Fed Up group plans counter Jackson Hole conference
The Fed Up coalition, made up of community activist groups, has rented a conference room in the same hotel where the...
The Fed Up coalition, made up of community activist groups, has rented a conference room in the same hotel where the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank will be holding its annual Jackson Hole conference starting Thursday.
The group said Monday it will bring in low-wage workers from around the country who are struggling to make ends meet to emphasize the need for the Fed to do more to attack income inequality.
"Our life is a constant struggle. We know we have to pay the rent, buy food and pay the utilities on a very limited budget," Dawn O'Neal, a teaching assistant at a day care center in Atlanta, told reporters on a conference call Monday.
The mother of four said she made $8.50 an hour at her job and her husband, who is currently unemployed, has been trying to earn money by lining up early in the morning to compete for part-time construction jobs.
Ady Barkan with the Center for Popular Democracy and campaign director for Fed Up said that before Fed officials "can have a real discussion of raising interest rates and slowing the economy, they should understand firsthand who it would effect."
Barkan joked that while the Kansas City Fed charges $1,000 per person for its conference, participation in the teach-in will be free. In addition to arguing that raising rates now would be premature, the group will hold discussions on ways to reform the Fed's current selection process for the presidents of the Fed's 12 regional banks.
The group has protested the recent selection of Robert Kaplan, a former top executive at Goldman Sachs and currently associate dean at the Harvard Business School, as the new president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, saying the selection process shut out input from community groups.
While the Fed announced in May that Yellen would not be attending this year's conference, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer is scheduled to deliver comments on inflation during a panel discussion at Jackson Hole on Saturday.
Financial markets will be closely examining those comments for any hints about whether the Fed is still likely to boost interest rates at its Sept. 16-17 meeting despite a huge sell-off in recent days in stocks that saw the Dow Jones industrial average fall another 588.47 points or 3.6 percent on Monday.
Source: CNBC
The charter school movement needs greater accountability
A recent study published by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and the Center for Popular Democracy, entitled “...
A recent study published by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools and the Center for Popular Democracy, entitled “The Tip of the Iceberg,” found $203 million lost to fraud, corruption and mismanagement in charter schools, with a projected $1.4 billion in losses in 2015 alone. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is concerned as well: It has investigated schools in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Connecticut, Arizona, Ohio, Massachusetts, Indiana and Illinois.
Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform released a report detailing the standards that should be required to raise the charter sector to the level of equity and transparency that public schools must meet. Such reforms are popular: A 2015 poll showed that 89 percent of respondents favored making charter board meetings publicly accessible, 88 percent supported routine audits of their finances and 86 percent desired transparent budgets.
Whether or not one thinks that charter schools are a good thing, we should be able to agree that greater accountability strengthens our school system. However, many charter advocates have stood in the way of reform.
In California, four long-overdue bills that would bring a higher level of accountability to the state’s 1,100 charter schools were introduced last March. A 2015 report from the Center for Popular Democracy documented how charter schools in California have lost $81 million in public funds to fraud and abuse. Over the last 10 years California’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team revealed multi-million dollar scams in Los Angeles, Oakland and Santa Ana, to name a few cities, as well as rampant abuse in what was the state’s largest charter operator.
Instead of supporting common-sense reform, the state’s charter industry, represented by the California Charter School Association, has fiercely opposed the bills. “We believe current laws address these concerns and these proposals are unnecessary,” the lobbying group wrote in a press release.
California, the state with the largest number of charter schools, should lead the way for reform. But progress is slow going: There is little indication that any of the bills will make progress in Sacramento this year.
In Connecticut, it took a scandal to spur this kind of reform. A 2014 study from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers ranked Connecticut as the seventh-lowest state with regard to charter accountability. In response, the state passed a law in July that makes all charter school records a matter of public record subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It also requires charter schools to have anti-nepotism and conflict of interest policies, and it empowers the state’s Department of Education to post each school’s certified audit statement on its website.
The reform was spurred by a massive scandal around a prominent charter school figure named Michael Sharpe. For years Sharpe led a chain of schools called the Jumoke Academy and advocated for unfettered charter expansion. Yet, in early 2015, in the midst of an FBI investigation and after more than six months of relentless investigative reporting by the Hartford Courant, Connecticut’s Department of Education found Sharpe’s network riddled with “rampant nepotism.” Its report also revealed that Sharpe had ordered “expensive and ornate modifications” to an apartment owned by his company, which he then rented for his own use.
In the aftermath of these revelations, Connecticut’s reform law was approved in May by a 35 to 1 vote in the state Senate and 142 to 3 in the state Assembly. While this is a positive development, other states should not have to wait for a scandal of this magnitude before demanding greater accountability.
Charter reform can be a bipartisan cause. In Ohio, Republican State Senator Peggy Lehner began pushing for laws to require greater disclosure of how public funds are spent after, she says, seeing “story after story” about charter school scandals. A recent investigation by the Akron Beacon Journal found that of the 300 charter schools reporters contacted, only a fourth provided basic information like board members’ names. Meanwhile, 87 percent of charters got Ds or Fs on the most recent state report cards.
