CPD IN THE NEWS

Source: In These Times

The National Retail Federation is fond of pointing out that “retail means jobs.” And it’s true: the retail industry today provides one in ten private-sector jobs in the U.S., a number set to grow in the next decade.  

Yet new findings show those jobs may be keeping retail workers and their families from rising up the career ladder, exacerbating our country’s growing inequality. The findings from the Center for Popular Democracy demonstrate that, for women and people of color especially, working in retail often means instability and low pay. Both groups make up the lion’s share of cashiers, movers, and other poorly paid positions and barely figure in the upper ranks of management. In general merchandise—including big-box stores such as Target and Wal-Mart—women hold more than 80 percent of cashier jobs, the lowest-paid position. And in the food and beverage industry, women make up approximately half of the workforce but less than a fifth of managers.

People of color in the retail industry are often relegated to the least lucrative jobs as well. In home and garden stores like Home Depot and Lowes, for example, employees of color account for 24 percent of the total workforce—but 36 percent of jobs that pay least.

The findings are especially disappointing given the opportunities available for those who succeed. Certain areas of retail, such as home and garden stores and car dealers, offer living wages to workers—but both women and people of color are largely shut out of these sub-sectors. And management jobs across the industry provide wages and benefits that can allow workers to support themselves and their families—but they are closed off to many.

Reducing these disparities will take more than a bigger paycheck. Retailers must make a concerted effort to establish policies that ensure women and people of color are equally represented in management positions and develop more robust training programs for workers just starting out that give them the chance to advance.

Many retailers have training policies in place, but they can be far from meaningful. Wal-Mart, for example, recently announced it was raising wages to $10, dependent on completion of a six-month training program—an onerous requirement to earn a pitifully low wage that lags well behind the retail sector average. Real training can introduce employees to a range of job duties and responsibilities, incentivizing them to learn specialized skills that allow workers to pick up shifts, advance to higher-paying positions, and bring home a full-time paycheck. Sectors like finance long ago recognized internal barriers to promotion and created programs to promote equal opportunity. Why do we not expect the same of retail?

Retailers that lack such programs, from Walmart to Gristedes, have faced multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuits from women harmed by policies that prevented them from moving upward. Companies that fail to enact real advancement policies can expect similar pushback. 

Moreover, workers at the lowest levels are doubly punished with erratic, last-minute scheduling that wreaks havoc on their lives. These schedules are particularly difficult for women. Unable to find childcare at the last minute or unwilling to miss bedtime every night, moms in retail are often deemed ineligible for promotion. Ironically, climbing up the job ladder is the only way to obtain stable hours that let working women and their families thrive.

As these practices have grown worse, many workers have started fighting back, demanding schedules that let them plan their lives, be there for their families and pursue education.

Facing outside pressure, policymakers have also stepped in and accelerated the pace of change. Retailers demonstrated how fast they could change last year when they received a letter from New York’s Attorney General into their use of on-call scheduling. Within months, major retailers like The Gap agreed to significant reforms—and a quarter of a million workers no longer had to put their life on hold for a shift.

State and city policymakers are also leading the way to raise workplace standards, pursuing policies to raise wages to $15 per hour, secure improved work schedules, and guarantee earned sick time. Creating higher-paying, more secure retail jobs will boost the economy, as the low-income retail workforce will likely use any additional earnings to cover basic expenses.

Yet if industry leaders want retail to mean good jobs, they must step up to the plate.  Retail workers are the neighbors who shop in our local small businesses; parents trying to help their kids with homework; students working their way through college.  It’s clear that retail jobs are holding too many women and people of color back.  Rather than superficial fixes, we need bold solutions that move all retail workers forward and allow their families to thrive. 

MSNBC - April 17, 2015, by Willa Frej -The United States has a record of human rights abuses despite its position as a leading voice on human rights issues worldwide, legal experts said at a forum here on Friday, from water shutoffs in Detroit and widespread police brutality to Guantanamo Bay and drone strikes. The alleged abuses include asserting immunity from and not ratifying certain international rights laws and treaties, not joining the International Criminal Court, and supporting governments with abysmal rights records of their own.

Experts at the forum, which took place at Hunter College and previewed the country’s upcoming human rights review by the United Nations, acknowledged that the U.S. is not typically considered an egregious human rights abuser. But a simple look beneath the surface, panelists said, uncovers a staggering range of human rights issues:

Lack of healthcare. Despite the Affordable Care Act’s success in promoting healthcare access, affordable health insurance is not available in many states and not accessible to undocumented immigrants. In a state like Texas, where restrictions sharply limit access to reproductive health, Latina women are twice as likely to contract cervical cancer and 30% more likely to die from it, Katrina Anderson from the Center for Reproductive Rights said.

