Housing Rights Group Says HUD Program Helps Wall Street, Hurts Homeowners
Truthout - October 5, 2014, by Rebecca Burns - After learning that his home was in foreclosure in July 2013, James...
Truthout - October 5, 2014, by Rebecca Burns - After learning that his home was in foreclosure in July 2013, James Cheeseman received an even more unpleasant surprise when he showed up in court the following January. He was told that his mortgage loan had been sold by JP Morgan Chase and purchased by a company he had never heard of before - LVS Financial.
Cheeseman had already applied for a loan modification from Chase and says he was still awaiting a response when the loan sale occurred - a move that he and his attorney argue violates New York State foreclosure laws. Cheeseman says that the new servicer, BSI Financial, then required him to fill out a whole new loan modification application. In mid-September, he learned that he had been denied.
Though he is asking the court for another shot at a modification, this curveball has caused considerable distress for Cheeseman, 47, and his mother Constance, 75, who have resided in the New York home that they co-own for five years.
"I was shocked; I thought that [the resale of bundles of bad loans] was over," he says. "That's what got the country into trouble in the 2008 [mortgage crisis]. But lo and behold, it's still going on."
Legal advocates, however, say that significant abuses by servicers may already have taken place.
In fact, the Cheesemans and their attorney believe that the sale of their loan was part of a recently expanded federal program ostensibly intended to provide relief to homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. Though foreclosure rates have been falling nationwide, 2 million homeowners are still behind on their mortgages and headed for foreclosure and another 10 million are underwater on their mortgages and at risk of the same in the future. About half a million of those seriously delinquent loans are insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), representing a drain on the agency's taxpayer-backed insurance fund.
In 2012, the FHA expanded a program to auction off pools of "nonperforming loans" - those on which homeowners are at least six months delinquent on their mortgage payments - to both for-profit and nonprofit bidders. To date, nearly 100,000 loans have been sold through the Distressed Asset Stabilization Program (DASP), bringing $8.8 billion into the FHA's coffers. The agency asserts that the program can also help reduce foreclosures, as private loan-buyers not hemmed in by the same restrictions as the government agency should be able to pursue a wider range of avenues to keep residents in their homes.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of DASP is where loans sold through it are ending up. HUD's own data reveals that 98 percent of these loans were purchased by private investors.
But citing stories like Cheeseman's, some housing-rights organizations are telling a different story about DASP. They contest that the program has deepened the pain of homeowners and tenants by handing their fates over to hedge funds and investment groups that often have no interest in pursuing loan modifications or other options that would allow residents to remain in their homes. On September 9, community groups in more than 10 cities nationwide protested at local offices of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which oversees the FHA and DASP. Noting that, by HUD's own numbers, private investors - including private equity firms, hedge funds, specialty servicers and single-family rental companies - have won bids on close to 98 percent of all loans auctioned through DASP, many housing advocates are calling for a halt to the program until it can be overhauled.
Asked about criticisms of DASP, HUD told Truthout that it is exploring several changes to the program. But on September 30, the FHA proceeded with the sale of another pools of loans totaling $2.3 billion in unpaid principal balances.
The Devil's in the Details
HUD did not release data on DASP to the public until August, though housing advocates have for some time been requesting information on the program's outcomes. In its first report on DASP, HUD concluded that the loan-sales program has "met its intention" of mitigating losses to the FHA, thereby minimizing risks to taxpayers. The agency touts sales made through DASP as a way to stabilize its taxpayer-backed insurance fund, which, following losses of more than $50 billion on mortgages it insures, required a federal subsidy of $1.7 billion for the first time in its 80-year history. HUD projects that in the coming years, DASP and other loss-mitigation strategies will add $5 billion to the FHA's insurance fund.
"By selling homes to private equity giants and vulture capitalists, DASP is fueling the rise of the Wall Street landlord."
The report concludes that DASP may be beneficial for homeowners as well, citing the fact that, while about half of the loans sold had not yet been resolved, of those that had, 34 percent of homeowners were able to avoid foreclosure. In a statement provided to Truthout by HUD, FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said:
We consider the Distressed Assets Sales Program to be very successful in accomplishing what we intended it to do. This program not only achieves significant cost savings for FHA's insurance fund, but offers borrowers a final opportunity to avoid foreclosure, which they wouldn't otherwise have. The results speak for themselves. Based on our initial data, an encouraging share of families are now re-performing and others have achieved a graceful exit from an unsustainable mortgage. It's important to note that all these families would be foreclosed upon if not for this program, which, in one way or another, has offered many of these borrowers another path.
