new president of its network of 43 state-based partner organizations. She will also serve as the...
The Center for Popular Democracy Tuesday announced the appointment of Jennifer Epps-Addison as the new president of its network of 43 state-based partner organizations. She will also serve as the social and economic justice organization’s Co-Executive Director.
Read the full article here.
If Amazon Wants New York, Make It Unionize
The Center for Popular Democracy awarded Walgreens its “worst employer” prize because of its treatment of the retail chain’s employees.
...
The Center for Popular Democracy awarded Walgreens its “worst employer” prize because of its treatment of the retail chain’s employees.
Read the full article here.
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
Meet the Activists Who Want to Make the Fed Listen to Workers for a Change
Vox - August 22, 2014, by Dylan Matthews - The Jackson Hole conference, an annual retreat in Wyoming...
Vox - August 22, 2014, by Dylan Matthews - The Jackson Hole conference, an annual retreat in Wyoming organized by the Kansas City Fed, is usually frequented by central bankers, private sector economists, and academics. It's not usually frequented by everyday workers.
This year was differrent. A group of community activists traveled to the conference to urge policymakers to not do what an increasing number of voices in the Fed system and in the financial sector have been urging them to do: raise interest rates.
"They need to stimulate the economy," says Kendra Brooks, a former bank manager from Philadelphia who's been unemployed for about a year. "Increasing the interest rate here isn't going to help the people without jobs. It's going to put us further into debt."
"I want to at least get our voices heard before they make their decisions,"Tyrone Raino, who recently took a job requiring a 40 mile commute from his home in Minneapolis, says.
Brooks and Raino are both members of local community organizing groups — Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change and Action United in Philadelphia, respectively — which have, with the Center for Popular Democracy, come together to try to do something that hasn't really been done before: grassroots lobbying of the Fed. And they're being heard.
According to the Center's senior attorney, Ady Barkan, the group met with Kansas Fed chief Esther George for two hours, and spoke to Fed chair Janet Yellen, Chicago Fed chief Charles Evans, and Minneapolis Fed chief Narayana Kocherlakota. The last three are sympathetic to Brooks and Raino's perspective — Raino called Kocherlakota "one of the voices in the Federal Reserve system who understands the economy is far from recovery for most of us" in an article for MinnPost — George has expressed support for raising interest rates. For people trying to lobby a generally unlobbied institution, that's an impressive start.
To some extent, the Fed is designed to be impervious to outside pressure like this. Many economists believe that central bank independence — that is, having a central bank that is not directly controlled by legislatures or other democratically elected officials — is crucial to effective monetary policy. In 1993, future Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and his Harvard colleague Alberto Alesina authored a hugely influential paper arguing that countries with more independent banks have less variable prices and lower inflation overall. While that finding was controversial, the view that month-to-month policy decisions by the Fed should not be influenced by politicians — what Fed vice chair Stanley Fischer has called"instrument independence" — is widely accepted.
But Barkan argues that the independence the Fed currently enjoys is one-sided. "There are 108 board members across the 12 regional banks," he notes. "Under the law, 72 of them are supposed to represent the public interest and 36 are supposed to represent banking and financial interests. But of the 108, 97 are from financial institutions or corporations. Only 9 are from nonprofits, and even those are from major, wealthy nonprofits. Only 2 of the 108 board members represent labor organizations and workers."
"This desire for Fed independence really only goes in one direction," he concludes. "It's a desire for insulation from the needs of regular people."
Barkan, Brooks, and Raino avoid endorsing specific proposals for the Fed to get tougher on unemployment, like setting a nominal GDP target or abolishing paper money or allowing "helicopter drops." The emphasis is more on convincing the Fed that there is still a problem — that the labor market still has slack.
While some in the Fed worry that people are getting too many raises, Barkan argues that wage growth is still too slow — and that the labor market won't be healthy until it's significantly higher. "Real rising wages will represent tightening of the labor markets, and that's what you want to pull the long-term unemployed back into the market, and vulnerable workers back into the market," he says. "It's only once the labor market tightens that you can help vulnerable communities get out of this long recession."
Source
Progressive Groups Press Hillary Clinton On Wall Street's Golden Parachutes
The groups note that during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, two of her aides -- ...
The groups note that during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, two of her aides -- former Deputy Secretary Tom Nides and former undersecretary Robert Hormats -- received large bonuses, or "golden parachutes," from their Wall Street employers when they left to join Clinton's staff. Nides worked at Morgan Stanley before he joined the State Department, and has since returned; Hormats worked at Goldman Sachs.
The letter asks whether Clinton still supports this type of bonus and whether she would allow new employees in her administration to receive the same kind of compensation, should she become president.
"Awarding outsized bonuses and gifts of equity to Wall Street executives who temporarily leave to go into public service is either a breach of a public corporation’s fiduciary duty to its stockholders, or a down payment on future services rendered," the letter said.
"If the latter, it at best creates the appearance of corruption and conflict of interest. At worst, it results in undue and inappropriate corporate influence at the highest levels of government -- in essence, a barely legal, backdoor form of bribery."
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) recently proposed legislation that would ban golden parachutes and reduce the number of government officials who have past ties to the industries they are supposed to regulate. Two of Clinton's primary opponents -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) -- have backed the legislation, the letter to Clinton noted.
