CPD IN THE NEWS

“Some campaigners are critical of the Fed’s handling of the mis-selling scandal at Wells Fargo, which is headquartered in Mr Williams’s district, while activists with the Fed Up group want the New York Fed to restart its search. “We haven’t seen as big a backlash as this to a regional Fed appointment,” said Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University. “The criticism has been coming only from the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. The Fed depends on there being public support, and it can only make tough decisions if it is seen as having legitimacy. The more criticism it faces the harder it is to do its job."

Read the full article here.

Liberal and conservative groups of central-bank critics plan to hold events to coincide with the Fed symposium, which runs Thursday through Saturday.

The left-leaning group, called Fed Up, will be gathering in the same Jackson Lake Lodge as the Fed attendees, arguing the central bank shouldn’t raise short-term interest rates anytime soon. The right-leaning group, the American Principles Project, is holding a separate gathering nearby to discuss the effect of Fed policies on the dollar and to urge the current crop of presidential candidates to pay more attention to Fed policy issues.

Fed officials also are getting plenty of advice from other experts on the sidelines. Harvard University’s Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and one-time candidate for Fed chairman, warned in an opinion article this week that raising rates soon would be a “dangerous mistake.” Martin Feldstein, another Harvard professor, used an opinion article to blame the stock market’s current woes on past Fed policy mistakes and urge the Fed not to delay rate increases beyond September.

The Kansas City Fed conference takes place amid considerable turmoil in global financial markets. Stocks, bonds and currencies have gyrated in recent days as investors try to make sense of China’s economic slowdown and what that could mean for the U.S., the global economy and markets. The anxiety has occluded the outlook for Fed policy: Whereas market participants were recently looking to a possible mid-September Fed rate increase, it now appears the odds have diminished.

The liberal Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up coalition says it is planning to bring 50 or more activists to the Jackson Lake Lodge for meetings on Fed policy, economic inequality and racial disparities. The group also went to Jackson Hole last year.

Fed Up plans to hold a news conference Thursday and panel discussions with names such as, “Do Black Lives Matter to the Fed?” and “Who’s Afraid of High Wages? A History of the Inflation Bogeyman.” The group says its events are open to all and it hopes attendees at the Kansas City Fed event stop by.

Fed Up has seen successes in gaining one-on-one meetings with regional Fed bank leaders—they recently sat down with the chiefs of the Atlanta and New York Fed banks. It will bring folks to Jackson Hole who are affected by central-bank policies, but whose voices are rarely heard in the debate.

Atlanta resident Dawn O’Neill, a 48-year-old married grandmother, plans to go to Jackson Hole with the Fed Up group. Her unemployed husband struggles to find day work in the construction industry, and she works as teacher’s assistant in a day-care facility for $8.50 an hour.

“When the Fed says the economy is in recovery, and they want to raise the interest rates, I look around and I don’t see recovery,” Ms. O’Neal said. “I see lines of black men that want work, but there is no work.”

The group says that if the Fed keeps its benchmark short-term rate near zero for longer, it will generate more economic growth that creates more jobs among low-wage earners as well as higher-paid workers. The group also believes that better job growth will help benefit minorities and make discrimination harder.

“We have leaders of the Fed who don’t think slow wages and underemployment are problems,” said Ady Barkan, who leads Fed Up’s activities. “When you have leadership like that, you get policies that don’t advance the needs of working families,” he told reporters in a conference call on Monday.

Fed chiefs for years have acknowledged the painfully slow recovery of the labor market and rising income inequality. Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen gave a speech on inequality last October that garnered her criticism from congressional Republicans who believe such matters are beyond the Fed’s official mission.

Fed officials say their easy-money policies aimed at stimulating the economy are intended to benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy. Last year, former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed to the recovery of the housing and labor markets as evidence the Fed’s efforts were helping the middle and lower classes.

Even now, Fed officials generally say raising their benchmark short-term rate target by a quarter-percentage point from near zero won’t offer much restraint to growth. The see a small move as reducing the amount of economic stimulus they are providing, akin to lightening the pressure on the accelerator rather than tapping the brake.

They believe that while inflation remains too low, the unemployment rate has fallen enough to start the process of getting short-term interest rates back to more historically normal levels. Some worry that if the Fed sticks with ultralow rates much longer, it could create financial-market bubbles that could wound the broader economy.

The Fed also will be challenged by the American Principles Project, which is holding its event near the central-bank conference and will count participants from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, both Washington think tanks. In a news release, Steven Lonegan, the group’s monetary-policy director, said, “We will challenge prevailing wisdom and show how the Federal Reserve’s policies have negatively impacted wage growth and contributed to the rising cost of living.”

Wage growth has been tepid in recent years, despite Fed officials’ hopes their easy-money policies would spur stronger gains. Inflation has fallen well short of the Fed’s 2% target for years.

The Kansas City Fed declined to comment on the activity of outside groups around its conference.

Source: iBloomberg

When New York City implemented its IDNYC municipal ID system, it was meant to give undocumented immigrants a way to access crucial services that require government identification. But as Donald Trump’s inauguration looms, a new lawsuit will test the wisdom of keeping sensitive data for the program.

A NEW LAWSUIT WILL TEST THE WISDOM OF HOLDING THE DATA

Two Republican state assembly members have sued to stop the destruction of records on hundreds of thousands of cardholders, and a court has decided that the records must remain, pending a hearing later this month. Soon after, Trump will take office, as advocates worry whether he’ll target the information to identify undocumented immigrants.