Major charter advocates spoke to the need for reform. “Charter schools are public schools, and there should not be a veil of secrecy,” said Chad Aldis, vice president for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which sponsors 11 charter schools in the state. “We need to have transparency.”
In June, a bill that passed the state Senate that would require Ohio to annually audit all charter school operators to monitor the use of public funds. Charter schools would also have to obey open records laws and other transparency standards that are already the norm in public schools.
Such changes should be no-brainers. And yet the bill has stalled in the General Assembly. With much of the debate going on behind closed doors, the public has thus far not been able to get a clear sense for the cause of the delay.
Sunshine advocates fear that the inaction of the Ohio House bodes ill for the bill’s future. “It appears that the poor-performing charter school sector has again won the day,” argues Stephen Dyer, former legislator and Education Policy Fellow at the progressive think tank Innovation Ohio.
Rather than standing in the way of greater accountability, lawmakers should view the current bill as a first step. Not only should the measures be passed, they should be strengthened. Communications and overhead costs would not have to be disclosed under the state Senate’s bill, casualties of the charter industry’s lobbying.
Moreover, Ohio’s bizarre system of charter approval would remain largely unchanged under the bill. Instead of having a few authorizing agencies to approve charter schools, Ohio allows dozens of groups, including non-profits, to sponsor and approve charter schools. These authorizers receive payments from the schools and rarely close them as a result.
The public deserves better — in Ohio and beyond. If charter schools are to become a permanent and respected part of public education in America, their champions will need to clean up their sector and let the sunshine in.
Source: Al Jazeera America
Interest rate clock ticks for Janet Yellen and the Fed – but is China a wild card?
In just a little over three weeks’ time, on 17 September, the US central bankers are going to have to sit down around a...
In just a little over three weeks’ time, on 17 September, the US central bankers are going to have to sit down around a table and decide whether to raise interest ratesfor the first time since before the financial crisis of 2008 unfolded. And just as the markets were preparing for the news, China has thrown a wrench in the works.
Just to put this in its proper context, the last time the Fed raised interest rates, it was June 2006. Microsoft was releasing a version of Windows Vista; Google officially became a word in the Oxford English Dictionary. The Da Vinci Code ruled at the movie box office. The iPhone hadn’t even been introduced yet; we didn’t yet live in a world of apps and selfies. Hey, you could even collect interest on your bank savings account!
If it all feels blurred and slightly unreal (especially the idea of earning interest from a bank account) in your mind, that’s OK. Time has a habit of doing that to us. Then, too, what has happened since then has rendered the events of 2006 pretty forgettable: the financial crisis, the recession, and the struggle to get back to where we were, all neatly summarized in the glib phrase that some use when describing the first part of the 21st century: the “lost decade”.
But the Fed really, really, really wants to get back to normal. And that would be the old normal – when its team of policymakers meets once every six or seven weeks to monitor the economy and determine whether it’s overheating or cooling down too rapidly. Then they whip out the key tool in their monetary policy arsenal – interest rates – and adjust it accordingly. If the economic environment is too robust and the threat of inflation looms large on the horizon, well then, higher interest rates should make money more costly, dampen demand for it and calm everyone down a bit. On the other extreme, if animal spirits are low and unemployment is high, low interest rates should generate some economic activity and get everything moving again.
For now, the Fed’s leaders have said repeatedly, they are waiting until they are reasonably sure that inflation is heading toward their annual target of 2%. For the last three years, it hasn’t approached that level, and there’s tremendous uncertainty about acting too soon – and causing the economy to stall altogether – or delaying and perhaps allowing bubbles to take shape and jeopardize the credibility of the Fed itself as a policy-making institution.
It doesn’t help that the post-crisis recession seemed to throw the ability of monetary policy as a tool to guide the economy smoothly through storms into question. It certainly wasn’t enough to get the economy going once the financial system had been rescued from bankers intent on dashing off a precipice like lemmings, carrying the whole structure with them.
And now policymakers must continue to grapple with economic news that can be used in whatever way a pundit wants, to advocate for pretty much whatever point of view one wishes. The housing market is recovering at its strongest pace in nearly a decade! But it’s still functioning well below long-term historical averages, when compared to total national GDP levels. It all depends on which data set you prefer to look at. Employment? Well, the good news is that unemployment levels have fallen. On the other hand, there’s absolutely no wage inflation to be found, much less to be contained: most Americans would find the idea to be laughable. Indeed, middle income earners have seen a significant erosion in their buying power. There is inflation, but it’s in the prices of goods and services, not in wages.
