CPD IN THE NEWS

As the new year begins, any honest progressive knows the political outlook is bleak. But if we're going to limit the damage that President-elect Donald Trump inflicts on the country, then despair is not an option. The real question, as Democracy Alliance President Gara LaMarche recently said, "is how you fight intelligently and strategically when every house is burning down."

Indeed, with Trump and Republicans in Congress aggressively pushing a right-wing agenda, progressives will need to invest their resources and attention where they can do the most good — both now and over the next four years. With that in mind, here are three steps to take to resist and rebuild as the Trump administration gets underway.

First, while strong national leadership is certainly important, progressives must recognize that the most significant resistance to Trump won't take place in Washington. It's going to happen in the streets led by grass-roots activists, and in communities, city halls and statehouses nationwide.

There is real potential for cities and states to act as a bulwark against Trump's agenda. On immigration, for example, a coalition of mayors from across the country — including New York and Los Angeles but also cities throughout the Rust Belt and the South — are already coordinating to fight Trump's deportation plans. Local Progress, a national network of city and county officials, is working to protect civil rights and advance economic and social justice. And while the Trump administration may ravage the environment, cities and states can also continue the fight against global warming; in particular, California has the potential to become a global leader on the issue, and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has defiantly pledged to move forward with plans to slash carbon emissions in the state regardless of Trump's policies.

Cities and states also give progressives an opportunity to play offense by advancing policies that truly improve people's lives, while providing a concrete and actionable blueprint for the rest of the country. Take the Fight for $15. Last year, 25 states, cities and counties approved minimum-wage increases that will result in raises for millions of workers nationwide. And despite Trump's hostility to workers, there are campaigns to increase the minimum wage planned in at least 13 states and other localities over the next two years, representing a real chance to build on that progress.

Second, as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman writes, "We need a broad commitment from activists and donors to take back state governments." Even if Democrats do well in the midterm elections, they are unlikely to regain control of Congress until after the next round of redistricting, in 2020. Yet there will be 87 state legislative chambers and 36 gubernatorial seats up for grabs in 2018. Progressives would be wise to adopt a laserlike focus on winning these races.

A strong performance at the state level in 2018 would do more than improve progressives' ability to combat Trump's policies. It would also help create a stronger pipeline of leaders who could eventually run for higher office, following in the steps of incoming House members Jamie B. Raskin, D-Md., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. Crucially, it would also give progressive Democrats more influence over congressional redistricting in 2020, boosting the party's prospects at the national level. For that reason, it's noteworthy that President Obama is planning to get involved in state legislative elections and redistricting after he leaves office, though grass-roots efforts will remain paramount.

And third, it will be critical for progressive leaders in Washington to amplify local progress to drive a national message. In the absence of a single party leader — especially one whose success depends on compromising with congressional Republicans — there is more room for strong, populist progressive voices to emerge in opposition to Trump.

Already, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Vt., Elizabeth Warren, Mass., Sherrod Brown, Ohio, and Jeff Merkley, Ore., are stepping up, and they will be joined in the House by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose members will play a key role in recruiting and running progressive candidates, connecting with grass-roots movements and driving local issues into the national sphere. Working alongside activist groups, progressive Democrats can present a clear alternative vision for the nation.

To that end, the race for Democratic National Committee chair presents a significant opportunity to shift the party's direction. Regardless of who prevails, progressives would be wise to insist on a return to the 50-state strategy that former chairman Howard Dean championed and that all of the current candidates say they support. Ultimately, the party's fortunes will depend on recruiting a new generation of progressive leaders, especially women and people of color, who can harness the power of social movements and drive it into electoral politics — everywhere in the country, at every level of government.

By: Katrina Vanden Heuvel

Source

Following the direct actions of June 28 and July 10, in which 140 Americans, including many with serious health conditions, were arrested in their senator’s DC offices for civil disobedience, still more constituents plan to flood Capitol Hill Wednesday to stop the repeal of the ACA. Organizers say Vermont residents will also participate in this latest oppostion to "repeal and replace" Obamacare.

People with disabilities and life-threatening chronic illnesses, cancer survivors, Medicaid recipients, Affordable Care Act (ACA) policyholders, registered nurses, doctors, and others directly impacted by the Senate healthcare bill will be traveling from all states represented by Republican senators to descend upon Capitol Hill on Wednesday, July 19, with a strong message: “Kill the bill—don’t kill us!”

