CPD IN THE NEWS

The Committee for Better Banks (CBB), a Communications Workers of America (CWA)-affiliated community and labor coalition, was created in 2013 to put an end to that. Cassaundra Plummer, a Maryland-based CBB member currently employed as a bank teller at TD Bank, told In These Times, “A lot of the issues within the banks are not discussed, they’re kept really quiet. As a young woman, I always thought that working at a bank was more of a prestigious job than retail. Once I actually got into banking, I realized that it’s not a whole lot different.”

The CBB, which has grown from eight lead members in April to approximately 60 in six different states today, with thousands more either engaged through petition signing or attending rallies. CBB is hoping to expand and create a critical mass of organized workers by bringing these issues out in the open. 

A study released by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) early this month shored up CBB claims, finding that 30.4% of the 1.7 million retail banking employees across the country—more than 500,000 workers—are paid less than $15 an hour. Nearly three-quarters of low-wage bank workers are bank tellers, 84.3% of which are women.

Another report, published by the UC Berkeley Labor Center last year, found that these low-wages led 31% of bank teller families toward enrolling in public assistance programs (compared to 25 percent of the entire workforce). “The cost of public benefits to families of bank tellers is nearly $900 million per year,” says the report.

Though it was labeled an “occupational winner” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for its 84% throughout its growth in the 1970s, the introduction and proliferation of automated teller machines helped put the brakes on that, leading to a projected 1% growth over the next decade. As Timothy Noah noted for Slate in 2010, banks tellers earn “slightly less than [they] did in 1970,” putting the job at the center of wage stagnation that has become common-place throughout the middle class, especially within the context of expectations of higher productivity.

CEO compensation and executive pay indeed remain at worrying heights. The NELP report found that CEOs of Wells Fargo and Bank of America made amounts equal to more than 500 times the annual earnings of an average bank teller. Stephen Lerner, the architect of SEIU’s famed Justice for Janitors campaign, summed up the wealth disparity among bankers at the top and bottom of the pay brackets in a 2010 New Labor Forum article, writing, “We could increase pay by $2.00 per hour and provide employer-paid health insurance for over 550,000 tellers with just 3.6 percent of the bonuses paid out to executives.”

“The constant focus on making more forces the people working in the bank to take on more work, but we’re being paid the same amount,” says Plummer. “We’re not expecting to become wealthy off of entry-level positions. But the corporations make a lot of money off of the things that we do—the sales goals, and all that we have to do to create wealth for the bank. It should be reciprocated back to the employees.”

By shifting traditional banking services toward automation, low-wage bank workers such as bank tellers and personal bankers have also become the frontline for pushing financial products on to customers in an effort to increase profits. The pressure of sales quotas imposed by management and executives at the top keeps low-wage bank workers under more scrutiny than ever before. Customer service employees in retail banks must not only attempt to hook patrons onto core retail banking services like checking and savings accounts, but must also resort to hawking mortgages and credit cards in ways CBB organizers say can be predatory. Tellers risk termination if they fail to meet quotas for such products.

“Wells Fargo creates an environment of hostility and humiliation. Multiple times I witnessed management behaving in a condescending fashion to those who did not meet ‘goals’ even though their customer service was excellent. Wells no longer cares about customer service or the best interest of their customers; they are only looking to push products and most of the time they are unnecessary products,” one bank employee told the Committee of Better Banks when they surveyed 5,000 workers for the aforementioned study at the group’s conception.

According an April 2015 report by the Center for Popular Democracy, since 2011, 17 different lawsuits across the top five banks in the country (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and US Bank) have been settled for nearly $46 billion, “highlighting a range of alleged illegal and unethical business practices.”

A 2013 Los Angeles Times investigation reported that the pressure of sales goals, which increase U.S retail banks’ profits, has led some bank workers to commit fraud, forging signatures, opening secret checking accounts with fees attached, or even credit lines for customers in order to keep up with their sales goals. This has led to lawsuits from customers and even cities decrying the rigid and unfair sales culture fostered by the banking industry. When these practices become public, banks fire employees and managers in alleged attempts to uphold ethical finance.

But as Khalid Taha, one of the first Committee members in California, currently employed at Wells Fargo in San Diego, describes it, the “impossible” sales goals come from the top and workers ultimately have no other option. “They fire the entry level employees which is us, but if you think about it, yes we are responsible for it, but we are also victims,” says Taha. “We have to keep our jobs, pay our rent. We have no way but to go a little bit shady when we deal with our customers because the company wants to meet their quota. They don’t care how.”

Beyond low pay, CBB has been working to connect these pressurized work environments to their detrimental effects on the economy caused by the bank’s business practices.

The top four retail banks in the country (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo), part of the too-big-to-fail banking institutions that some, like presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, have called to be broken up, now collectively possess assets equivalent to 45% of the U.S economy, a slight increase than what it was in 2008 before that year’s financial crisis.