Yellen and her fellow policymakers need to wake up and smell the espresso, according to a consortium of progressive policy organizations led by the “Fed Up” campaign, a nonprofit created by the Center for Popular Democracy. They’re putting together an online petition to be delivered to Yellen and other Fed members at their annual Jackson Hole, Wyoming retreat at the end of August. “Working families haven’t made a full economic recovery, and now is not the time to declare victory,” the petition states, noting that higher interest rates would make it more costly for Americans to buy homes or cars, as well as boosting the costs of student loans and credit card or any other form of debt.
All of that is true, but the Fed policymakers aren’t just thinking about working families when they consider boosting interest rates. They’re considering the bigger picture, and specifically what might happen if they don’t act: inflation (in the form of a flood of new, cheap loans from banks) and, far more dangerously, asset bubbles.
The latter is a real risk: the Fed already is stepping up its scrutiny of one particularly risky and active party of the market fueled by ultra-cheap financing, the leveraged loan market. According to at least one source, since the Fed tried to crack down when banks were shrugging off the regulator’s guidelines, the market has only grown still larger, to nearly $875bn. And it is full of the kind of excessive risk taking that led to the 2008 crisis.
In a perfect world, Yellen and the Fed would rather not preside over a repeat of that event, and if the price to pay is higher interest rates, well, that’s a perfectly acceptable tradeoff, thank you very much. Indeed, some economists believe that they already are delinquent; that they should have begun “normalizing” interest rate policy a long time ago. Already, a Bank of America securities report has scoffed that keeping rates unchanged for so long has left the Fed suffering from “central bank policy impotence” – and no little blue pill in sight.
So, will the Fed act?
The minutes of the Fed’s last meeting, held in late July, which were released to the public last week, display a lot more dithering and a considerable amount of wariness. Inflation data just isn’t there; Federal Open Market Committee members say they want more evidence that economic growth is “sufficiently strong”. How Yellen will forge a consensus out of this group is baffling.
And then there is the wild card: China. Is it even possible for the US to consider raising interest rates with the yuan depreciating, stock markets plunging and the contagion spreading to other markets in Southeast Asia? The precise extent to which these events might affect the United States is hard to gauge, but in a globalized economy, of which China and its 1.4 billion citizens play a growing and significant role, the Fed can’t pretend that they are blips on the horizon.
For my part, I’m left with only one certainty. Charged with sorting through all these issues, weighing them, and making the right policy choices for the country, Yellen is earning every penny of her annual salary of $201,700.
Source: The Guardian
Campaign Zero: A ‘Blueprint for Ending Police Violence’
On Friday, activists with the country’s growing racial justice movement unveiled a new campaign to end police violence...
On Friday, activists with the country’s growing racial justice movement unveiled a new campaign to end police violence, bridging protester demands with data and policy to create structural solutions to the crisis that has gripped national attention for more than a year.
Launched as an online manifesto with an interactive website, Campaign Zero proposes new federal, state, and local laws that would address police violence and reform the criminal justice system—including demilitarizing law enforcement, increasing community oversight, limiting use-of-force, and requiring independent investigation and prosecution of police violence cases.
“More than one thousand people are killed by police every year in America,” the group states on its website. “Nearly sixty percent of victims did not have a gun or were involved in activities that should not require police intervention such as harmless ‘quality of life’ behaviors or mental health crises.”
The action plan also incorporates recommendations by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing as well as those of research organizations like the Center for Popular Democracy. The architects behind Campaign Zero characterized it as a project that will continue to develop over time as new solutions emerge and more supporters come on board.
The four creators of the new campaign and authors of the manifesto—Samuel Sinyangwe, Brittany Packnett, Johnetta Elzie, and DeRay McKesson—are co-founders of We The Protesters, which as the Guardian notes is “a prominent section of a wider protest movement that is frequently referred to, in general terms, as Black Lives Matter.”
“This is just the beginning,” they wrote in a statement accompanying the launch.
In the year that has passed since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot to death by an officer in Ferguson, Missouri, police have killed at least 1,083 Americans—an average of nearly three people per day, according to figures compiled by VICE News. Even that figure, released August 9, quickly became outdated.
The policy recommendations also call for an end the controversial practice of “broken windows” policing—a tactic that involves cracking down on petty infractions as a means to prevent more serious crime. The chokehold death of Eric Garner, who was targeted by police for allegedly selling loose cigarettes, heightened criticism of the policy, which Columbia law professor Patricia J. Williams said “has intimidated, dispossessed and humiliated millions of innocent people” for two decades.
Campaign Zero launches just as new reports highlight the lack of training and culture of aggression that permeates law enforcement agencies throughout the country. Addressing that issue in another policy demand, Campaign Zero states, “An intensive training regime is needed to help police officers learn the behaviors and skills to interact appropriately with communities.”
The group points to the recent successful overhaul of policing tactics in Richmond, California, a city which reduced its crime rate by 33 percent through community policing.
“We must end police violence so we can live and feel safe in this country,” Campaign Zero states.
Campaign Zero also introduces strategies for charting presidential candidates’ policy positions on such issues. Racial justice activists have recently engaged with the campaigns of candidates including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, and Jeb Bush to demand action plans on addressing police brutality and criminal justice reform.