Read the full article here.

Commercial Appeal - 05.24.2015  -  WASHINGTON — If there's one labor issue that has come to the forefront of political agendas over the past few years, it's the minimum wage: Cities and states around the country are taking action to boost worker pay, as federal efforts seem doomed to fail.

But a new wave of reform is already in the works. Instead of how much you earn, it addresses when you work — pushing back against the longstanding corporate trend toward timing shifts exactly when labor is needed, sometimes in tiny increments, or at the very last minute.

That practice, nicknamed "just-in-time" scheduling, can wreak havoc on the lives of workers who can't plan around work obligations that might pop up at any time.

Right now, community groups and unions in Washington, D.C., are formulating a bill that will address the problem of schedules that can be both shifting and inflexible. The labor-backed group Jobs With Justice says it likely will include a requirement that employers provide workers with notice of their schedules a few weeks ahead of time, and that additional hours go to existing employees, rather than spreading them across a large workforce.

"The one thing we're finding overwhelmingly is that people aren't getting enough hours to make ends meet," says Ari Schwartz, a campaign organizer at D.C. Jobs With Justice. "People aren't getting their schedules with enough time to plan child care and the rest of the things in their lives."

When a proposal gets to the D.C. Council, Washington won't be the first: After passage of landmark legislation in San Francisco, bills have been offered in Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, Michigan and Oregon. Along with new proposals to expand paid sick day legislation, they are a bid to give workers more control over how they spend their time.

"These scheduling reforms are getting really popular, because it makes no sense that, for example, you're required to be available to work by your employer and you're not picked for that time," says Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a senior staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project. "People who don't suffer these abuses already understand what it's like to juggle work and family, so people really identify with that as being a problem."

Carrots and sticks

Twenty years ago, schedules weren't as much of a problem. Working in retail, especially, tended to be a solid 9-to-5 job.

Then retail hours grew longer. And then came computerized scheduling, which allowed employers to best fit staffing to demand. Here's what that looks like in practice: Handing out schedules based on what times of day or the month you expect the most business, splitting up hours across a large workforce that is available on a moment's notice, and sometimes sending people home if traffic is slow.

That helps companies optimize their labor costs, but it wreaks havoc on the lives of low-wage workers, who don't know how much they're going to make from week to week, and often can't schedule anything else around work.

One worker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she is still employed there, has worked in the hot food prep section of the Whole Foods in Washington, D.C., for 12 years. She liked it; the pay wasn't bad, and the people were friendly. She worked consistently from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., and took a second job as a nanny in the afternoons, which added around $300 a week to her income — more money to send home to her father in El Salvador, and to support her daughter in college in Tennessee.

But then, a new manager cut back hours; some people left and weren't replaced. The schedule posted on the wall started to shift the worker's days off, or tell her to come in from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. instead. Usually she got a week's notice, but once in a while she'd come to work and the schedule had already changed, so she'd have to go back home. After that happened on too many days, she had to drop the afternoon job. So once again, she was just squeaking by.

"She would come and say, ‘I really need you to cover this shift,' and it is what it is," the worker says in Spanish, through a translator. "Lots of us have lost lots of jobs."

It's been better over the past few months, she says. And that's not by accident: As public complaints surfaced about Whole Foods' scheduling practices, the company rolled out a new system that allows employees to see their schedules for two weeks in advance and prevents managers from changing them at the last minute or scheduling "clopenings" — both closing the store and opening it in the morning — without an employee's consent. The policy has been in place nationwide since early April, spokesman Michael Silverman says.

Whole Foods isn't alone. Walmart has also introduced a system of "open shifts," which allows workers to pick their own hours. Starbucks curbed some of its practices in the wake of a New York Times article last year that described their effect on one barista.

The Gap is working with the Center for WorkLife Law at Hastings College of Law, University of California, in San Francisco to set up pilot projects around the country that would measure the impact of giving employees stable schedules and more hours. Many companies haven't considered how much their scheduling practices are actually costing them in the form of employee turnover, says Joan Williams, a UC law professor.

"If you don't count that cost, it disappears. The idea is to generate the kind of rigorous data that will be needed to persuade people to change their financial models," says Williams. "Our hypothesis is that if you provide people with more stable schedules, you'll see lower turnover [and] absenteeism and higher worker engagement."