There is no guarantee the lawsuit will succeed, or that Trump will be able to use the records — which contain information on many people besides immigrants — for deportation purposes. But what looked like a clever bureaucratic gambit is unexpectedly something very different, and to immigrants, possibly more dangerous.

When it designed the IDNYC program, New York retained information on cardholders, but with a caveat: at the end of this year, the city would have the power to change how it holds the data. In an act of partisan gamesmanship, the clause in the local law amounted to a kill switch — one that was put in place, as one Councilman almost presciently put it, “in case a Tea Party Republican comes into office.”

THE CLEVER GAMBIT SUDDENLY LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT

The suit filed this week rests on New York’s state transparency law, known as the Freedom of Information Law, or FOIL. According to the suit, since there are no provisions in the law that allow for the destruction of government records, the city would be overstepping its bounds by destroying the IDNYC data, especially based on who is in office.

The dispute isn’t without precedent. In New Haven, Connecticut, a similar legal battle unfolded over the city’s municipal ID program. There, an anti-immigration group also sued the city under the state’s freedom of information law, with plans to turn the information over to ICE. In that case, the city beat back the lawsuit, but that won’t ensure the same outcome in New York.

“The city is violating state law,” Nicole Malliotakis, one of the Assembly members involved in the suit, told The Verge. “They are not doing what’s in the best interest of the citizens that they are representing.”

In many ways, the database debate parallels other stories of unintended consequences unfolding as the government prepares to transition from Obama to Trump. How will Trump use the surveillance apparatus created by Obama? What does this mean for the undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, who are staying through an Obama executive order?

THE DATABASE DEBATE PARALLELS STORIES UNFOLDING ACROSS GOVERNMENT

As the Center for Popular Democracy, which advocates for immigrants’ rights, pointed out in a report last year, there are two generally accepted ways to safeguard sensitive data: explicitly prevent its release in the legislation, or never provide the data in the first place. Cities have already proven that not retaining underlying personal information is viable — San Francisco operates a program without using underlying application documents, for one example.

Win or lose, if there’s any lesson for privacy advocates and local governments to carry from the unexpected battle over its data, it may be that even planned self-destruction is no impenetrable barrier against misuse. The best way to keep sensitive data private may still be to never hold the data at all.

By Colin Lecher 

Source

Washington Post - 05-08-2015  -  If there’s one labor issue that’s 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 legislation hasn’t been hammered out yet, but the labor-backed group Jobs with Justice says it will likely 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, which is now tabulating the results of a survey of hundreds of hourly workers in the city on scheduling issues. “People aren’t getting their schedules with enough time to plan childcare and the rest of the things in their lives.”

When a proposal reaches the D.C. Council in the coming months, Washington won’t be the first: Following the 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 employees 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.

But 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’s 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 at 14th and P streets in Washington 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 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 taken into account how much their scheduling practices are actually costing them in the form of employee turnover, professor Joan Williams says.

“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."

— Professor Joan Williams, Hastings College of Law

“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. In a survey of retail and restaurant workers in Washington, Jobs with Justice found that employers like Forever21 and Chipotle are among the worst offenders. (Forever21 did not respond to a request for comment. Chipotle says it publishes schedules four days in advance, with shifts lasting seven hours on average.)

And now, there’s legislation to benchmark against. 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 like 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 like 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.

Scheduling legislation even exists on the federal level. A federal bill introduced in Congress last summer would require employers to make schedule accommodations for health or childcare needs, unless there is a “bona fide business reason” for denying it. Yet another bill, proposed last month, would prevent employers from firing workers for requesting a schedule change.

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 DC less attractive to businesses, than I’m concerned about that."

— Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce

“Any time you alter how employers hire, schedule or retain their workforce, if that flexibility makes DC 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.

Making it real

Laws, of course, are only as good as their enforcers. And scheduling laws, with their far-reaching impact, could be particularly difficult to follow up on.

Just ask unions, which already have many of the proposed scheduling rules in their contracts. Making sure employers stick to them is a big job, even though union dues pay for far more inspectors — in the form of business agents and shop stewards — than city and state governments ever will.

“The union has this exact set of provisions in its contracts, and they are extremely important for making sure that if you have the seniority you can get the fullest work week possible,” says John Boardman, president of UNITE-HERE Local 25, which represents 6,500 mostly hotel workers in the D.C. area. “But it also takes a very, very strong enforcement mechanism in order to make these provisions of the contract viable and living.”

Jobs with Justice already knows this. A few years ago, D.C. passed laws requiring employers to pay for a minimum of 4 hours in a shift, even if a worker was sent home early, and to pay an extra hour’s worth of wages for every “split shift” (with a long break in the middle) that an employee works. In its survey, Jobs with Justice found that workers were sent home early and asked to work split shifts just as much as they were in 2010, when another survey was done, suggesting the laws hadn’t had much effect.

That’s why they’re hoping the city will put more resources into enforcement, in the form of inspectors and people to process claims. But it’s also going to have to involve a massive education campaign to make workers aware they even have these new rights.

"It is easier to enforce these things when you have a union contract and a grievance procedure, and a shop steward and union infrastructure to back that up,” says Schwartz. “But we can’t keep relying on that as our only model. Because there’s so many workers in the growing retail and restaurant sectors that need those protections, too.”

Source: The Washington Post