Water shutoffs. In Detroit, 14,000 households and 38,000 people were without water at the end of 2013, according to Rob Robinson of the National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, after the city implemented a program that shut off water in households that couldn’t pay their bills. More 80% of the city’s population is African American, he added, and 40% live below the poverty line. 

Police brutality. The U.S. is now experiencing what it’s like to be both over-policed and under-protected, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Marbre Stahly-Butts argued. From the gripping videos capturing instances of police violence to the ensuing national outrage, there’s a new level of awareness around law enforcement abuses.

The response, which has largely centered around the implementation of body camera use by police, has felt inadequate to many, Stahly-Butts said, especially given the billions of dollars allocated to fighting terrorism overseas. “Why no war on racism?” she asked.

Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a police chokehold last year, put a human face to the issue. “If there’s a crime, there should be accountability, whether you’re wearing blue jeans, a blue business suit, or a blue uniform,” she said. His tragedy, she said, was her motivation for speaking out on behalf of human rights, specifically urging police to abide by the same laws they enforce.

Indefinite detention and drone strikes. Despite an early push by President Obama to close Guantanamo Bay, 122 men remain in the prison without charge or trial. Fifty-six of these men have been cleared for transfer out of the prison, but just five transfers have taken place so far in 2015. In another counterterrorism offensive, the Obama administration has expanded the drone strike program in Pakistan and Yemen. The Center for Constitutional Rights’ Baher Azmy told the audience that the program has killed more than one thousand civilians since 2002.

Out-of-control surveillance. The U.S. government’s large-scale data dragnet, revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, is inconsistent with the universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to Faiza Patel, a co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. The “collect-it-all” approach to surveillance eviscerates privacy, Patel argued, by allowing the government to listen in on Americans’ phone calls and read text, email and other online messages without sufficient oversight. 

Other speakers were more hopeful. Catherina Albisa, a human rights lawyer with the National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, said the U.S. began as a fierce champion of human rights and described an “emerging landscape” of young people and protesters committed to economic justice through human rights. But government commitments to those rights have languished, Albisa argued, noting America’s “manufactured” water crisis and the closing of abortion clinics in Texas as evidence of deteriorating rights for U.S. residents.

Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, co-director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. Program, went further, suggesting the U.S. government undermines human rights standards. The U.S. is an active participant in the United Nation’s human rights review process, she explained, but the last set of recommendations resulted in zero domestic reforms. That lack of responsiveness could undermine the review’s credibility going forward, she warned.

The U.S. is set to undergo its second United Nations review in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 11. 

Source

New York Times - January 28, 2013, by Kirk Semple - In the next several days, the deans of the nation’s top law schools will be notified of a new job opportunity for their graduating students. Applicants must be high achievers who want to be part of a groundbreaking start-up, live in New York City, train with veteran lawyers and help create a new paradigm in immigration representation.

The call comes from the Immigrant Justice Corps, a new group that received a life-giving injection on Tuesday when the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a poverty-fighting philanthropy, approved more than $1.3 million in funding.

The initiative is the long-nurtured idea of Robert A. Katzmann, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who has for years campaigned to redress a grave problem: the shortage of competent legal representation for immigrants, particularly those of modest means facing deportation.

The group’s plan is to recruit 25 graduating law students or recent graduates, immerse them in immigration law and then farm them out to community-based organizations. The young lawyers would commit to at least two years of service and as many as three.

“It’s a very simple concept, but it’s one that will not only ensure fairness for immigrants but will infuse our legal system with a generation of lawyers committed to serving those in need,” said Judge Katzmann, whose father was a refugee from Nazi Germany and whose maternal grandparents were immigrants from Russia.

The corps intends to hire a cadre of 25 lawyers every year, each earning a salary of $47,000 plus benefits. They will be assisted by recent college graduates with multilingual skills who will handle less complex cases, such as naturalization applications. The team will be supervised by a group of staff lawyers and advised by veteran lawyers.

Organizers estimate that by the third year, the corps will be handling nearly 15,000 cases a year, about double the number of immigration cases currently overseen by nonprofit organizations in New York City.

Robin Hood’s grants, while enough to get the initiative off the ground, will cover only a fraction of the project’s operating costs, which are expected to total about $4 million in the first year and about $7 million in each successive year.

But foundation officials and corps board members anticipate that they will be able to raise money from other foundations as well as philanthropists and the government.

During an interview this month, with the foundation’s approval nearly certain, Judge Katzmann turned emotional.

“The dream is about to come true, after lots of hopes and some disappointments,” he said, pausing for a moment. “I’m choked up as I’m thinking about it.”

In 2007, deeply concerned about the quality and availability of representation for immigrants, he sounded a clarion call and started a study group that investigated the issue’s impact on immigrant populations. Among its findings: Most detained immigrants in the New York region did not have counsel at the time their cases were completed.

Judge Katzmann and his allies have warned that, absent new programs, the problem would grow worse should Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform providing legal status for undocumented immigrants.