But community groups say that this characterization lumps together dramatically different outcomes for homeowners. A September report released by the community groups Right to the City Alliance and Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) notes that of loans that were counted as having avoided foreclosure, many had been sold to a third party or resulted in a short-sale. Though homeowners were able to avoid foreclosure in 34 percent of loans resolved to date, they were able to gain modifications or otherwise begin making payments again in just 10.9 percent of the resolved cases.
"What we want to see is people being able to stay in their homes. And this category of 'foreclosure avoidance' includes a lot of outcomes in which [they] were absolutely not able to stay in their homes," Connie Razza, CPD's director of strategic research and author of the report, titled "Vulture Capital Hits Home: How HUD is Helping Wall Street and Hurting Our Communities," told Truthout.
Homeowners Claim Abuses
That's not the only bone housing activists have to pick with the program. Only loans that are not eligible for standard FHA loss mitigation - those, that, for example, have failed to qualify for loan modifications or other measures - are supposed to be included in the program. But some legal and housing advocates believe that mortgage servicers, for whom a quick insurance payout may be more attractive than a lengthy foreclosure process, could be flouting this requirement.
"When speculators heat up the market for 'distressed mortgages' they make it harder for anyone who acquires them - whether for profit or nonprofit - to make win-win deals that preserve homeownership and stabilize communities."
For example, James Cheeseman says he was beginning a settlement conference with Chase Bank, a step required under New York law to determine whether a modification, short sale or other alternative agreement can be reached before a lender proceeds with foreclosure, when his attorney learned that his loan had been sold in January. Cheeseman says that he was never notified of the sale - instead, he says, his attorney noticed the change during the discovery phase of the settlement conference.
"Our suspicion is that once [Chase] found out that [the foreclosure] was going to be an extended process, they sold their note," says Cheeseman. "The've been hit with fines for shady practices in the past, but they’re still doing it. But HUD is a government agency - it's like we're paying for those shady practices."
James and Constance Cheeseman's house went into foreclosure in 2013 after James was laid off from his job as an auto claims examiner. He says that he and his mother fell victim to a loan-modification scam at the hands of the Templeton Group, against whom the New York District attorney recently filed a suit over such abuses. But the Cheesemans applied for another modification last year, hopeful that the result would be different, given that James had found work again, and they also had additional income through a renter. They believe that the loan's sale has restricted their options: After purchase by an investor, the Cheesemans' loan was no longer insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), disqualifying them from the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). BSI Financial, the loan's new servicer, is attempting to continue with the foreclosure.
Nonprofits have been unsuccessful in buying loans through DASP after being outbid by for-profit competitors.
Banks selling loans to the FHA for auction through DASP receive an insurance payout equal to the unpaid principal balance of the loan. Housing-policy advocates fear that this could create an incentive for mortgage servicers to cut through judicial red tape by simply selling loans to the FHA for auction through DASP. Another report, released in September by the progressive think-tank the Center for American Progress (CAP), notes that roughly 76 percent of the loans auctioned through DASP between 2013 and 2014 were sold off by Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or Wells Fargo - three banks that have become notorious for loan-servicing abuses.
"Servicers stand to make out very well from this program," says Sarah Edelman, a researcher at CAP and one of the authors of the report.
HUD tells Truthout that, in response to concerns from CAP and other housing advocates, it has recently changed the process through which it verifies that servicers have fully exhausted loss-mitigations options. Previously, servicers were permitted to self-report that they had completed all the mandatory steps, and HUD program officers conducted checks on a sample of the loans submitted for auction. In advance of the auction on September 30, according to HUD, program officers checked all loans and removed a small number for which loss mitigation records were unclear.
Legal advocates, however, say that significant abuses by servicers may already have taken place. In May, the National Fair Housing Alliance, together with several other consumer and legal-aid organizations, wrote a letter to Commissioner Galante to express concern with "significant servicer noncompliance with HUD loss mitigation protocol" and call for stronger protections for homeowners affected by DASP. The letter detailed several cases in which homeowners had already been accepted for FHA-HAMP modifications and were making trial payments when new servicers stepped in and said they were no longer honoring the modifications. In several cases, like the Cheesemans, homeowners say they received no notice that their loans had been sold.
Under current policy, community organizations that have a real interest in preserving affordable housing often get the least help in acquiring distressed properties.
