Dear Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski
Dear Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski
Senator Flake, you were confronted on national television by two activists, both claiming to be rape survivors. Maria...
Senator Flake, you were confronted on national television by two activists, both claiming to be rape survivors. Maria Gallagher and Ana Maria Archila gained national fame over the video of that confrontation, and both say they’ve never spoken about their experiences before. The testimony of Christine Blasey Ford gave them the strength, they said, to come forward. But they haven’t, at least as far as I’ve seen so far.
Read the full article here.
Using Scale and Reach to Battle Inequality
The Hill - November 19, 2013, by Ana Maria Archila - Across the country, it’s become increasingly...
The Hill - November 19, 2013, by Ana Maria Archila - Across the country, it’s become increasingly evident that problems stemming from inequality have reached a level that can only be characterized as a crisis. With the wealth gap between the top .01 percent of households and the rest of us greater than it was in 1928 before the onset of the Great Depression, opportunities for too many Americans are disappearing.
At her confirmation hearing last week to become the next chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen characterized income inequality as an “extremely difficult and to my mind very worrisome problem.” And while the recent race for Mayor in New York City focused plenty on the wealth gap, it remains to be seen how far a local politician can go to implement the type of policies the nation’s largest city desperately needs.
Of course, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to restore our democracy to a system that truly gives everyone a chance to thrive. But a large part of the solution will come from dedicated community members partnering with organizations with policy expertise, strategy insights, and coalition coordination experience to achieve meaningful reforms. That’s why this week, the Center for Popular Democracy and the Leadership Center for the Common Good announced a plan to merge on Jan. 1, 2014.
The new organization will be called The Center for Popular Democracy with a sister c4 organization called Action for the Common Good. Together, we will work at the center of emerging new politics, working to build the capacity and resilience of rooted, democratic community organizing institutions. We will share organizing models and strategies with a vast partner network to replicate campaigns and tactics that work to confront racial and economic inequality.
Already,we’ve seen examples of the types of changes motivated, coordinated community efforts can produce. And as new partnerships and increased collaboration online help movement leaders to share best practices – there’s plenty of reason to believe communities can implement changes that make a difference.
In New York, coalitions of community groups, progressive unions, and faith networks cametogether this year to secure a raft of impressive victories, from a raise in the state’s minimum wage, to the adoption of paid sick days’ legislation in New York City to the passage of pro-immigrant language access initiatives in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. And, in the face of fierce opposition from outgoing Mayor Bloomberg, the Center for Popular Democracy and our allies secured passage of new laws to stop the discriminatory policing tactics of the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk.”
With real roots in the African-American, Latino and immigrant communities, and connections across faith and labor organizations, the Center for Popular Democracy is poised to provide expanded reach and scale on issues from education policy to immigrant and racial justice, voting rights and homeownership.
As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said, “The new CPD fills animportant void - aggressively innovating and replicating public policies that expand rights and opportunities for workers, for immigrants, and for people of color." That’s part of our belief that just as our communities are stronger together, so are organizers. It’s time to put our strength, scale and reach to work.
Ana Maria Archila is the co-executive director of the new Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
Elizabeth Warren and more than 100 House Democrats blast lack of diversity at the Fed
Elizabeth Warren and more than 100 House Democrats blast lack of diversity at the Fed
The Federal Reserve System is one of the most important institutions in the entire American government. Its composition...
The Federal Reserve System is one of the most important institutions in the entire American government. Its composition is also almost shockingly non-diverse, with zero African Americans or Latinos serving on the key panel whose decisions impact job creation and the pace of economic growth, despite fairly overwhelming evidence that Fed decisions impact racial groups differently.
What's more, the bodies that choose which people sit on that non-diverse committee are themselves extremely non-diverse — locking into place a system in which the interests of African Americans, Latinos, and lower-income people more generally may be underconsidered in making decisions about unemployment, inflation, and interest rates.
