CPD IN THE NEWS

NEW YORK--As the Federal Reserve gets ready to debate its interest rate policy stance next week, a poll released Thursday finds a strong majority of the American voters surveyed want central bankers to refrain from boosting short- term interest rates--and to instead concentrate on using monetary policy to further boost the job market.

The poll also found that respondents have inflation concerns, but even so, they still want the Fed to do what it can to create more jobs and spur the sort of wage gains that have eluded much of the nation. The poll of 716 registered voters also found respondents wanting greater public input into the central bank's decision making.

 

 

The survey was conducted in early September by Public Policy Polling under the direction of the left-leading Center for Popular Democracy. The group has been actively arguing against any move to raise short-term interest rates from current levels. Over recent months, its activists have been meeting with regional Fed bank president to press their case. The group also brought their case this year's high-profile central bank research conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

In the survey, 62% of respondents said high unemployment remains a "major problem," and 60% said low wages and weak incomes were also significant concerns. Half said the same thing about inflation. Just over half of respondents said the Fed should use its policy tools to prioritize job creation and stronger wage gains--versus 38% who want the central bank to direct its main focus to controlling inflation.

"There is no threat of inflation," said Connie Razza, Director of Strategic Research with the CDP. The poll shows Americans believe "the U.S. economy is not healthy enough to raise rates right now," she said in a conference call with reporters discussing the survey.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe the economy could benefit from maintaining low rates, and a similar amount want to see the current ultralow rates maintained.

The Fed is set to meet Wednesday and Thursday next week to decide what to do with its near-zero short-term interest rate target. Until only recently, there were fairly broad-based expectations that officials would raise rates at the meeting, ending an unprecedented era of ultralow rates that have prevailed since the end of 2008.

But a sharp rise in global uncertainty spurred by questions about growth in China, as well as the waves of market volatility this situation has unleashed, has undone any sense of certainty about what the Fed will do next week.

Steady if unspectacular growth coupled with a solid drop in the unemployment rate underpin the case to raise rates. Arguing against is persistently weak inflation and weak wage growth, with the Fed failing to achieve its price target for over three years. The Fed is legally charged with promoting job growth and stable inflation, and for many there is a conflict right now between the employment and inflation environments. That makes interest-rate decisions difficult for central bankers.

The poll also found dissatisfaction with the Fed's democratic accountability. Some 71% of respondents said the public doesn't have enough input into central-bank decision making. A majority of respondents believe the financial sector is overrepresented on regional Fed boards of directors.

The poll is unusual in that the public's attitude about the central bank is rarely measured. As important as the Fed is to the economy's performance, its mission and tools are often little understood by the broader public. For most of the Fed's history, its officials were happy operating in the shadows. But over recent years the Fed has become much more open about its aims and activities. Still, a Pew Research from last year found that only a quarter of Americans could even name Janet Yellen as chairwoman of the Fed.

"The focus on the Fed is extraordinary," Josh Bivens, director of Research and Policy at Economic Policy Institute, said on the conference call. The Fed "is the only engine we have for this recovery, and that's why it's getting all the attention," he said.

Source: Nasdaq

   

Dec. 1 — More than a dozen states and cities in the past year considered legislation to require retail stores and restaurants to provide extra pay to employees for last-minute work schedule changes. Thus far only a handful of cities have enacted such measures into law.

These predictive or predictable scheduling proposals, also called fair workweek measures, were “very popular” in 2016, John S. Hong, an employment law attorney with Littler Mendelson in San Francisco, recently told Bloomberg BNA.

“But they died on the vine in a lot of states,” Hong said.

In addition to providing “predictability” pay, these measures would require employers to notify workers about their schedules a certain number of weeks in advance under predictive scheduling proposals. They also include “access to hours” provisions that require employers to offer newly available hours to part-time staff before hiring new workers or using contractors or staffing agencies.

Worker advocacy groups praise these measures as providing secure, clear and stable scheduling for workers. But employers counter that these requirements remove the flexibility needed for retailers and restaurants to operate their businesses effectively.

Predictive Scheduling Is ‘The Next Fight.’

Predictive scheduling bills this year were withdrawn or never went to a vote in California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Rhode Island.

Similar bills or provisions died in Connecticut, Illinois, Maine and Oregon in 2015.

Washington, D.C., also tabled a predictive scheduling proposal this year, while a court rejected a ballot initiative on the issue in Cleveland, Hong said.

Still, employee advocates said the number of jurisdictions that have considered scheduling laws is encouraging.

Introduction of the bills initiates public conversations among workers, employers and policy makers about the issue, they said.

“They begin the legislative process, which can take multiple years,” Elianne Farhat, deputy campaign director of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative.

Predictive scheduling is “the next fight,” following the success of the “Fight for $15" minimum wage initiative, Farhat told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 30.

“The issue will continue to pick up steam and move forward,” she said.

Two Cities Join San Francisco

Two cities this year enacted predictive scheduling laws. Seattle and Emeryville, Calif., followed in the footsteps of San Francisco, which passed the nation’s first ever predictive scheduling law in late 2014

Rules implementing San Francisco’s ordinance went into effect in March 2016. They apply to businesses that have 20 or more employees in the city and at least 40 retail sales establishments worldwide.