Vicente and Guadalupe Salgado, residents of Chicago's Albany Park neighborhood, believe they may be one more such case. After the couple fell behind on their mortgage in 2011, they fell victim to a mortgage modification scam and entered foreclosure. Since then, they say that they have applied for FHA loan modifications several times and were awaiting a response in July 2014 when they were contacted by a new servicer, who told them that they had been denied. The Salgados say they were told that they could not apply again unless they could pay one-third of the remaining principle balance up front, which amounted to $22,000.
"If I had that much money, I'd just find a new place to live," says Guadalupe Salgado.
The Salgados were among the homeowners who protested at HUD offices nationwide to call for an end to the resale of FHA loans, and they are seeking a meeting with HUD to try and determine whether the loan was, in fact, sold through DASP.
HUD says that in cases where a loan has been sold through DASP erroneously, the agency is able to return the mortgage note to the original lender and reverse the insurance claim. However, the agency says that this has been discovered in post-sale reviews of records, rather than through complaints by borrowers, and has happened in a very small number of cases.
Rise of the Wall Street Landlord
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of DASP is where loans sold through it are ending up. HUD's own data reveals that 98 percent of these loans were purchased by private investors; just three investment and private-equity firms - Lone Star Funds, Bayview Asset Management, and Serene Investment Partners - won nearly half of all loans.
The market for distressed loans isn't the only asset class to emerge from the ashes of the foreclosure crisis. During the past two years, investors have bought up more than 200,000 mostly foreclosed homes. After scooping up properties at bargain-basement prices, groups such as Invitation Homes, a subsidiary of private-equity giant the Blackstone Group, have built a new industry specializing in the rental of single-family homes, and even begun securitizing tenants' rental payments to sell billions of dollars in "rent-backed securities,"a financial product similar to mortgage-backed securities that taps tenants' rent checks as an income stream for investors.
Critics of DASP worry that the program may, for some investors, amount to little more than another means of acquiring cheap rental properties. At least two DASP buyers also operate single-family-home rental firms. The Blackstone Group - which through its subsidiary Invitation Homes is now the largest owner of single-family homes nationwide - owns a controlling stake in Bayview Asset Management, which has won nearly 20,000 loans through DASP.
"By selling homes to private equity giants and vulture capitalists, DASP is fueling the rise of the Wall Street landlord," says Kevin Whelan, national campaign director of the National Home Defenders League, which helped coordinate the September protests against DASP.
There's another troubling trend associated with DASP: The accelerating sale of bad loans has helped give rise to a "distressed-mortgage securities market." At least 11 buyers who have won loans through DASP have securitized some or all of the loans purchased through the program, and analysts estimate that investors will trade roughly $60 billion in distressed mortgage assets by the end of 2014, compared with just $25 billion in 2013, according to the report by the Right to the City Alliance and the Center for Popular Democracy. CPD's Razza also notes that firms that securitize distressed loans may be most likely to continue winning them in the future - according to her report, securities have enabled for-profits to bid 15 - 20 percent higher on loans than their competitors.
This trend is undermining DASP's ostensible goal of helping homeowners and "contributing to a new speculative housing bubble," says Whelan, noting that the price of distressed mortgages has been driven upward by investor demand. "When speculators heat up the market for "distressed mortgages" they make it harder for anyone who acquires them - whether for profit or non-profit - to make win-win deals that preserve homeownership and stabilize communities."
Community Groups Left Out
Indeed, though DASP was initially billed as a means of involving more community organizations with a solid track record in foreclosure prevention, nonprofit organizations have won just 2 percent of loans sold through the program, according to the Center for American Progress’ report.
HUD stresses that because all of the loans sold through the program were headed for foreclosure, DASP is a last shot for homeowners to achieve an alternative outcome. But Whelman says this amounts to a "beggars-can't-be-choosers" rationale that does not necessarily bear out. "HUD's own figures show that the vast majority of families whose loans are sold off to investors lose their homes, whether via foreclosures, short sales, or other mechanisms," he says. "But there are nonprofits that can buy these loans that have a track record of keeping more than half the families in deeply distressed loans in their homes."
Several such nonprofits have been unsuccessful in buying loans through DASP after being outbid by for-profit competitors. New Jersey Community Capital (NJCC), a community-development group, has successfully purchased loans in New Jersey and Florida through DASP's "Neighborhood Stabilization Outcome" (NSO) pools, which are area-specific and require that buyers achieve a set of goals that enhance community stability - including reperformance of a loan wherein a borrower is able to begin making payments again, or a property's rental to a borrower - in at least half of loans purchased.