“Right now, the country is awake,” organizers stated. “We must continue to leverage this awakening for substantive change. We have an opportunity to change the way that issues in blackness are prioritized in political spaces and an opportunity to redefine how the political process interacts with our communities.”
“America is finally waking up to this very necessary and critical conversation about race, equity, and preserving the life and dignity of all citizens,” Packnett told the Guardian on Friday.
Added McKesson, “This is a blueprint for ending police violence.”
This Common Dreams article is reposted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Source: San Diego Free Press
Yet Another Subsidy for the Big Banks
But there’s a bigger risk-free payout the Fed makes to big banks, one set to rise exponentially as the economy improves...
But there’s a bigger risk-free payout the Fed makes to big banks, one set to rise exponentially as the economy improves. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, hundreds of billions of dollars that would otherwise go into the federal Treasury will leak out to banks, including branches of foreign banks, in the coming years. If Congress needs to find money to pay for new programs, they could cancel the Fed’s recent practice of paying interest on bank reserves.
For nearly 100 years, the Federal Reserve managed the nation’s monetary policy without paying interest on reserves, including the 10 percent of the value of loanswhich banks are required by law to park at the Fed. But in 2006, Congress passed the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act, authorizing interest payments. It was actually an old idea first promoted by conservative economist Milton Friedman.
Friedman thought that required reserves without compensation constituted a hidden tax on the financial industry. He also believed the strategy would make it easier for central banks to engage in monetary policy. If the Fed offered an interest rate on excess reserves just above the federal-funds rate (a.k.a. the rate banks use to lend to each other), then it makes more financial sense for banks to leave their money there. It sets a floor for the federal-funds rate, in other words, giving the Fed more control over its range. It also helps the Fed expand its balance sheet, critical to engaging in monetary interventions like quantitative easing.
Under the 2006 law, interest on reserves wasn’t supposed to kick in until 2011, but Congress moved up the date three years when it passed the law authorizing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Fed set the interest rate on all reserves at a skinny 0.25 percent, which produces a small payout on required reserves. But excess reserves above the 10 percent requirement, which banks never left at the Fed until 2008, exploded as the Fed’s balance sheet expanded. From virtually nothing seven years ago, excess reserves hover around $3 trillion today.
Who owns these excess reserves? As the Cleveland Fed noted in a report last week, more than 80 percent come from the top 100 largest banks. U.S. branches of foreign banks, primarily from the European Union, have about $1 trillion in excess reserves parked at the Fed.
The Fed’s audited financial statement indicates that they have paid banks $25.2 billion in interest on reserves from 2008 to 2014. That number jumped from $2.1 billion in 2009 to $6.7 billion in 2014, a three-fold increase. The entire time, the interest rate has been the same: 0.25 percent. But that’s subject to change.
As the economy improves, the Fed is clearly angling to raise the federal-funds rate, which has been stuck around zero since 2008. Fed officials have already indicated they will accomplish this mostly through recalibrating interest on reserves. At theirSeptember 2014 policy meeting, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said the central bank would “move the federal-funds rate into the target range … primarily by adjusting the interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances.” While the interest rate on required reserves may stay constant, the Fed would raise the interest rate on excess reserves, allowing interbank lending only to rise so far.
In effect, interest on excess reserves is equivalent to the federal-funds rate. And the higher the interest rate goes, the more money banks make from the Fed. You can see this most clearly in Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of Fed remittances.
Any money the Fed makes on investments gets returned to the federal Treasury. And business has been good for the Fed of late. They remitted $99 billion in 2014 and a projected $102 billion this year. But CBO’s latest update predicts that number will fall drastically, to $76 billion in 2016, $40 billion in 2017, and just $17 billion in 2018. The lion’s share of the difference comes from the Fed paying out their earnings to banks, with higher interest on reserves as they hike rates.
While it’s hard to pinpoint the totals because the CBO doesn’t separate out interest on reserves, by marking the difference between 2015 and subsequent years we can estimate that the Fed could deliver anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion a year to banks, risk-free. That’s an enormous amount of money, based on the claim that interest on reserves is somehow an indispensible strategy for monetary policy, even though the Fed thrived for 91 years without such a tool.
This shift in how monetary policy is conducted occurred with practically no debate. Fed officials are reportedly worried about the “optics” of their exit plan, with its unjust enrichment of the largest banks. But outside of a few libertarians, nobody has raised alarms yet.
One progressive group that’s challenged the Fed from the left was stunned to learn that, in addition to depressing the economy, an interest-rate hike would have a secondary effect as a silent bank bailout. “Clearly this is under-covered, because I haven’t heard about it,” said Ady Barkan with the Center for Popular Democracy, director of Fed Up, a grassroots organization pushing the central bank to adopt pro-worker policies. “But we shouldn’t be shocked. It is the rule that the Fed prioritizes helping banks, and has over the last seven years.”