All this is the subject of a letter released at noon today by a group of 111 members of the House of Representatives plus 11 senators, headlined by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Al Franken, demanding that the Fed pay more attention to diversity in its ranks.
The key graf:
According to a study by the Center for Popular Democracy released in early February, 2016, 83 percent of Federal Reserve head office board members are white, and men occupy nearly three-fourths of all regional bank directorships. The lack of public representation on regional Banks’ boards is even more distressing in light of the lack of diversity among regional Bank presidents and the resulting lack of diversity on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Currently, 92 percent of regional Bank presidents are white, and not a single president is either African-American or Latino. Moreover, at present 100 percent of voting FOMC participants are white, while 83 percent of regional Bank presidents and 60 percent of voting FOMC members are men.
Progressives interested in monetary policy issues have long struggled to engage the public, activist groups, or elected officials in the topic. The focus on diversity from the left-wing Center for Popular Democracy's "Fed Up" campaign that inspired this letter represents a new tactical effort to change that.
Diversity among decision-makers is not, of course, directly a monetary policy issue. But as the letter points out, monetary policy does have significant consequences for racial disparities in employment. They cite research from the Economic Policy Institute "demonstrating that for every .91 percent reduction in unemployment for whites, black unemployment drops 1.7 percent" meaning that African Americans have more to gain from monetary policy that is more pro-growth and less inflation-averse.
Michigan Representative John Conyers who was one of the main driving forces behind the letter issued a statement observing that "Detroit and cities across the country with high minority populations have some of the highest unemployment rates and will be harmed if the Federal Reserve does not consider our needs when they make key policy decisions."
How the Federal Reserve is organized
The specifics of the letter hinge on the structure of the Federal Reserve system, which is, in a word, confusing.
The main hub of the Fed is the Board of Governors in Washington, DC, which consists of a chair, a vice chair, and five other board members. Currently there are two vacancies on the board, and all five board members are white.
In addition to the Board of Governors, there are 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, each of which has its own president and its own board of directors. Each bank's president is selected by its board, with the choice subject to confirmation by the main board. Each regional bank board itself is composed in part of members selected by the private banks of the region and in part of members selected by the central board.
Monetary policy decisions are made by what's known as the Open Market Committee. The committee is composed of the seven members of the Board of Governors (at present, again, there are two vacancies) plus the president of the New York Fed, plus four other regional bank presidents serving on a rotating basis.
The point of the letter is that all these various groups underrepresent women and massively underrepresent African Americans and Latinos.
Today's Fed neglects race
Diversity of membership is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure that a broad range of interests is represented. But there is considerable evidence that the current not-so-diverse group of monetary policymakers is not considering the full range of interests in American society.
Narayana Kocherlakota, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, was the only nonwhite FOMC member during his term and offered this observation back in January:
However, there is one key source of economic difference in American life that is likely underemphasized in FOMC deliberations: race. Let’s look, for example, at the most recently released transcripts for FOMC meetings, which cover the year 2010 (my first full year on the Committee). It was a challenging year for the US economy as a whole, as the unemployment rate was above 9 1/4% in every month. But it was especially challenging for African-Americans: In every month of 2010, the unemployment rate among African-Americans was at least 15 1/2%. I did a search of the hundreds of pages of the meeting transcripts. Based on that search, my conclusion is that there was no reference in the meetings to labor market conditions among African-Americans (or Black Americans).
Monetary policymakers, with their needed independence, always risk being (or at least being seen as) insufficiently empathetic to the lives of their nations’ citizens. The Federal Reserve Act has mitigated this risk in the US by ensuring that an appreciation for economic diversity is at the heart of the FOMC’s deliberations.
The details of monetary policy get pretty complicated, and there's rarely been much sign of normal people being interested in them. But issues about who is represented and whose interests get discussed are easier to understand, so you can see why this particular angle is gaining momentum in Congress.