The study group spawned an initiative, the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, which seeks to provide legal representation for every poor immigrant facing deportation in New York.

But Judge Katzmann pressed for more: a national army of young lawyers in the style of public service programs like AmeriCorps Vista or the Peace Corps.

Robin Hood heard about the idea last spring and agreed to fund a planning process. Organizers decided to limit the project to New York City, at least until it had sufficient funding to expand nationally.

Nisha Agarwal, the executive director of the Immigrant Justice Corps, views the pilot project as something that could be replicated in other cities with large immigrant populations, and as a kind of feeder system for legal talent. “Maybe these fellows will leave these fellowships and go elsewhere in the country,” she said, “and be leaders in immigrant representation.”

Source

Hillary Clinton is taking on the United States Federal Reserve System, but in a wonky, bottom's-up way that shows her understanding of a complex and widely misunderstood organization. This is not "End the Fed" or even "audit the Fed" — she wants to rebuild it from its fundamentals at the regional level.

To paraphrase Mitt Romney, the Federal Reserve is people, my friend. Hillary Clinton's recent proposal to change the roster of Fed officials who ultimately make monetary policy and regulatory decisions might be the most effective Fed-reform idea since the financial crisis. Generally, the public pays attention to little more than the face of the organization — the Fed's chairperson, currently Janet Yellen — who announces and explains the Fed's decisions. But beneath Yellen functions an intricate and influential bureaucracy that's dominated by interests from the financial sector, the vast majority of them white men, and may well be blind to the reality of a vast majority of Americans.

The Federal Reserve was set up in 1917, in the wake of a financial crisis, as a private national bank that could serve as lender of last resort to other banks. If a bank needed money to make good on deposits, it could go to the Fed for a short-term loan. It was, since its inception, a bankers' institution, run for banks, by banks. But its role has clearly evolved as credit markets have developed and as the Fed's mandate was changed to pursue price stability (low inflation) and full employment at the same time, while helping to regulate the sector for which it also serves as lender.

As the Fed's mission has expanded, its governance has not. The Fed is run by a seven-member board in Washington, D.C., and a dozen regional bank presidents based in financial centers throughout the country (New York, St. Louis, Kansas City and Cleveland, among others). While the crew in D.C. is selected by the president and vetted by Congress, the regional bank presidents are chosen by the financial industry and tend to be either bankers or career Fed employees. Of the 12 bank presidents, two are women and only one is not white.

New York's regional president is Willian C. Dudley, previously a Goldman Sachs managing director. Robert S. Kaplan of Dallas was a former vice chairman at Goldman. Neel Kashkari, a known financial reformer, is nonetheless a former employee of PIMCO, one of the world's largest asset managers and a subsidiary of German financial behemoth Allianz. Dennis P. Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is a former Citigroup executive.

Clinton's proposal would remove bankers from the regional boards of directors. Those boards choose the regional presidents and generate most of the information and perspective that the Federal Reserve governors use to set monetary policy. Clinton clearly understands how the Fed functions. Donald Trump has said he would not reappoint Janet Yellen as chair. Fine. But appointing the Fed chair is merely the most high-profile action a president can take in this regard. It doesn't change the system, and the Fed is known as the Federal Reserve System for a reason.

This is Clinton at her best – she knows how the government works. The region Federal Reserve boards do not get a lot of press. Most people do not know that they are staffed with chief executives from Morgan Stanley, Comerica, KeyCorp and private-equity firms like Silver Lake, and if they do know it, they do not understand its importance.

The Fed is generally a topic of political bluster. "I appointed him and he disappointed me," complained George H.W. Bush about Alan Greenspan, when the Fed chair refused to cut interest rates in the face of a recession that probably cost Bush his re-election in 1992. Before that, Ronald Reagan had to endure Chairman Paul Volcker raising interest rates so high in an effort to combat inflation that out-of-work construction workers were mailing bricks and wooden beams to the Fed in protest.

The idea that the Fed often acts contrary to the interests of working people is not new, but aside from requiring the Fed to pursue full employment in addition to price stability in 1977, presidents who are unhappy with the Fed have done little more than complain. Even after Greenspan disappointed Bush, Bill Clinton reappointed him to the post. When Greenspan retired, Ben Bernanke, an intellectual heir, took the helm. When he retired, Yellen, also an intellectual heir, took over. The power to appoint the Fed chair and governors is not, clearly, the power to change things.

Clinton is digging deeper. Changing the roster of the regional boards will hopefully help more accurate economic information trickle up to the chairperson and the federal governors. Perhaps, even, a labor representative or somebody with closer ties to the common American experience could become a regional bank president.

In her quiet way, tinkering with the inner workings of a near-century old quasi-government institution that is arcane to most, Clinton has a chance to achieve radical, lasting financial reform.

BY MICHAEL MAIELLO

Source