CPD IN THE NEWS

Este lunes, Día internacional del trabajo, se escucharán las voces de miles de inmigrantes indocumentados y sus aliados, que ha 100 días del mandato de Donald Trump, dicen sentirse cansados por el acoso del gobierno. Durante el 1 de mayo también se verán huelgas comerciales, paros laborales y manifestaciones estudiantiles.

Lea el artículo completo aquí.

American Banker - April 9, 2015, by Kevin Wack - The nation's largest banks are again under attack — this time over how they treat their own rank-and-file employees. 

A coalition called the Committee for Better Banks, which includes unions and community groups, is planning protests Monday outside big-bank offices in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.  The organizers are marrying long-standing complaints about the impact of bank practices in low-income neighborhoods and the large salaries of top executives with newer gripes about the banks' treatment of their own tellers and sales representatives.  The central message is that the country's biggest banks should be paying higher wages, offering better benefits, and eliminating aggressive sales goals that can create stress for lower-pay employees.  "While the financial industry has recovered in a big way since the crash — it's really come back strong — frontline workers have not experienced that," said Aditi Sen, a research analyst at the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy organization that released a report Thursday in connection with the upcoming protests.

In May 2014, the annual mean wage for tellers at depository institutions was $26,720, or $12.84 per hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It's not clear whether the upcoming protests will include a substantial number of bank employees. Erin Mahoney, a spokeswoman for the coalition, said in an email that "thousands of bank workers have been engaging with us" using petitions and other methods.

Source

The Star-Ledger - July 10, 2014 by Sue Epstein - Middlesex County officials are no longer complying with a federal request to hold all immigrants suspected of being undocumented in the county jail for an additional 48 hours after their scheduled release.

In a policy change approved by Middlesex County freeholders last week and put into effect Tuesday, the detainee can be freed unless charged with a first- or second-degree crime, is identified as a known gang member and has been subject to a final order of removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Thomas Kelso, the Middlesex County counsel, said in a statement that people not meeting the serious offense criteria would continue to be released immediately after meeting the legal obligations.

"The policy was established after extensive review and consideration," Freeholder Director Ronald G. Rios said. "We need to be sensitive to the rights of individuals, but must protect our citizens from those with histories of violent crime. We believe that the policy that has been implemented in Middlesex County strikes a fair balance."

Although immigration rights groups applauded the change in policy, they contended that it did not go far enough.

Karina Wilkinson, co-founder of the Middlesex County Coalition for Immigrant Rights, said she wanted the county to stop honoring all 48-hour courtesy detainer requests from federal immigration authorities for county inmates.

"We are pleased to see Middlesex County moving in the right direction in ending their compliance with ICE detainers," Wilkinson said. "The county could still go further to respect the constitutional rights of everyone."

Wilkinson’s group began discussing the proposed policy change with county officials in December.

Wilkinson and Emily Tucker, an attorney for the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group, said Middlesex County was the first county in the state to change its policy, joining more than 115 jurisdictions nationwide that have enacted similar changes. And of those 115, Wilkinson said, 90 have refused to honor any ICE detainers.

Tucker said the policy changes came on the heels of several federal court rulings that detainers are not legally binding, and that a federal court decision in Oregon said that honoring the detainers could open the jurisdiction to lawsuits.

"The courts have said ICE shows no probable cause to hold these inmates," Tucker said. "It is not the business of law enforcement to enforce immigration orders, it is the federal government’s job. The counties should not be holding anyone on behalf of ICE without a warrant."

Wilkinson said that in 2012, when a federal program known as Operation Secure Communities began in New Jersey, there were 330 detainers issued for inmates at the Middlesex County jail, making the county third in the state behind Essex and Hudson counties in the number of requests issued.

Tucker said the coalition of organizations that pushed Middlesex County to change its policy is working with Essex and Hudson counties in an effort to reach a similar outcome.

According to the ICE website, when a suspected undocumented immigrant is arrested the FBI forwards the fingerprints to the Department of Homeland Security to check against its immigration databases.

If the check shows that a person is undocumented or otherwise removable because of a criminal conviction, a 48-hour detainer is issued to the local jurisdiction.

Bryan Cox, a spokesman for ICE, said the agency remained "committed to working with our law enforcement partners and making our communities safer by protection public safety and national security, and the integrity of the immigration.

Source

Your editorial is exactly right about the lack of impartiality with “The Federal Reserve’s Politicians” (Aug. 29). While created by Congress, the Fed continues to act as though it is completely unaccountable to the people’s representatives.

As I pointed out to Chairwoman Janet Yellen during a congressional hearing last year, her own calendar reflects weekly meetings with political figures and partisan special-interest groups. Even more troubling, there is a long history of Fed chairs or governors serving as partisan figures in the Treasury or the White House before their appointment. So while the Fed is quick to decry any attempts at congressional oversight, it cannot credibly claim to be politically independent.

We need a rules-based monetary policy that doesn’t leave the Fed with the potential to push an ideologically driven agenda. To make the Fed truly free from politics, the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act of 2015, which my colleagues and I have passed through the House, should be signed into law. The American people deserve transparency at the Fed and market-driven monetary policy that can finally restore confidence in our economy.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.)

Glen Rock, N.J.

Your editorial accuses Fed Up, a group representing low-income black and brown communities, of politicizing the Fed, when big banks have always had undue access and influence over the Fed’s policies.

In fact, commercial banks literally own the Federal Reserve. Unlike nearly every other central bank in the world, the Fed isn’t a public institution but instead operates as a joint venture with the banking sector. It is not true that as long as this status quo of Wall Street domination continues, then the Fed is “independent,” but when the Fed Up campaign’s low-income people of color dare to join the monetary-policy conversation, then the Fed’s “independence” has been compromised.

You mention that retirees living off their retirement plans are suffering from a decade of near-zero interest rates. Presumably this refers to retirees who might have a hundred thousand or two tucked away for retirement. This is already far more than the low-wage workers who have joined our campaign will be able to accrue over a lifetime of working.

But let’s take the argument at face value. Even if the Fed were to raise interest rates up to 2%, that’s a mere $2,000 on $100,000 savings over a year. That won’t make much of a difference to how well a middle-class retiree lives, but hiking rates to that level prematurely could cut off struggling families—who are disproportionately people of color—from the added jobs and higher wages they so desperately need.

Shawn Sebastian

Fed Up Campaign

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Lobbying the Federal Reserve as if it is a legislature began with the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation and the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977. The chair of the Fed became politicized and conflicted as the act included mandated congressional grilling of the Fed chair, who is now required to stabilize prices, moderate long-term interest rates, while at the same time delivering low unemployment. These lofty goals can’t necessarily be simultaneously executed, as Paul Volcker showed so well when he attacked inflation, effectively saying that employment would rise with a solid economy that had price stability.

Mr. Volcker had the courage to take the abuse and address his critics as he followed a logical path and publicly explained it, but successive chairs have gradually focused more on pleasing the president who appointed them.

Rep. Kevin Brady’s idea for a commission to rethink the idea of the Fed is a good start. We now have about 40 years of increasing monetary, fiscal and employment messes, with a paralyzed Fed, unsustainable deficits and underemployment because politics tramples economic common sense.

Larry Stewart

Vienna, Va.

Source