After the release of the letter, Hillary Clinton also weighed-in on the issue via spokesman Jesse Ferguson who offered a statement:
The Federal Reserve is a vital institution for our economy and the wellbeing 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 as well as 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
By Matthew Yglesias
Source
Diverse, Radical and Ready to Resist: Meet the First in the New Wave of Local Progressive Officials
Diverse, Radical and Ready to Resist: Meet the First in the New Wave of Local Progressive Officials
At Local Progress’s 150-person meet-up, left-leaning politicians from around the country share plans to build rebel...
At Local Progress’s 150-person meet-up, left-leaning politicians from around the country share plans to build rebel cities.
Read the full article here.
As the federal government fails the people of Puerto Rico, local governments and states must step up
As the federal government fails the people of Puerto Rico, local governments and states must step up
“Most recently, I’ve answered the call to service within my Delaware community. As the Program Director for Achievement...
“Most recently, I’ve answered the call to service within my Delaware community. As the Program Director for Achievement Matters, I lead a team working with youth to close the educational achievement gap. Through the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League, I teach young people how to fight for social change. I also work with the Center for Popular Democracy on solutions to the opioid crisis, healthcare, immigration, and taxes, and as the Kent County Coordinator for Network Delaware, I’m organizing to increase engagement throughout Delaware.
Read the full article here.
‘School Choice’ Mantra Masks the Harm of Siphoning Funds from Public Education
Ask an education “reform” proponent about any issue facing public education and the answer is always the same: “school...
Ask an education “reform” proponent about any issue facing public education and the answer is always the same: “school choice.” Whether they’re championing charter schools, vouchers or Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), advocates prefer to frame the debate around the right of parents to send their child to a better-performing school. This is merely a smokescreen to divert attention away from what school choice is really about: the transfer of public money to the private sector without accountability or transparency.
Many school choice campaigns are bankrolled by a faction of incredibly wealthy conservative donors and political groups, including the Koch Brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council (better known as ALEC). Their agenda is clear: dismantle public education.
But it’s a safe bet you won’t hear their names during National School Choice Week (Jan 25-30). What you will hear is a lot of people parroting messages about “freedom,” “innovation,” “options,” even “civil rights” – buzzwords that underpin the campaigns to expand charter schools, vouchers and ESAs across the country. But the jargon masks the devastating impact these policies have had on public education, particularly on those students who are supposed to benefit the most.
Unaccountable Charter Schools: The Truth Hurts
Many people support the idea behind charter schools, but how many are aware of the mounting troubles the charter industry has experienced lately? Probably not enough. Proponents work very, very hard to maintain a facade of success and transparency in the face of evidence that many of these schools operate without any oversight, while wasting taxpayer money and fostering inequity and racial segregation.
Take the North Carolina State Board of Education, which just this month rejected the Department of Public Instruction’s annual report on charter schools as “too negative.” Dominated by school privatization stalwarts, the board is determined to prevent any meaningful oversight of the state’s charters and demanded revisions to the report before it could be submitted to the legislature.
North Carolina educator Stuart Egan took the board to task in an open letter to Lt. Governor and board member Dan Forrest: “Overall, charter schools seem to lack diversity and operate under a different set of rules according to the report you are trying to squelch. The fact is that many of the charter schools you have enabled are perpetuating segregation and are not accomplishing what you advertised they would do,” Egan wrote.
Given the magnitude of waste and fraud in the sector, it’s unsurprising why many charter operators are hiding from accountability and regulation. And according to a new study, the expansion of unregulated charter schools, particularly in urban communities, is beginning to resemble the effort a decade ago to pump up bad mortgages that eventually blew up the economy.
“Supporters of charter schools are using their popularity in Black, urban communities to push for states to remove their charter cap restrictions and to allow multiple authorizers,” Preston Green III of the University of Connecticut and co-author of “Are We Heading Toward a Charter School ‘Bubble’?: Lessons from the Subprime Mortgage Crisis” told EduShyster. “At the same time, private investors are lobbying states to change their rules to encourage charter school growth. The combination of multiple authorizers and a lack of oversight is creating an abundance of poor-performing schools in low-income communities.”