In an email to Truthout, NJCC said that it had been able to modify 45 percent of the loans in owner-occupied homes, a rate much higher than the industry standard. Nevertheless, the organization has been unable to scale up its purchases through DASP - in June, it was outbid on an NSO pool of loans in New Jersey by a for-profit investor. Even in NSO pools, nonprofits have won just 12 percent of loans, but outcomes are slightly better, with nearly 25 percent of residents able to remain in their homes.
NJCC and other nonprofits are calling on HUD to enable the participation of more mission-driven nonprofits, including by expanding the NSO pools, which currently constitute just 20 percent of DASP sales, or creating nonprofit specific pools. "This could be a very effective program, if FHA can get loans in the hands of buyers who are committed to neighborhood stabilization - that's if," says CAP's Edelman.
In a statement provided by HUD, Galante said: "HUD is also exploring every option to increase nonprofit participation in our program, including allowing more time for these organizations to perform the necessary due diligence and to assemble sufficient capital." The agency also told Truthout that in an upcoming November DASP auction, it will offer more NSO pools, including several that are smaller and more geographically concentrated.
But other housing-rights organizations believe that even farther-reaching measures are needed. The Chicago-based Autonomous Center of Albany Park, which is working with Guadalupe and Vicente Salgado to help fight their foreclosure, also operates Casas del Pueblo, a 501(c)3 community land trust that holds titles to properties and believes that federal policy should require more banks and investors that profited from the mortgage crisis to donate properties to community organizations outright.
Donation to a land bank is one option that buyers of loans in NSO pools may take to fulfill their obligations to the program's requirements, and some banks have chosen to donate properties to nonprofits in small number to receive a tax write-off. But Antonio Gutierrez, housing coordinator at Casas del Pueblo, says that under current policy, community organizations that have a real interest in preserving affordable housing often get the least help in acquiring distressed properties. The land trust, for example, is currently in negotiations with Fannie Mae to purchase the home of a domestic violence survivor who went into foreclosure after her abusive husband left the home and has been fighting to remain in it for four years. Though DASP buyers can obtain properties at an average of between 40 and 60 percent of the remaining principal balance on a mortgage, Fannie Mae has asked Casas del Pueblo to pay the full market value of $250,000 to obtain their member's home, even though she had already made a decade of mortgage payments on her mortgage.
"The DASP program isn't really providing neighborhood stabilization, it's actually contributing to the displacement of existing communities" when investors buy loans with the intent of foreclosing on properties and finding higher-income renters, says Gutierrez. Even the loan modifications provided by commercial banks and investment groups may merely be "prolonging the process of foreclosure," he says. "If we want a permanent solution and true neighborhood stabilization," he says, "we need federal policies that say that principal reductions, buybacks and donations to community land trusts are not optional. They need to be priorities."
In the meantime, the Autonomous Center is part of a national coalition calling on HUD to halt DASP outright until it can be overhauled. The Center for Popular Democracy, the Home Defenders League and other housing organizations say they gathered 11,000 signatures on a petition calling for an end to sales through DASP, and are planning further protests if they don't receive a response. Among those watching HUD's next move are the Salgados, who believe their house could be auctioned later this year.
"I'm waiting and trying to investigate who owns the loan," says Guadalupe Salgado. "But this is my house, because I've fought for it."
Source
Report: East African Workers Make Poverty Wages in Minnesota
FOX 9 Minneapolis - April 8, 2015 - A new report released by the Center for Popular Democracy says there's a...
FOX 9 Minneapolis - April 8, 2015 - A new report released by the Center for Popular Democracy says there's a disproportionately high poverty rate for the East African communities in Minnesota, and that Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the largest employer of those workers in the state, can help.
According to the report, 63 percent of Somalis in the state are living below the poverty line, and the poverty rate for the Ethiopian community jumped 25 percent since 2000.
The Center for Popular Democracy contends $15 hourly wages at the airport “would have a dramatic impact on the workers and the growing East African population in our state.”
This push comes on the heels of Gov. Mark Dayton's effort to raise minimum wage in the state.
“Raising wages to the $15 range at the airport would mean over $30 million in additional wages for East African workers, and would infuse even more than that into our local economy via local spending and taxes,” said report author Eden Yosief, a Social Justice Research Fellow with Center for Popular Democracy. “This would start to lift families out of poverty, and would stimulate further job growth by circulating money into our state that right now is going to things like sky-high CEO pay.”