"Golden parachutes for government service are rare in most industries, but common among senior government officials who were previously employed at Wall Street banks," the letter continued. "Golden parachutes have become so common and corrosive to the public trust that it has become clear the next president should prohibit executive branch employees from receiving them altogether."
Clinton's campaign did not return a request for comment about whether she would support Baldwin and Cummings' bill, and has previously declined to comment about golden parachutes for stories from other media outlets.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a major champion of dismantling the link between Wall Street and the federal government, called Baldwin and Cummings' legislation “a bill any presidential candidate should be able to cheer for” in July, and encouraged progressives to press presidential candidates on the issue.
The groups who sent the letter to Clinton are Rootstrikers, American Family Voices, Center for Popular Democracy Action, CREDO Action, Democracy for America, Friends of the Earth Action, MoveOn.org Political Action and The Other 98%. The organizations said in a press release that they collectively represent more than 9 million Americans.
Source: Huffington Post
Would independent prosecutors make police shooting investigations fairer?
Would independent prosecutors make police shooting investigations fairer?
Critics say the close connections between prosecutors and local police leads to unjust decisions not to prosecute officers following officer-involved shootings.
The absence of indictments...
Critics say the close connections between prosecutors and local police leads to unjust decisions not to prosecute officers following officer-involved shootings.
The absence of indictments of police officers in shooting deaths – especially in high-profile cases like the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Tamir Rice in Cleveland – is raising questions about the fairness of using local prosecutors to investigate police officers with whom they may have close ties.
Critics say the close working relationships between local prosecutors and law enforcement injects a bias into investigations of shootings and other deaths at the hands of police. A solution, some suggest, would be to use independent prosecutors to investigate charges of wrong-doing by police officers.
The investigation into the death of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La., offers one example of the closeness often seen between prosecutors and police departments. East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore recused himself from the investigation, as he had worked closely with both police-officer parents of one of the officers involved in the shooting.
When a police officer is involved in a shooting, often the officer's own police department opens an internal investigation into the incident. In some cases, says Walter Katz, an independent police auditor of the city of San Jose, Calif., who has studied investigations of police use of lethal force, there is evidence that suggests the investigator's close relationship to the officer can lead to a lack of objectivity.
"That can be amplified when also the local prosecuting agency is the agency that reviews to decide whether or not to file criminal charges against a police officer," Mr. Katz tells The Christian Science Monitor. "In smaller jurisdictions ... they're going to have a close working relationship, so it creates the potential impression that it's not an arm's length review of the use of force."
The scarcity of indictments in a variety of high-profile shootings has increased scrutiny of officer prosecutions by local authorities. The prosecutors in both the Tamir Rice case in Cleveland and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson said they believed the officers involved had acted legally. Both were accused of not presenting a fair review of possible charges to the grand juries, as Ari Melber, MSNBC’s chief legal correspondent, explained in The Washington Post.
The problem of officer-involved shootings of blacks wouldn't be solved with independent prosecutors, Marbre Stahly-Butts, the deputy director of racial justice for the Center for Popular Democracy, a progressive advocacy organization, tells the Monitor. But "certainly accountability is an essential step that needs to happen," she says.
"We have the common sense that asking prosecutors who work everyday with police and depend on police for their cases, to then be objective in prosecuting them, is just not reasonable," Ms. Stahly-Butts says.
Local advocates are working to address these issues, Stahly-Butts says, especially in St. Louis and New York, where it has contributed to the passage of an executive order ensuring independent prosecutors.
On the federal level, Congressman Steve Cohen (D) of Tennessee is sponsoring a bill that would withhold federal funding from law enforcement unless the use of independent prosecutors to address instances of deadly force by police is instituted.
"There's no good reason not to have independent prosecutors," he tells the Monitor. "If you have the prosecutors who work with the law enforcement agency, which they do hand-in-glove to investigate cases and present cases, there is... an appearance of, if not outright, impropriety."
This can limit the citizenry's faith in the justice system, especially if no charges are brought against the officers, Representative Cohen says. On the flip side, when local prosecutors do bring charges, police can react negatively. After Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby brought charges against officers in the death of Freddie Gray, some believe there was a work slowdown among Baltimore Police, which police officials denied, the Baltimore Sun reported. This hurts the entire community, Cohen says.
The bill, introduced in October 2015, has 80 co-sponsors as of Wednesday morning. Several states have made moves to implement independent prosecutors, including Connecticut and New York. Cohen says it is important to set a nation-wide standard, but House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia has not yet scheduled a hearing.
The bill is opposed by the National Association of Police Organizations, a law enforcement advocacy group. The organization's executive director, William Johnson, wrote a letter to Cohen expressing fears that officers would face "a great deal of pressure" if investigated by independent prosecutors, The Hill reported.
"There is a risk that decisions to prosecute would be made based on politics, not on the law and admissible evidence," Johnson wrote. "NAPO is concerned that an officer would be indicted, even if he/she did nothing wrong."
Johnson did not respond to requests for comment from the Monitor.
Cohen says local law enforcement may oppose his bill because they benefit from the current system and may be "getting home cooking".
"That's not what justice is about," he says. "All games should be on neutral courts."
By AIDAN QUIGLEY
Source
4 hours ago
2 days ago