Vouchers: Who Is Really Benefitting?
According to the 2015 PDK/Gallup poll, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose school vouchers. They see it for what it is: a privatization scheme that subsidizes tuition for students in private schools. And perhaps they are aware that there is no conclusive evidence that vouchers improve student achievement. The public is also not fooled by the often-repeated falsehood that vouchers are primarily benefitting disadvantaged students.
In Scott Walker’s Wisconsin and Mike Pence’s Indiana, where vouchers have expanded dramatically, promises that the programs would serve low-income students in failing schools didn’t last. “That tale quickly and methodically changed,” said Teresa Meredith, president of the Indiana State Teachers Association. By 2015, only 2 percent of participants [in the voucher program] had attended an ‘F’ public school.
“The most expansive voucher program in America has become an entitlement program which, in large part, now benefits middle class families who always intended to send their children to private (mostly religious) schools and taxpayers are footing the growing bill,” Meredith said.
Education Savings Accounts (or Vouchers on Steroids)
In 2015, Nevada lawmakers were hoping to blaze a new trail for school choice with a new gambit, education savings accounts (ESA), which allow parents to claim more than $5,000 in state funds each year and use it for any qualified education expense. This includes religious-based private schools, but also a variety of other services, all with little or no oversight over student outcomes. In addition, states impose no quality controls on the textbooks, curriculum, tutoring, or supplemental materials that parents can purchase with ESA funds.
Education savings accounts exist in five states, but Nevada became the first to pass a bill that offered them to every public school student regardless of family income. Very few private schools in the state, however, have tuition low enough to be covered by the $5,100 or $5,700 provided annually by ESAs. Wealthier parents can supplement their own income to pay for the tuition, but for lower-income families private school will remain largely out-of-reach.
Earlier this month, a state judge slapped an injunction on the program. In his ruling, District Judge James Wilson said the law diverted public funds to pay for private school tuition and was therefore unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed because advocates have vested a lot in the scheme. ESAs are unquestionably the new school choice battleground and are being pushed in a growing number of states with proponents deploying the usual tropes about “freedom” and “flexibility” to mask their real impact: erosion of public school funding, fewer education resources, wider achievement gaps and increased segregation.
Real Innovation That Works
The good news is that a growing number of communities are finding solutions to struggling schools and achievement gaps that benefit all students, not just some. Educators and parents are working together to expand the community schools model, which is currently present in nearly 5,000 schools nationwide. When public schools extend services and programs beyond the school day, creating strong learning cultures and safe and supportive environments for both students and educators—in effect becoming community “hubs” – student outcomes improve. In 2015, Minnesota educators were instrumental in persuading the legislature to pass a bill creating a grant program for “Full-Service” Community Schools and other states may soon follow suit. To learn more about community schools, read “Investing in What Works” by the Southern Education Foundation and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Source: NEA Today
NYC Council Progressive Caucus Backs Keith Ellison for DNC Chair
NYC Council Progressive Caucus Backs Keith Ellison for DNC Chair
The City Council’s dominant Progressive Caucus—led by Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito—announced their endorsement today...
The City Council’s dominant Progressive Caucus—led by Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito—announced their endorsement today of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
As Democrats look to recover from a devastating Election Day, Ellison is vying to lead the party against former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and South Carolina chairman Jaime Harrison. Ellison, the first Muslim-American ever elected to the House of Representatives, has attracted the support of Sen. Charles Schumer and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom the congressman backed for the presidency in defiance of most party leaders.
Now the Progressive Caucus, whose 19 members mostly though not unanimously favored Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, has added its backing to the Midwestern lawmaker’s bid.