There are other ways to control monetary policy besides interest on excess reserves, unless you believe that the Fed was impotent from 1917 to 2008. For instance, the Fed could reduce their balance sheet, rather than letting it contract through attrition, the current strategy. That would reduce the money supply, which shows what a pickle the Fed has gotten itself into with its expanded balance sheet. But the Minneapolis Fed, at least, downplayed the risks of gradual asset sales into a global market.
Another option is to hold off on raising rates, allowing the balance sheet to slowly contract and encouraging banks to recirculate excess reserves into the economy by creating favorable conditions for more profitable investments. “It’s incomprehensible to us to think that the economy is getting too healthy too quickly,” said Barkan of Fed Up.
Members of Congress, who created this mess by authorizing interest on reserves, could take it away too, and in so doing could create a large pay-for that could be transferred into productive projects. You could potentially fund an entire six-year highway bill simply by eliminating interest on reserves.
We don’t even know if the Fed’s rate-raising strategy will work without drawbacks, as it’s never been tested. But if “working” equals paying the largest banks hundreds of billions in unearned money, the Fed should figure out something else.
I often can't afford groceries because of volatile work schedules at Gap
As the movement for a $15 minimum wage grows, low-wage workers know the problem isn’t just the hourly pay rate. It’s...
As the movement for a $15 minimum wage grows, low-wage workers know the problem isn’t just the hourly pay rate. It’s also the number of hours scheduled. I’ve worked at Gap in multiple locations since October 2014. I’d like to earn a living wage – but a raise alone won’t help me pay the bills if exploitative schedules aren’t fixed too.
I spent most of 2014 unemployed while applying to dozens of jobs. Then, in October, I finally got a job at Gap. Our schedule comes out less than a week in advance. Some of the shifts leave workers “on-call,” meaning we don’t know if we’re going to be working at all that day. The earliest we find out is two hours before the shift is scheduled to start. At my first store, I had 18 hours of penciled-in shifts with only nine guaranteed hours some weeks. This is not uncommon in the industry.
The volatility of on-call scheduling, in combination with the low pay, meant my life at Gap wasn’t all that different from when I was unemployed. Though I was working, I still had to go to a food pantry for groceries. In winter, I had to choose between racking up heat bills I couldn’t afford and freezing in my apartment. My landlord would ask me when I’d have the rent money, but I couldn’t give her an answer because I never knew how many hours I’d actually work in a given week. I couldn’t afford to live in the city where I worked, so I had to transfer to a Gap store back home.
I’m not the only one struggling. Retail workers have the second-lowest average weekly earnings of workers in any sector in the US economy: $444 per week. We also have the second-lowest average weekly working hours. From 2006 to 2010, the number of people working part-time for economic reasons and not by choice, grew from 4 to 9 million. It’s called involuntary part-time work, meaning we want full-time employment but a lack of opportunities prevents us from doing so.
Unpredictable last-minute scheduling makes it difficult to budget and turns even the most basic decisions into headaches. Will we need babysitters for our children? Will we be able to make a doctor’s appointment? Will we have to rush to Gap from our second jobs?
One of my co-workers, started working at Gap as she was transitioning out of homelessness, but she wasn’t making enough to get stable housing on her own. Most so-called middle class jobs lost in the recession have been replaced by low-wage work like retail jobs. I’m thankful to be working, but gratitude born of desperation is no comfort and it certainly doesn’t pay the rent.
As the involuntary part-time worker population has drastically grown, so too has Gap’s executive compensation. Since 2010, total executive compensation packages exploded from $19m to over $42m by 2014. Former CEO Glenn Murphy’s compensation increased from $5.9m in 2010 to $16m in 2014. So-called ‘on-call scheduling’ creates a cheap on-demand workforce, enabling the Gap to pad its bottom line. The gains don’t go to us; they flow to the top-earners in the company. We make the sacrifices, they reap the rewards.
Another co-worker began working at Gap, in addition to a second retail job, as a way to escape the illicit drug trade. My colleague once told me: “everybody wants a job, no one wants to really be out hustling in the streets.” But the on-call shifts became unbearable, and he struggled to pay rent. For him, the trade-off between street money and regular employment was costly. This structural combination of low wages and unfair scheduling pressures workers into the underground economy, and is a hidden pipeline to the prison system.
I do, however, feel hope. Here in Minnesota, lawmakers are considering new legislation, supported by workers and community groups like Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, that would require three weeks’ advance notice of work schedules. Across the country, low-wage workers are fighting for fair scheduling and the tide is turning. Just this summer, Victoria’s Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch have announced an end to their on-call shifts. The Gap can be part of this rising tide.
Source: The Guardian
Amalgamated Bank announces $15 minimum wage
When many people envision a banker, they usually think of the Hollywood image of the arrogant, Wall Street type. But...
When many people envision a banker, they usually think of the Hollywood image of the arrogant, Wall Street type. But they don’t think of the tellers who deal with customers every day.