Gov. Dayton recently appointed Ibrahim Mohamed as a Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Commissioner, the first East African and minimum wage airport worker to hold the position. The report said there are about 2,500 current badge-holders at the airport from Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Metropolitan Airports Commission response
“The Metropolitan Airports Commission has long had a strong relationship with labor and takes steps to ensure vendors providing services to the Commission compensate their employees fairly for that work. At issue are employees who work for private businesses under contract to airlines. In December the Commission board passed a policy requiring those businesses to provide paid leave to employees and to protect employees should an airline change service vendors. The MAC board will be discussing wage issues over the next couple of months.”
Source
NYC students rally for more guidance counselors, fewer cops
NYC students rally for more guidance counselors, fewer cops
City students called for more guidance counselors and fewer police in public schools at a spirited rally on the steps...
City students called for more guidance counselors and fewer police in public schools at a spirited rally on the steps of City Hall Wednesday. The protest organized by the student-led Urban Youth Collaborative drew students from across the city. Protest leaders said the rally was organized in response to data released by the city Friday showing a 21% spike in students suspensions.
Read the full article here.
How Democrats can neutralize GOP tax law
Republicans managed in the last throes of 2017 to push through a tax bill that was both widely loathed and widely...
Republicans managed in the last throes of 2017 to push through a tax bill that was both widely loathed and widely predicted to hurt the economy. Democrats across the country are expected to use the law as a weapon against Republican opponents come the midterm elections.
But we can do more than just oppose the law. This is also an opportunity for governors, mayors, and state and local lawmakers to craft responses that both lessen the damage and provide a launching pad for better, fairer fiscal policies that win broad popular support.
Read the full article here.
Anti-Kavanaugh Groups Could Lose Non-Profit Status for Disrupting Hearings
Anti-Kavanaugh Groups Could Lose Non-Profit Status for Disrupting Hearings
Over 200 people were arrested during the four days of hearings, held Sept. 4 to 7, for disrupting the hearings. They...
Over 200 people were arrested during the four days of hearings, held Sept. 4 to 7, for disrupting the hearings. They were organized by Women’s March and Center for Popular Democracy Action (CPDA), both holding 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations, as well as Housing Works, which holds the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status reserved for charitable organizations.
Read the full article here.
It’s Time to Reimagine Safety and Security in Our Communities
It’s Time to Reimagine Safety and Security in Our Communities
The over-policing and mass criminalization of Black and brown people is the moral crisis of our time. The United States...
The over-policing and mass criminalization of Black and brown people is the moral crisis of our time.
The United States has the world’s largest incarcerated population with approximately 2.2 million people currently behind prisons and jails (21 percent of the world’s prisoners) while several police departments across the country are under investigation for charges of police brutality, gross misconduct and civil rights violations.
Read the full article here.
Part-Time Schedules, Full-Time Headaches
New York Times - July 18, 2014, By Steven Greenhouse - A worker at an apparel store at Woodbury Common, an outlet mall...
New York Times - July 18, 2014, By Steven Greenhouse - A worker at an apparel store at Woodbury Common, an outlet mall north of New York City, said that even though some part-time employees clamored for more hours, the store had hired more part-timers and cut many workers’ hours to 10 a week from 20.
As soon as a nurse in Illinois arrived for her scheduled 3-to-11 p.m. shift one Christmas Day, hospital officials told her to go home because the patient “census” was low. They also ordered her to remain on call for the next four hours — all unpaid.
An employee at a specialty store in California said his 25-hour-a-week job with wildly fluctuating hours wasn’t enough to live on. But when he asked the store to schedule him between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. so he could find a second job, the store cut him to 12 hours a week.
These are among the experiences related by New York Times readers in more than 440 responses to an article published in Wednesday’s paper about a fledgling movement in which some states and cities are seeking to limit the harshest effects of increasingly unpredictable and on-call work schedules. Many readers voiced dismay with the volatility of Americans’ work schedules and the inability of many part-timers to cobble together enough hours to support their families.
In a comment that was the most highly recommended by others — 307 of them — a reader going by “pedigrees” wrote that workers were often reviled for not working hard enough or not being educated enough. “How can they work more jobs or commit to a degree program if they don’t know what their work schedule will be next week, much less next month?” the reader wrote. “It’s long past time for some certainty for workers. They drive the economy.”
Some readers were shocked by the story of Mary Coleman, who, after an hourlong bus commute, arrived for her scheduled shift at a Popeyes in Milwaukee only to be told to go home without clocking in because the store already had enough employees working. She wasn’t paid for the day.