“The members of the Progressive Caucus Alliance are proud to add our voices to those in support of Keith Ellison for Chair of the Democratic National Committee,” the group said in a press release today. “Congressman Ellison has been a true progressive champion in Congress, and has demonstrated the grit and tenacity that we’ll need for the tough fights ahead.”
Dean, who headed the DNC from 2005 to 2009, has asserted that the organization needs a chair who can attend to party business full-time. The Democrats have suffered severe setbacks over the past eight years under chairs who held elected office, most recently the controversial Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The former Green Mountain State governor and 2004 presidential candidate has highlighted the success of his “50-state strategy” in yielding the first Democratic majority in Congress in 22 years in 2006.
More important for the Council’s Progressive Caucus, however, are Ellison’s two turns as keynote speaker at “Local Progress” gatherings of low-level left-leaning officials. This, the caucus asserted, showed an emphasis on building a party bench at the most basic levels of government.
“As municipal legislators, we are especially enthusiastic about his emphasis on progressive politics at the local level,” their statement said. “Congressman Ellison recognizes that progressive politics matter at the most local of levels: to families seeking a job that pays the bills, to kids from low-income families hoping to go to college, and to parents worried about whether their kids of color will be treated fairly by the criminal justice system. He knows the difference it makes to unite action at the local, state and federal levels, and why it is important to build strength among City Council members and other local elected officials.”
Ellison’s bid also comes as many Democrats, including Schumer, have argued the party needs to increase outreach to blue collar white voters in depressed industrial areas. But the Progressive Caucus insisted the “incredibly divisive national atmosphere” President-elect Donald Trump’s incendiary anti-immigrant rhetoric has created demands party leadership that will stick up for minorities.
“We need a leader who will stand firm against hatred, bias, discrimination, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia,” the Council members’ release said. “The members of the Progressive Caucus Alliance know that Congressman Ellison will be that type of leader, and we enthusiastically support his bid for Chair of the DNC.”
“We are enthusiastic that he will be [the] first Muslim-American DNC Chair,” it added.
Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.
By Will Bredderman
Source
Dean Baker: Why We Must Oppose the Coming Fed Interest Rate Hike
Truthout - February 19, 2015, by Isaiah J. Poole - Progressives need to step up their opposition to any moves by the...
That message comes amid a grassroots effort this week designed to line up organizations behind a call on the Fed to not increase interest rates before the economy reaches full employment.
There is a widespread expectation that the Fed will raise interest rates sometime in 2015, ostensibly to keep the economy from “overheating” and driving up the rate of inflation. The problem is, as Baker pointed out in his presentation, there is no inflation threat on the horizon, but there is a very real threat of choking the economic recovery and driving up unemployment if interest rates rise.
“This is a huge, huge issue and it is largely ignored by much of the progressive movement, largely because people don’t understand it,” Baker said. “And I would say to a large extent that’s how they” – the bankers and the corporate class that has the ear of the Federal Reserve’s members – “want it.”
Baker has been working closely with the Center for Popular Democracy’s “Fed Up” campaign, which has been pushing the Fed to focus on moving the economy toward full employment as a top priority.
The campaign has emphasized that after more than five years of supposed economic “recovery,” labor participation rates remain at historic lows, wages are only now beginning to increase slowly, and unemployment rates among African Americans and in a number of low-income communities remain well into double digits.
Citing the push in Congress to get the Keystone XL pipeline built, which some estimates say would produce about 36,000 jobs during its construction, Baker said, “if the Fed raises interest rates we’re talking about kicking millions of people out of jobs.” If instead the Fed worked to get the unemployment rate down to about 4 percent, “that’s about 4.5 million people … that’s more than 100 XL pipelines.”
The Fed Up Campaign is seeking organizations willing to sign a petition calling on the Federal Reserve to not increase interest rates while there are segments of the economy with high unemployment and stagnant wages. “Raising interest rates in 2015 would be a catastrophic mistake. The American economy needs to see significantly more wage growth, not less,” the petition says.
The full petition is posted on our website. Progressive organization leaders who want to sign the petition can do so via this link.