All that has changed, at least with Amalgamated Bank, which announced a company-wide $15 minimum wage for all employees. The news drew praise from the likes of Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who stated that every bank in New York show follow Amalgamated Bank’s example.
“Large employers with workforces so underpaid they rely on public assistance is a story we hear all too often in connection with big-box stores and fast-food chains,” said Brewer in a statement. “But the shocking truth is that 40 percent of workers in New York’s banks rely on public assistance, and nearly three quarters of New York’s bank tellers earn less than $15 per hour.”
“While Amalgamated’s new policy is a major step forward, positive actions by individual employers are still no substitute for progress on statewide and nationwide minimum wage increases. We must keep fighting for Albany and Washington to raise the minimum wage.”
According to analysis that the National Employment Law Project provided to ThinkProgress.org, the most common occupation with bank companies is bank teller, and nearly 75 percent of them make less than $15 an hour. Close to a half million people work as bank tellers, with the median hourly wage at just $12.44. Just over 71 percent make less than $15, and wages have fallen by 3.4 percent between 2009 and 2014 as the cost of living has risen.
The NELP report didn’t stop there. It also revealed that more than 40 percent of bank customer service representatives makes less than $15 an hour. According to NELP, a quarter of the people in banking who work in maintenance, production and protective service make less than $15 an hour as well. The report further stated that bank tellers are overwhelmingly female (85 percent of the bank teller workforce) and are disproportionately Latino (20 percent of bank tellers though 16.5 percent of the overall American workforce). Close to a third have to rely on some sort of public assistance.
NELP’s analysis concluded that bank tellers should get a $15 minimum wage.
Brian Kettenring, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, praised Amalgamated Bank’s actions.
“Workers across the country are fighting for a $15 minimum wage because it means dignity and a chance for us to break down barriers that keep us from sustaining our families,” said Kettenring in a statement. “This bold step by Amalgamated Bank is what happens when sensible employers understand courageous organizing. We commend the bank for giving workers the pay they’ve earned and call on others in the industry to follow. Raising the wage is inevitable, and employers would be smart to raise wages proactively.
“Our communities will continue building the movement for $15 and a union, and we won’t stop until we’ve achieved it,” concluded Kettenring.
Source: Amsterdam News
The Perils of Ever-Changing Work Schedules Extend to Children’s Well-Being
Abercrombie & Fitch announced last week that it would stop requiring workers to be on call for shifts that could be...
Abercrombie & Fitch announced last week that it would stop requiring workers to be on call for shifts that could be canceled with little notice, making it the latest retailer to pull back from such scheduling practices.
Williams-Sonoma ended on-call shifts in the last several months, while Gap has scaled back the practice ahead of a study it has commissioned on scheduling. Last year, Starbucks announced that it was bringing more “stability and consistency” to its employees’ hours after an article in The New York Times highlighted the company’s habit of giving workers little advance notice on their schedules and requiring some to close and open stores in consecutive shifts, known as “clopening.”
Although the workers directly affected by unpredictable schedules are the most obvious winners, the biggest beneficiaries of a change in the practice could be their children.
A growing body of research suggests that children’s language and problem-solving skills may suffer as a result of their parents’ problematic schedules, and that they may be more likely than other children to smoke and drink when they are older.
“Young children and adolescents of parents working unpredictable schedules or outside standard daytime working hours are more likely to have inferior cognitive and behavioral outcomes,” the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal advocacy group, said last week in a report.
Last year, two Democratic representatives introduced the Schedules That Work Act, which would require employers to give workers more say about their hours and provide them with incentives to encourage more stable schedules.
“We are all talking about this today,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, who is one of the bill’s lead sponsors. “Five years ago, it was an issue people would have brushed to the corner.” The bill has 69 co-sponsors; two Democrats also introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Among the needs that policy makers and activists working on the issue identify is finding stable, professional child care on a schedule that shifts from week to week.
“The arrangements families put together are usually ad hoc,” Ms. DeLauro said. “They have to rely on other family members, friends. If something breaks down in that chain, they have a problem.”
While all shifting schedules pose a challenge in this regard, on-call work may be unique in the way it complicates child care arrangements.
Kris Buchmann of Albuquerque worked a retail job at a local mall when her son, now 3 ½, was about 1 year old. She said she was frequently scheduled for on-call shifts that never materialized or that lasted less than an hour when they did.
“I still had to pay a babysitter,” said Ms. Buchmann, who is active in a New Mexico organizing group called Organizers in the Land of Enchantment, or OLÉ. “Sometimes I would have to go pick her up, take her back to my house because she didn’t have transportation, drive to work, get sent home, still have to pay her, and drive her home.”
When Ms. Buchmann demanded a more stable schedule, her employer refused, an experience that is not uncommon. After that, she left the job.
As practices like unpredictable scheduling have proliferated in recent years, fed by a shift toward lean staffing models made possible by sophisticated software, they have attracted public criticism.