In time, the business case may grow clear enough that more companies move toward stable schedules on their own. But Williams says legislative efforts are needed as well: A recent national survey found that 41 percent of early-career, hourly workers get their schedules less than a week in advance.

Legislative action

Last year, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction to pass comprehensive scheduling reform, with a set of companion bills that require "formula retailers" (i.e., large chains) to give workers two weeks' notice of their schedules, pay workers for the shifts when they're on call and give hours to current employees instead of hiring more, among other provisions. The law went into effect in January but won't be enforced until July.

Meanwhile, scheduling legislation is in the works around the country. National groups such as the Center for Popular Democracy and the National Womens Law Center are helping to build coalitions where scheduling reforms could prove politically palatable, in places such as New York — where the union-backed Retail Action Project has been advocating for "just hours" for years — and Minnesota, where the AFL-CIO-affiliated Working America has been building support among non-union members for measures that would benefit all workers.

But it hasn't been smooth sailing for the scheduling reform movement. A Maryland bill failed this year, in the face of employer opposition. And though there isn't even a bill yet in Washington, businesses are voicing skepticism.

"Any time you alter how employers hire, schedule or retain their workforce, if that flexibility makes D.C. less attractive to businesses, than I'm concerned about that," said Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. "The D.C. chamber is concerned about any restrictions on free enterprise."

It's perhaps more concerning to employers than even raising the minimum wage: That's just extra cost. Scheduling, by contrast, impacts the very core of how they've learned to do business.

Philly.com - December 17, 2014, by James M. Von Bergen -

Seeking a voice in the process to select a new president for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, two dozen activists protested outside the bank in Center City on Monday.

"The Fed is such a mystery. We just want transparency," marchers chanted as they walked along Sixth Street, many wearing green T-shirts with the slogans "Fed Up" and "What Recovery?"

The march came amid speculation whether the Federal Open Market Committee, meeting Tuesday, would increase the discount rate - the rate charged banks for short-term loans they receive from the regional Federal Reserve Banks - in light of the improving economy.

In a statement Monday, the Philadelphia Fed said it had engaged an executive search company to find a replacement for president Charles Plosser, whose term expires March 1.

"Senior executives have met with representatives of groups who have expressed interest in the process," the statement said.

"The search committee has said it will look at a broad, diverse group of candidates from inside and outside the Federal Reserve System," the statement said.

The Fed's record low interest rates "should make us nervous," Plosser said in an interview with CNBC in November.

He has been among the central bank's most outspoken members on raising rates. Recent economic data indicate that "we should raise rates now or in the near future," he told reporters after a speech in Charlotte, N.C., the Wall Street Journal reported.

During Monday's protest, which lasted about an hour, various people told their stories, about how they had been unable to find jobs or were working below their educational levels even as they struggled to save their homes from foreclosure and pay their bills.

Kia Philpot-Hinton, 38, of Southwest Philadelphia, said she has not been able to find an accounting job. "It's crushing when you are struggling to make ends meet. We're not in a recovery in my neighborhood," she said.

"We deserve to make an ample amount of money to support our family," said Chris Campbell, 23, of Philadelphia, adding that he had been unable to find steady employment in construction.

The protest was mounted by Action United, a nationally organized group of activists that coalesces around economic issues.

One leader of Monday's protest was Kendra Brooks, who said she has a master's degree in business administration and was laid off from Easter Seals of Southeastern Pennsylvania in 2012. As an Action United organizer, she said, she now earns half of what she previously earned.

She was part of a group that visited Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen in November.

"They were engaged and interested in what we had to say," Brooks said, adding that Yellen wanted to know whether foreclosure-prevention programs and other efforts to help the poor were effective.

Brooks said raising interest rates would prompt businesses to cut back hiring, tightening the job market, and forcing people to accept lower wages.

Among those marching was Lance Haver, director of the Mayor's Office of Consumer Affairs. Haver said that even if the Fed is not the usual focus of protests by activists, they can be effective.

In 1998, he said, First Union Corp., which became Wachovia and is now Wells Fargo & Co., acquired CoreStates Bank in Philadelphia. Activists' protests, he said, prompted the Federal Reserve to prevent First Union from closing CoreStates branches in some poorer neighborhoods.

"Instead of shuttering them," Haver said, some branches became credit unions and led to First Union's being required to provide community-development funds.

Source