Source
Seattle Unanimously Passes an 'Amazon Tax' to Fund Affordable Housing
Seattle Unanimously Passes an 'Amazon Tax' to Fund Affordable Housing
Nearly 40 elected city officials from all corners of the U.S., including from metros bracing for Amazon HQ2 like Boston...
Nearly 40 elected city officials from all corners of the U.S., including from metros bracing for Amazon HQ2 like Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and Washington, D.C., signed an open letter on Monday urging Seattle City Council to stay the course and criticizing Amazon’s tactics during the head tax debate.” “This is particularly concerning to us given Amazon’s approach to the competition for HQ2, in which the company has promoted a bidding war of jurisdictions competing with each other to offer greater incentive packages,” the letter read. “If Amazon were serious about its support for strong affordable housing solutions, it would fully back this tax proposal and chip in to help address Seattle’s homelessness crisis. By threatening Seattle over this tax, Amazon is sending a message to all of our cities: We play by our own rules.”
Read the full article here.
The Perils of Ever-Changing Work Schedules Extend to Children’s Well-Being
Abercrombie & Fitch announced last week that it would stop requiring workers to be on call for shifts that could be...
Abercrombie & Fitch announced last week that it would stop requiring workers to be on call for shifts that could be canceled with little notice, making it the latest retailer to pull back from such scheduling practices.
Williams-Sonoma ended on-call shifts in the last several months, while Gap has scaled back the practice ahead of a study it has commissioned on scheduling. Last year, Starbucks announced that it was bringing more “stability and consistency” to its employees’ hours after an article in The New York Times highlighted the company’s habit of giving workers little advance notice on their schedules and requiring some to close and open stores in consecutive shifts, known as “clopening.”
Although the workers directly affected by unpredictable schedules are the most obvious winners, the biggest beneficiaries of a change in the practice could be their children.
A growing body of research suggests that children’s language and problem-solving skills may suffer as a result of their parents’ problematic schedules, and that they may be more likely than other children to smoke and drink when they are older.
“Young children and adolescents of parents working unpredictable schedules or outside standard daytime working hours are more likely to have inferior cognitive and behavioral outcomes,” the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal advocacy group, said last week in a report.
Last year, two Democratic representatives introduced the Schedules That Work Act, which would require employers to give workers more say about their hours and provide them with incentives to encourage more stable schedules.
“We are all talking about this today,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, who is one of the bill’s lead sponsors. “Five years ago, it was an issue people would have brushed to the corner.” The bill has 69 co-sponsors; two Democrats also introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Among the needs that policy makers and activists working on the issue identify is finding stable, professional child care on a schedule that shifts from week to week.
“The arrangements families put together are usually ad hoc,” Ms. DeLauro said. “They have to rely on other family members, friends. If something breaks down in that chain, they have a problem.”
While all shifting schedules pose a challenge in this regard, on-call work may be unique in the way it complicates child care arrangements.
Kris Buchmann of Albuquerque worked a retail job at a local mall when her son, now 3 ½, was about 1 year old. She said she was frequently scheduled for on-call shifts that never materialized or that lasted less than an hour when they did.
“I still had to pay a babysitter,” said Ms. Buchmann, who is active in a New Mexico organizing group called Organizers in the Land of Enchantment, or OLÉ. “Sometimes I would have to go pick her up, take her back to my house because she didn’t have transportation, drive to work, get sent home, still have to pay her, and drive her home.”
When Ms. Buchmann demanded a more stable schedule, her employer refused, an experience that is not uncommon. After that, she left the job.
As practices like unpredictable scheduling have proliferated in recent years, fed by a shift toward lean staffing models made possible by sophisticated software, they have attracted public criticism.
In a nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll in May, 72 percent of Americans favored requiring chain stores to provide at least two weeks’ notice for any change in schedule, or else compensate workers with extra pay.