“What happened to Ms. Coleman should be criminal,” wrote “JenD” of New Jersey in the second-most-recommended comment. “These types of stories sound like they were written by Charles Dickens in the mid-19th century.”
A reader from South Dakota, “JDT,” wrote that he was baffled as to why so many employers created turmoil for their workers by assigning them a different schedule every week, making it hard to juggle their jobs with child care or college.
“As a small-business owner for over 30 years, I have always been able to provide my part-time employees with a firm, steady and predictable schedule,” JDT wrote. “My employees are a vital and important asset. I treat them right, and they do their best for me. It’s so easy ... Why can’t big business run by M.B.A.s and highly compensated executives figure that out?”
JDT, whose name is Jim D. Taylor, runs a combined law and real estate firm in Mitchell, S.D. In a follow-up interview, he said: “In a small business, if you’ve scheduled someone to work, there should always be enough to do — you don’t send them home. I don’t know why big business is any different.”
“Why is it so hard to schedule someone for regular shifts?” Mr. Taylor asked.
A reader calling himself “Polish Ladies Cleaning Service” wrote that in the housecleaning business, it was “a particularly devilish problem” to maintain predictable schedules for employees. “If a client cancels and there’s no work, there’s no work,” he wrote. “We try to let everyone know ASAP, of course, but there are times when clients do cancel literally at the very last minute!”
In a follow-up interview, David Chou, the spokesman for Polish Ladies Cleaning Service, a company based in Brooklyn, told of a woman with a $19,000-a-month apartment who failed to confirm a housecleaning appointment scheduled for that day. So the company had to tell the scheduled housekeeper she was not needed that morning.
“We try to reschedule the ladies with other clients if that’s possible, but probably about half the times that’s not possible,” Mr. Chou said.
“Mary,” a reader from Atlanta, said it was understandable why so many employers relied on part-time workers. “We do still have issues with supply and demand that make it difficult for some businesses to hire full time (e.g., retail brick-and-mortar stores struggling with seasonal slowdowns and competition from Internet stores),” she wrote.
“How is it so many, and Obama, believe that workers have the right to tell their employer what hours they will work?” she added. “I’m thinking many here need to go to Europe or some other country. See how that works for you. Our government has no right to dictate, only to protect workers from abuse, and part-time is not abuse.”
One reader, a sales employee at an Apple store, complained in a letter that her work schedule varied every week, although she praised Apple’s medical, dental and vision benefits, even for part-timers. In a follow-up interview she said she was essentially required to be available anytime from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. six days a week — she has designated Wednesday as her day off.
“Having to give them that much availability, it means you’re at their mercy,” she said, noting that her husband works Monday through Friday. “You don’t know until the schedule comes out what your life will look like.”
Courtney Moore, a cashier at a Walmart in Cincinnati, said in an interview that she had been assigned about 40 hours a week until she told store management in June that she would begin taking college classes most mornings and some afternoons. She said she asked her manager to put her on the late shift, but to her dismay, the store reduced her to 15 hours a week.
“They said they need someone they could call whenever they need help — and they said I’m not that person,” Ms. Moore said. She said she would prefer being a dedicated full-time employee at Walmart but had to take a second job at McDonald’s instead.
A middle-aged New Yorker who lost his teaching job of two decades because of a budget squeeze in his school district said he had applied for retail jobs and was shocked by what he found.
“You had to be available every minute of every day, knowing you would be scheduled for no more than 29 hours per week and knowing there would be no normalcy to your schedule,” he wrote. “I told the person I would like to be scheduled for the same days every week so I could try to get another job to try to make ends meet. She immediately said, ‘Well, that will end our conversation right here. You have to be available every day for us.’
“I asked, ‘Even though I’m trying to get another job?’ ‘Yes.’ Then she just stared at me and asked me to leave. What kind of company does this? What kind of company will not even let you get another job?”
Source
A New Law Is Letting Uber Drivers Unionize
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a...
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a novel solution.
As the gig economy grows, companies like Airbnb and Uber are challenging cities by reshaping entire industries, often harming workers in the process. The challenge for progressive-minded legislators has been that existing regulations have often proven inadequate. Recently, however, local policymakers have begun proposing innovative ways to cope with the changes.
In Seattle, this battle has played out around ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft. When the companies were first legalized in the city in 2014, they presented themselves as a needed transport service that let drivers make money outside of the rigid regulations imposed on the taxi industry. Those claims lost credibility over the next year, however, as Uber drivers’ pay was slashed from $2 per mile to about $1.20 per mile. As cuts deepened, drivers found it increasingly hard to make an income—and many taxi firms found it almost impossible to compete.