In a nationwide New York Times/CBS News poll in May, 72 percent of Americans favored requiring chain stores to provide at least two weeks’ notice for any change in schedule, or else compensate workers with extra pay.
Regulators have also taken notice. In April, the office of the New York State attorney general sent letters to 13 retailers, questioning their use of on-call shifts. The letters, which were first reported by The Wall Street Journal, said retailers were providing workers with “too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay.”
Several companies that received letters from the New York attorney general have denied that they use on-call scheduling for low-wage workers, or that it is common in their stores. Some retailers say that only a small fraction of their workers who have been on unpredictable schedules care for children.
“Very few of our store associates are working parents,” said Michael Scheiner, a spokesman for Abercrombie & Fitch, which was among the letter’s recipients.
But the problem appears to be widespread. A 2012 study of nonfood retail workers in New York City by Stephanie Luce of the City University of New York and by the Retail Action Project, a workers’ advocacy group, found that more than half of the surveyed workers who cared for others, like children or elderly family members, had to make themselves available for last-minute shifts.
Because the practice is relatively new, however, scholars must infer its likely impact from research over the last decade showing the effects on children of parents working nonstandard hours, including night shifts, that have been more common for years.
In one of the most respected studies, published in 2005 in the journal Child Development, Prof. Wen-Jui Han of New York University looked at children during their first three years of life, controlling for such demographic variables as their mothers’ income, education, and race and ethnicity.
Professor Han, who was then at Columbia University, found that children of mothers who worked nonstandard schedules performed lower on problem-solving, verbal comprehension and spoken language tests than children of mothers who worked traditional schedules. Part of the explanation, she concluded, was increased stress on the part of the parents.
“Parents try their best to attend to their children in a sensitive and warm manner, but the physical and emotional exhaustion from nonstandard schedules makes it difficult,” Professor Han said in an interview. “With young children, if they’re crying, asking for food, asking for something, it’s all about how you interact with them.”
Another key issue, she found, was access to quality child care. Children whose mothers worked nonstandard schedules during their first year of life were significantly less likely to be enrolled in professional day care centers throughout early childhood. This type of child care setting, she noted in the paper, tends to be associated with better cognitive development than informal arrangements like relying on extended family members, a frequent alternative.
As for adolescents, Professor Han and two colleagues published a second paper, in the journal Developmental Psychology in 2010, which said that the longer mothers worked odd hours, the more likely their children were to smoke, drink, act out and engage in sexual activity.
The specific effect of on-call work and other frequently changing schedules — as opposed to work hours that fall outside the traditional workday — is only beginning to be studied, but social scientists worry that it has similar implications for children.
In a study of female workers at a large clothing retailer published last year in the Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Julia R. Henly and Susan J. Lambert of the University of Chicago found that the unpredictability of the workers’ schedules was related to higher stress and difficulties juggling work and family demands.
While the study did not examine the way this affected children, Dr. Henly suggested that the challenges posed by unpredictable work hours could take a toll on children as well. She also predicted that mothers with constantly changing work schedules would be less likely to enroll their children in preschool and other high-quality child care facilities.
“Some amount of early childhood education is important,” she said. “But it’s impossible to take advantage of those opportunities if you have a schedule that doesn’t allow you to get your kid there.”
According to Carrie Gleason of the Center for Popular Democracy, a nonprofit organization that helps community groups organize, such complications may explain why there appear to be fewer parents who work on-call shifts.
“A lot of times we find that they don’t last very long,” she said. “It’s absolutely impossible for working parents to meet their responsibilities to their families and hold down a job at a company with on-call shifts.”
Still, even parents who don’t work on-call jobs often have little advance notice of their schedules. In many companies that officially promise to make schedules available in advance, Ms. Gleason said, “managers edit the schedule up until the hours someone is supposed to come in.”
Correction: August 14, 2015
Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about the effects on children of their parents’ unpredictable work schedules misstated part of the name of a group in which Kris Buchmann, who left a retail job because of the difficulties in arranging child care, is active. It is Organizers in the Land of Enchantment, not Organizers in the Land of Enrichment.
Source: New York Times
The Federal Reserve Should Not Increase Interest Rates
Later this month, the world's top financial and economic policymakers will pow-wow at the Federal Reserve Bank annual...
Later this month, the world's top financial and economic policymakers will pow-wow at the Federal Reserve Bank annual meeting in Jackson Hole to determine whether it is time for the Fed to roll back recession-era policies -- e.g. a near-zero benchmark interest rate -- put in place to support job growth and recovery.
This would be the wrong decision for the communities that are still struggling to recover and the wrong decision for America. Advocates for higher interest rates point to an improving job market as a sign that America has come back from the recession. But many activists, economists, and community groups know that raising interest rates now would stymie the many communities, particularly those of color, that continue to face persistent unemployment, underemployment, and stagnant wages. As the Fed Up campaign, headed by the Center for Popular Democracy, notes in areport released this week, tackling the crisis of employment in this country is a powerful and necessary step toward building an economic recovery that reaches all Americans -- and ultimately, toward building a stronger economy for everyone.