Regulators have also taken notice. In April, the office of the New York State attorney general sent letters to 13 retailers, questioning their use of on-call shifts. The letters, which were first reported by The Wall Street Journal, said retailers were providing workers with “too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay.”
Several companies that received letters from the New York attorney general have denied that they use on-call scheduling for low-wage workers, or that it is common in their stores. Some retailers say that only a small fraction of their workers who have been on unpredictable schedules care for children.
“Very few of our store associates are working parents,” said Michael Scheiner, a spokesman for Abercrombie & Fitch, which was among the letter’s recipients.
But the problem appears to be widespread. A 2012 study of nonfood retail workers in New York City by Stephanie Luce of the City University of New York and by the Retail Action Project, a workers’ advocacy group, found that more than half of the surveyed workers who cared for others, like children or elderly family members, had to make themselves available for last-minute shifts.
Because the practice is relatively new, however, scholars must infer its likely impact from research over the last decade showing the effects on children of parents working nonstandard hours, including night shifts, that have been more common for years.
In one of the most respected studies, published in 2005 in the journal Child Development, Prof. Wen-Jui Han of New York University looked at children during their first three years of life, controlling for such demographic variables as their mothers’ income, education, and race and ethnicity.
Professor Han, who was then at Columbia University, found that children of mothers who worked nonstandard schedules performed lower on problem-solving, verbal comprehension and spoken language tests than children of mothers who worked traditional schedules. Part of the explanation, she concluded, was increased stress on the part of the parents.
“Parents try their best to attend to their children in a sensitive and warm manner, but the physical and emotional exhaustion from nonstandard schedules makes it difficult,” Professor Han said in an interview. “With young children, if they’re crying, asking for food, asking for something, it’s all about how you interact with them.”
Another key issue, she found, was access to quality child care. Children whose mothers worked nonstandard schedules during their first year of life were significantly less likely to be enrolled in professional day care centers throughout early childhood. This type of child care setting, she noted in the paper, tends to be associated with better cognitive development than informal arrangements like relying on extended family members, a frequent alternative.
As for adolescents, Professor Han and two colleagues published a second paper, in the journal Developmental Psychology in 2010, which said that the longer mothers worked odd hours, the more likely their children were to smoke, drink, act out and engage in sexual activity.
The specific effect of on-call work and other frequently changing schedules — as opposed to work hours that fall outside the traditional workday — is only beginning to be studied, but social scientists worry that it has similar implications for children.
In a study of female workers at a large clothing retailer published last year in the Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Julia R. Henly and Susan J. Lambert of the University of Chicago found that the unpredictability of the workers’ schedules was related to higher stress and difficulties juggling work and family demands.
While the study did not examine the way this affected children, Dr. Henly suggested that the challenges posed by unpredictable work hours could take a toll on children as well. She also predicted that mothers with constantly changing work schedules would be less likely to enroll their children in preschool and other high-quality child care facilities.
“Some amount of early childhood education is important,” she said. “But it’s impossible to take advantage of those opportunities if you have a schedule that doesn’t allow you to get your kid there.”
According to Carrie Gleason of the Center for Popular Democracy, a nonprofit organization that helps community groups organize, such complications may explain why there appear to be fewer parents who work on-call shifts.
“A lot of times we find that they don’t last very long,” she said. “It’s absolutely impossible for working parents to meet their responsibilities to their families and hold down a job at a company with on-call shifts.”
Still, even parents who don’t work on-call jobs often have little advance notice of their schedules. In many companies that officially promise to make schedules available in advance, Ms. Gleason said, “managers edit the schedule up until the hours someone is supposed to come in.”
Correction: August 14, 2015
Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about the effects on children of their parents’ unpredictable work schedules misstated part of the name of a group in which Kris Buchmann, who left a retail job because of the difficulties in arranging child care, is active. It is Organizers in the Land of Enchantment, not Organizers in the Land of Enrichment.
Source: New York Times
2 months ago
2 months ago