We clearly needed a solution. Although collective bargaining had never been tried in the gig economy, a Seattle labor lawyer named Dmitri Iglitzin who’d been mulling the possibility for years approached me with a groundbreaking idea: Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
The premise was intriguing: If Uber and Lyft are going to claim that drivers are independent contractors, then let’s take them at their word and insist that drivers be allowed to negotiate the terms of their contract with these multibillion-dollar companies. While federal law preempts localities from encouraging unionization for private-sector employees, independent contractors are exempt. We believe this means that cities can allow drivers the right to collectively bargain to negotiate a better quality of life and a more reliable transportation service, in a way that regulations cannot.
The timing couldn’t have been better. In the year after Uber and Lyft first began operation, the narrative in Seattle had shifted: The companies, once seen as upstart innovators, came to be seen as major corporations intent on asserting power to the detriment of workers.
Uber and Lyft drivers had already set up an association of app-based drivers through the Teamsters, which represented taxi drivers in Seattle. United, they were starting to raise their voices. They organized rallies and protests highlighting their struggles and testified at City Hall about their limited pay, long hours, and arbitrary deactivation. Growing popular outrage turned up the heat.
Surprisingly, even as criticism rose, both Uber and Lyft did little to fight back. It wasn’t because the companies didn’t have the will or capacity. Only a year earlier, in 2014, they had put up a major fight after the Seattle City Council proposed placing a cap on for-hire vehicles.
This time though, it was clear that they could not win over public opinion. As driver earnings spiraled downward, it was hard for anybody to deny that there was a problem with the companies’ treatment of their workers—and that something needed to be done about it.
Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
In December 2015, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a law letting Uber and Lyft drivers bargain collectively and establish a process for binding arbitration. In coming months, we will finalize the rules and determine which union or association can represent drivers, who can then vote on whether they want to be represented or not. The US Chamber of Commerce is already suing, hoping that the courts determine that federal law preempts the Seattle law.
Even though contract negotiations are months away, the idea has already caught on in other cities and states. New York and Cincinnati are considering regulations that would expand collective bargaining rights to some gig-economy workers. And in California a similar law was introduced in the State Assembly (although it’s been withdrawn for the moment).
The on-demand economy is delivering important new benefits to consumers. But if we are going to build a more equitable society, we’ll need rules of the road to ensure workers are treated with dignity. Cities have a powerful role in realizing that vision.
By MIKE O'BRIEN
Source
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Challenger Has a Chance
Source: ...
Source: The New Republic
During the presidential primary, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has managed the impressive feat of angering virtually every liberal in America. Bernie Sanders supporters think she displays a transparent biasfor Hillary Clinton. Party stalwarts, including Clinton fans, criticize the decision tohide primary debates on weekend nights, ceding hours of free media time to Republicans in the formative stages of the election. And in a recent interview with the New York Times Magazine, Wasserman Schultz insulted millennial women for being “complacent” about abortion rights. This is an incomplete list.
In two separate petitions, more than 94,000 people have demanded that Wasserman Schultz resign as DNC chair. But back in her district, in Hollywood, Florida, Timothy Canova has another idea: vote her out of office.
Last Thursday, Canova, a former aide to the late Sen. Paul Tsongas and a professor at Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad College of Law, jumped into the Democratic primary in Florida’s 23rd congressional district. It’s Wasserman Schultz’s first primary challenge ever, and with frustration running high against her, it’s almost certain to draw national attention. But Canova first became interested in challenging Wasserman Schultz not because of her actions as DNC chair, but because of her record.
“This is the most liberal county in all of Florida,” Canova said in an interview, referring to Broward County, where most of Wasserman Schultz’s district resides (a small portion is in northern Miami-Dade County). But she more closely associates with her significant support from corporate donors, Canova argued. He listed several of Wasserman Schultz’s votes, such as blocking the SEC and IRS from disclosing corporate political spending (which was part of last month’s omnibus spending bill),opposing a medical marijuana ballot measure that got 58 percent of the vote in Florida, preventing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from regulating discrimination in auto lending and opposing their rules cracking down on payday lending, and supporting “fast track” authority for trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“I think anyone who voted for fast track should be primaried. I believe that ordinary citizens have to step up,” Canova said.
Canova espouses many of the populist themes that attract the left: fighting corporate power, defending organized labor, and reducing income inequality. But this is not just a Bernie Sanders Democrat. You have to go back further. Tim Canova is a Marriner Eccles Democrat.