Seattle and Emeryville’s laws take effect in 2017.

Seattle’s law applies to retail and quick or limited food-service establishments with more than 500 employees worldwide and full-service restaurants with more than 500 employees and 40 full-service locations worldwide.

Emeryville’s law applies to businesses with more than 55 employees worldwide.

New Hampshire, San Jose Also Pass Laws

On the predictive scheduling periphery are San Jose, Calif., and New Hampshire, which passed narrower laws in the past year.

San Jose voters approved a ballot initiative in November that focused only on access to hour protections for part-time employees, meaning they would be given extra hours prior to hiring others.

New Hampshire in June didn’t quite enact a predictive scheduling law. Instead, it required employers to consider employee requests for flexible working arrangements and prohibited employers from retaliating against workers who made those requests.

The New Hampshire law is “minimal, but still important,” Liz Ben-Ishai, senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA.

Farhat added that Washington, D.C. passed a law guaranteeing a 30-hour minimum workweek for building service workers, although it tabled its broader predictive scheduling law.

Depending on the needs of a particular locality, some cities or states will pass broader scheduling laws, while others pass narrower provisions.

“They’re all part of updating our work hour standards,” Farhat said.

Looking Ahead to 2017

Predictive scheduling bills are pending in New Jersey and Massachusetts, Hong said. But the latter “may die for lack of action” before the end of the year.

A measure also is pending in Minnesota, according to CLASP data, but it may share the same fate as the Massachusetts bill.

Asked if the issue of predictive scheduling will continue to crop up in 2017, Hong said more cities and states may consider such measures. But “ultimately they may die on the vine,” he said.

Ben-Ishai provided a more optimistic outlook for predictive scheduling.

“I think it’s a promising area moving forward,” she said.

State and local lawmakers in Oregon could consider predictive scheduling measures next year, she said. In 2015, a state predictive scheduling bill died in committee, but legislators preempted scheduling ordinances at the local level only until 2017.

Portland, Ore., already has passed a resolution to study and eventually establish workweek principles for city contractors, Farhat said.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio in September announced that the city is developing legislation that would require predictable work schedules for about 65,000 hourly fast-food employees in the city.

Predictive scheduling is expected to come back in Washington, D.C. next year “in a very serious way,” Farhat said. And California may onceagain consider a statewide measure, she added.

Don’t Forget About State Preemption Laws

Hong observed that several states have preemption laws that prevent cities, towns and counties from passing workplace laws that conflict with state or federal law.

About 22 states so far have expressly preempted localities from adopting such laws, like those that would raise minimum wages, provide leave benefits or expand workplace anti-discrimination protections. Most of these state have enacted the laws within the last five years., Lawmakers in about 11 other states have introduced similar bills so far in 2016.

At least five states—Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas and Michigan—have laws that could preempt local predictive scheduling laws, Hong said.

Preemption laws don’t necessarily indicate that legislatures are against fair scheduling, he said. “They don’t want local governments doing something potentially inconsistent with state law,” Hong said.

But Ben-Ishai contended that preemption laws can be a strategy taken by lawmakers who “are not friendly to workers’ rights.”

Federal Predictive Scheduling Law?

A federal predictive scheduling bill known as the Schedules That Work Act ( H.R. 3071, S. 1772) was introduced in both houses of Congress in July 2015.

The identical bills were sponsored by democrats and have remained stalled in committee. They are unlikely to be considered for a vote before the year ends.

Ben-Ishai said she expects the bills’ sponsors, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), will reintroduce the legislation in the next Congress.

But given Republican control of both Congress and the White House, Ben-Ishai said, “I don’t think we’re super optimistic about it moving forward.”

Predictive scheduling will have a better chance at seeing “more movement” at the state and local levels, she said.

By: Jay-Anne B. Casuga

Source

After weeks of a hunger strike by 12 residents fighting for the predominately African-American Bronzeville’s Walter Dyett High School, two strikers were admitted to the hospital.

All this in an effort to make Chicago Public School (CPS) officials heed their plea: to end the privatization of education and to make Walter Dyett High school into a Green Technology community high school.

The hunger strikers are saying what needs to be said: that Black and brown children must be valued, their families must be valued, and their schools must nourish their inherit value.

The demands of the hunger strikers are easy to understand. They don’t merely want a re-opened school, as was finally agreed to by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and CPS last week after 18 days of hunger strike. They want a Green Technology community high school with parent engagement in decision-making from the beginning. Their plan for the new school was vetted by multiple education experts at the University of Chicago. The comprehensive plan presented by the community and the hunger strikers to CPS was “excellent and should be chosen,” said Jeannie Oakes, president of American Educational Research Association, AERA.

Why Walter Dyett High School was set up for closure by the CPS to begin with is difficult to understand. The school received awards in 2008 and 2011. First, for the largest increase of students going to college out of all Chicago’s public schools, and then the ESPN “Rise Up” award for small schools making great improvements, but in need of some help. The school won a $4 million athletic facilities renovation.