The report, "Full Employment for All: The Social and Economic Benefits of Race and Gender Equity in Employment," shares a new data analysis by PolicyLink and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) estimating the boost to the economy that full employment -- defined as an unemployment rate of 4 percent for all communities and demographics along with increases in labor force participation -- would provide. While overall unemployment is down to 5.3 percent, it is still 9.1 percent for blacks and 6.8 percent for Latinos. Underemployment and stagnant wages have further driven income inequality and hinder the success of local economies. By keeping interest rates low, the Fed can promote continued job creation that leads to tighter labor markets, higher wages, less discrimination, and better job opportunities -- especially within those communities still struggling post-recession.
Lowering unemployment to 4 percent for all gender and racial groups (the rate of overall unemployment in 2000 when the economy was last at full employment) and increasing labor force participation rates would mean that 14.3 million more Americans are employed, 9.3 million fewer would live in poverty, GDP would increase by $1.3 trillion, and the government would receive an additional $261 billion in tax revenue, according to the report.
Full employment would also have an enormous positive impact on racial inequities in income. Currently, only half of workers of color make at least a living wage ($15/hour), compared to 69 percent of white workers, and median household income within communities of color is significantly lower compared to white households. With full employment, black households would see their incomes rise 23 percent, Latino households would see a 14 percent increase, and Native American households would see a 32 percent increase.
Armed with this data, which was compiled as part of ongoing economic research by PolicyLink and PERE's National Equity Atlas team, Fed Up will host its own meeting in Jackson Hole, featuring presentations by this team, activists, economists, and community organizers. This meeting, concurrent with the Fed's, aims to put pressure on the Federal Reserve to acknowledge those communities of color still mired in the recession and take up policies that will bring full employment to all. While Federal Reserve policies are not the only solution to boosting employment among those communities so often left behind, they are a vital and necessary step towards building a stronger, more inclusive American economy.
Source: Huffington Post Politics
Una cita con el jefe de la Reserva Federal de NY
Una coalición de trabajadores latinos afroamericanos se reunirá este viernes con una de las personas más poderosas del...
Una coalición de trabajadores latinos afroamericanos se reunirá este viernes con una de las personas más poderosas del sector económicos.
No vamos a hablar con un congresista ni senador, ni tampoco con el presidente Obama. En vez, le contaremos nuestra historia a una persona de la que pocos han oído; alguien sumamente importante, que está a cargo de dictar política: William Dudley, presidente del Banco Federal de Reserva de Nueva York.
La Reserva Federal es un banco central de Estados Unidos que en este momento es la más importante entidad de política económica, pues el Congreso no ha aprobado leyes significativas para estimular la economía y sacarnos de esta recesión. Eso significa que la Reserva Federal está tomando las principales decisiones sobre la economía, algo que históricamente ha hecho sin participación alguna del público.
Pero la coalición Fed Up, que incluye al Centro para la Democracia Popular, New York Communities for Change y Make the Road New York, se dedica a cambiar eso, pues la Reserva debe escuchar a la gente como usted y yo.
A pesar de lo que sabemos sobre la economía –la vida que llevan nuestras familias y su lucha diaria– miembros de la Reserva Federal como William Dudley se rehúsan a ver la realidad.
Tratan de afirmar que la economía se ha recuperado. Quieren aumentar las tasas de interés y dejar de estimular la economía antes de que el resto de nosotros siquiera tenga la oportunidad de recuperarse. Es una pésima idea.
El desempleo todavía es más alto y los salarios todavía son más bajos que antes de la recesión. Además, los salarios de los trabajadores afroamericanos en general no han aumentado en los últimos 15 años.
Dudley y otros miembros muy poderosos de la Reserva Federal viven en una burbuja y tratan de hacer que aceptemos el decepcionante nivel de desempleo y subempleo actual como algo normal.
Pero aún pasamos dificultades: el desempleo entre los latinos en Nueva York es de 8.5%, y el desempleo entre afroamericanos es de 11%. Por más que las cosas vayan bien en Wall Street para los amigos de William Dudley en Goldman Sachs, no van bien en Jamaica, Mott Haven, Sunset Park ni Washington Heights.
William Dudley ha dicho que la decisión de aumentar las tasas de interés representará un cambio tan profundo que será un “cambio de régimen”. Una decisión de tal magnitud es demasiado importante como para dejarla en manos de los banqueros de Wall Street.
Los desempleados, los subempleados, quienes trabajan demasiado y los mal pagados representan la mayoría en la economía, y tenemos el derecho a voz y voto.
Nos reuniremos con Dudley porque las decisiones más trascendentales de la Reserva Federal –las principales decisiones para toda la economía en este momento– son cruciales. Es necesario escuchar también las voces de los trabajadores latinos y de afroamericanos.
3 days ago
2 days ago