Eccles chaired the Federal Reserve during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. And Canova believes the central bank should revisit Eccles’s unorthodox strategies to jump-start a broad-based economic recovery. “In the 1930s, the regional Fed banks made loans directly to the people,” Canova said. “Instead of purchasing $4 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, [the Fed] could buy short-term municipal bonds and drive the yield to zero for state and local governments. They could push money into infrastructure, making loans to state infrastructure banks.” Canova has even suggested that the government create currency outside of the central bank, breaking their monopoly on the money supply, as President Abraham Lincoln did with the “Greenback” in the 1860s.
During World War II, FDR directed Eccles’s Fed to finance American war debt at low rates, eventually producing a stimulus that helped to end the Great Depression. It was a time when the Fed was far more accountable to democratically elected institutions, one that Canova looks back upon fondly. “People like to talk about the Fed’s independence, that’s really a cover for the Fed’s capture,” he said. “They look out for elite groups in society, and the hell with everybody else.”
A growing faction of progressives are beginning to return to their roots, asking whether Fed policies truly support the public interest. The Fed Up campaign, with which Canova has consulted, seeks to pressure the Fed to adopt pro-worker policies. A surprise movement in Congress just cut a 100 year-old subsidy the Fed handed out to banks by $7 billion. Even mainstream figures like economist Larry Summerswonder whether the Fed’s hybrid public/private structure, which critics believe makes it beholden to financial interests, makes sense.
Progressive debates on central banking are not as advanced here as in Europe, where British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wants a “quantitative easing for people,” where the central bank injects money directly into the economy rather than filtering it through financial institutions. But Canova, who says his views were most influenced by an undergraduate economics professor who taught with one book—John Maynard Keynes’s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money—bridges this gap. Twenty years ago this week, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Timesopposing the reappointment of Alan Greenspan as Fed chair because of his support for high real interest rates. If elected this fall, he would instantly become the strongest advocate in Congress for a people’s Fed.
While Debbie Wasserman Schultz has few known views on the Federal Reserve, Canova’s populism offers a strong counterweight to her corporate-tinged philosophy. And even before that contrast plays out, the hunger for any challenge to Wasserman Schultz is palpable.
“The money is coming in more rapidly than believable,” said Howie Klein, co-founder of Blue America PAC, which raises money for progressive Democrats. Wasserman Schultz has been on Klein’s radar since she, as chair of the “Red to Blue” campaign for electing House Democrats, refused to campaign against three Republicans in Florida because of prior friendships and their joint support for the state sugar industry.
Klein sent a Blue America fundraising email shortly after Canova’s announcement, and raised $7,000 within 12 hours, and over $10,000 at last count. The intensity of support reached beyond the PAC’s traditional donor base. “Our average donation is $45, but in this case we’re getting $3, $5,” Klein said. “For people who our donors have never heard of, it can take three-four months to do that. It’s just because ofDebbie Wasserman Schultz.”
Similarly, Canova says he’s seeing tens of thousands of visits to his website andFacebook page, suggesting support beyond south Florida. However, he wants to localize rather than nationalize the race. The district, initially drawn with Wasserman Schultz’s input when she served in the Florida state Senate, is now more Hispanic and less reliable for a politician who Canova believes has lost touch with her constituents.
“You talk to people at the Broward County Democratic clubs, they say she takes us for granted,” Canova said. The political model for his campaign is David Brat, another academic who took on a party leader—then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor—and defeated him, on the grounds that Cantor ignored his district amid constant corporate fundraising.
If there’s one thing Wasserman Schultz can do, it’s raise money—that’s why she chairs the party. She will have a big cash advantage and the power of incumbency. But Canova thinks he can outmatch her by riding the populist tide. “There’s a tendency to get so down about the system, but this is an interesting moment we’re living in,” Canova said. “This is a grassroots movement. We’re tapping in without even trying yet.”
KKR, Bain Create $20 Million Fund for Toys ‘R’ Us Workers
Toys “R” Us shuttered its last stores at the end of June and its liquidation left more than 30,000 workers without...
Toys “R” Us shuttered its last stores at the end of June and its liquidation left more than 30,000 workers without expected severance payouts. That prompted months of lobbying by the employees, organized in part by advocacy groups linked to the Center for Popular Democracy. Those groups estimate that workers are owed $75 million in severance pay and they have pressed Toys “R” Us creditors Angelo Gordon and Solus Alternative Asset Management to contribute to the fund, but the hedge funds have so far declined.
Read the full article here.
3 days ago
3 days ago