So what happened? In a part of town activists say is a target for gentrification, the school was closed before students even got a chance to enjoy the new facilities. The strikers called it “racism” and “systemic disinvestment.” “Our schools weren’t failing,” they said. “They were failed.” And Walter Dyett High School was set to become yet another victim in the closing of over 50 neighborhood Chicago public schools in favor of privately owned and managed charter schools, with poor records of achievement, no accountability and inadequate oversight. But due to the sacrifice of the hunger strikers risking their health, that plan was overturned last week.

However, the Bronzeville hunger strikers know what a growing chorus of national education experts recognize: while just keeping schools open is not enough, sustainable “community schools” can help transform neighborhoods. As it is now, Bronzeville is a food and job desert, but Green Technology addresses both problems. There are already 5000 community schools in the US that through civic partnerships address the majority of challenges in a neighborhood by providing wrap-around healthcare, social and psychological services, in addition to the standard educational offerings. Community schools focus on restorative justice practices and a curriculum based in the community and evaluated by teachers, so students can learn more. Community schools are making marked gains in student outcomes both academically and socially.

Take Cincinnati. The city turned around their public schools’ statistics when they bet on the effectiveness of community schools over charter schools. The results are staggering. In 2003, before introducing the model, only 51 percent of all students graduated. In 2014, when 34 out 55 schools were community schools, 82 percent of all students were graduating. Community schools combat racial inequality, as well: in Cincinnati, the black/white achievement gap dropped 10 percent in those same 11 years. Similar results are seen in New York, Baltimore, Kentucky, Ohio, Minnesota, and other places where community schools have been prioritized.

These are the kind of schools that Bronzeville deserves.

It is under this history of political disinvestment that Bronzeville community leaders arrived to last month’s protests: community members risking their health to fight for their children’s access to something as basic as a good public school. While school officials took the right first step by moving to keep Dyett open, they must heed the deeper call of the people of Bronzeville and invest in a community school that will better the future of the children in Chicago. 

Source: In These Times

The narrative emerging from the aftermath of the 2016 election is that Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency on the back of populist economic insecurity, elected by voters who felt left behind by a globalized economy. While the official unemployment rate continued its descent below 5 percent, Trump claimed a 'real' unemployment rate of 40 percent was driving the frustration.

That rate is drawn from Trump's overactive imagination - like many of Trump's ravings. But the fact that workers so readily believed him while responding so eagerly to his economic message reflects the reality that wages have been stagnant for decades and that we are nowhere near a galloping economy. You'd be hard-pressed to find many Americans who believe the economy is so strong that it needs to be slowed down by higher interest rates right now.

The economic discontent is grounded in data. New research from economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez shows that the bottom half of the population in the United States has experienced zero growth since the 1970s.

Even though average national income per adult grew by 61 percent from 1980 to 2014, the average pre-tax income of the bottom 50 percent of individual income earners stagnated at about $16,000 per adult after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, income more than doubled for the top 10 percent, more than tripled for the top 1 percent, and for those in the top 0.001 percent, grew more than seven times.

This week, the Federal Reserve is nearly certain to hike interest rates for the second time in a decade, following last December's quarter-point increase in the federal-funds rate. This tightening of monetary policy is intended to slow down economic growth, reduce job creation, and prevent wages from rising.

In the wake of the 2016 election, do Fed officials really think that the American people want a slower, weaker economy than the one we have now?

"The Fed is one of the few institutions that remains largely independent from presidential interference and it must step up to the leadership that these times demand."

The Fed is now more important than ever. We are entering an era in which President-elect Donald Trump will control the Treasury Department and Republicans will control both houses of Congress. Federal public policy will be aimed at further enriching the 1 percent and leaving American workers out in the cold.

The Fed is one of the few institutions that remains largely independent from presidential interference and it must step up to the leadership that these times demand. The Fed needs to be an ally for working families during a period when they are otherwise under assault from every other part of government.

This week, Fed policy-makers will point to the November jobs report, showing a decline in unemployment to 4.6 percent from 4.9 percent the previous month, to justify a rate increase. Much of this decline can be attributed to people who've simply given up looking for work -- or, in economic parlance, a decline in labor force participation.

A far more accurate indicator of a full-employment economy is wage growth, which was weaker in November than it was in preceding months. Wage growth grew 2.5 percent in November on an annual basis, slower than October's 2.8 percent increase and September's 2.7 percent rise.

Wage growth is far from the 3.5 percent or higher we would expect in a full-employment economy.

Inflation, too, has hovered around 1 percent for most of the year, well below the Fed's already-low 2 percent stated inflation target. Tentative rises in September and October, to 1.5 percent and 1.6 percent respectively, hardly call for a pre-emptive interest rise.

If the Fed were to raise rates this week, it would be out of line with rates in Japan and Europe, which are at 0 or in negative territory, and above the U.K.'s rate of 0.25 percent. The central banks in these other countries realize that inflation is not a real threat and that tighter labor markets are a far more important goal.

The Fed should not only take into account the global context but also listen to the anguished cry of working and middle class voters. If the election has taught the Fed nothing else, it should be that we cannot afford to ignore the economic reality of working people.

By Ady Barkan

Source