Lerner, who is currently advising CBB as a fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, told In These Times, “This campaign is different from many union campaigns that say ‘our sole goal is winning better conditions for workers.’ Those campaigns are important, [but] in this case we’re saying that you can’t win better conditions for workers unless you reform the industry—and you can’t reform the industry unless workers are helping reform it.”

At an April 2015 rally in Minnesota where they delivered 11,000 signatures on a petition calling for an end to sales goals, the Committee for Better Banks released a proposed bill of rights for bank workers. One of the planks of the bill addresses what they say is community suffering at the hands of banks: “We must eliminate unreasonable sales goals or performance metrics that force us to push unnecessary products on our customers. We are here for our neighbors—for the child who opens his first savings account, for the newlywed couple planning ahead to retirement, for the senior citizen opening a credit card. We want to be honest brokers of your financial security, and that means an end to pressure tactics that only serve to line shareholders’ pockets.”

“We’re at the very beginning of a baby-steps campaign to build working support for the idea that we need to do two things, and that come simultaneously: We need to address how bank workers unfairly—low pay, etc., but we need to connect with how the finance industry behaves is bad for the overall economy,” Lerner says.

In 2010, Lerner was launching SEIU’s new plan to organize bank workers. Mike Elk described that effort as emanating from his realization that banks influenced the rest of labor organizing through its close connections to the pensions and investment banks that intertwined with financial decisions made not only by workers but their communities, as well.

At the time, fellow journalist Steve Early told Elk, “[Successful organizing] require[s] a long-term commitment that few unions are willing to make, even when dealing with a strategic multinational target that’s not going away.” Lerner left SEIU later that year under disputed circumstances, and his work organizing bank employees was abandoned by the union.

CEO and President of union-owned Amalgamated Bank, Keith Mestrich announced in early August that the bank’s employees would be making at least $15 an hour under their new collective bargaining agreement. He told Buzzfeed, “We think it’s the right thing for our bank to do, and frankly we think it’s the right thing for all banks to do. … If any industry in this country can afford to set a new minimum for its workers, it’s the banking industry.”

But in the rest of the nonunionized retail banking industry, CBB, like the Fight for 15 and OUR Walmart, will be agitating for improvements.

“It was a little bit scary at the beginning, but we have to do it. If we don’t talk then the banks will do whatever they want to do,” says Taha.

Source: In These Times

In recent months, the music media has responded to the political climate by zooming in on artist behavior: Have or haven’t they condemned Trump? Where do they stand? What do they suggest we do to resist? Publications including The FADER have increasingly looked to celebrities to provide a moral compass, to demonstrate what large-scale compassion looks like, and to show their peers what they’re doing wrong.

Read the full article here.

The Huffington Post - November 21, 2013, by Ana María Archila - As progressives, we need to dramatically increase our scale and reach to win. With the merger of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and the Leadership Center for the Common Good (LCCG) in January 2014, we are poised to do just that. The stakes are high. The crisis in American society is severe: Inequality is now at the highest level ever recorded. In 2012, the top 1 percent of U.S. households received 19.3 percent of all household income.

The income gap between white and non-white America is growing even faster. Between 2005 and 2009, median white wealth declined by 16 percent, while median black wealth dropped by 53 percent and Latino wealth declined by 66 percent. Increasing economic inequality is being matched by increasing political inequality. Our democracy and the political participation of people of color, young people and the elderly are being eroded by state legislatures, with the tacit support of the Supreme Court.

All this would be much worse of course, if not for the work of the progressive organizations and movements that have fought inequality and racism for decades.

We can, and must, go farther and faster to fight inequality, the erosion of democracy and racial injustice. There is a growing opportunity to challenge the status quo and to build a society characterized by opportunity, equality and inclusion. Increasingly strong and assertive community organizations across the country are stepping up to demand better. Immigrant organizations, worker centers, progressive unions, elected officials and people of faith are envisioning and creating more inclusive and equitable cities and states, even in spite of our failed national politics.

The most successful community campaigns present a new vision for change, a creativity and fearlessness to promote policies many have thought unachievable, as well as a canny understanding of how to navigate local political forces.

My organization, the Center for Popular Democracy, works at the center of this emerging new politics, working to build the capacity and resilience of rooted, democratic, community-organizing institutions. We feel the urgency to grow our movement, to build new strength, to share organizing models and strategies more broadly, and to replicate campaigns and tactics that work to confront racial and economic inequality.

Just as our movement needs more power and reach, so do we. That's why we are merging with the Leadership Center for the Common Good to create a newly powerful Center for Popular Democracy on January 1, 2014. Our organizations' sister c4 organizations, Action for the Common Good and Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund will also merge to create a newly powerful Action for the Common Good. Part campaign center, part capacity builder, part policy shop, our merged and expanded organizations will work together to more effectively build the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda. From recent successes, we have a sense of what is possible when working communities are well organized, resourced and equipped to demand change. In New York, coalitions of community groups, progressive unions, and faith networks came together this year to secure a raft of impressive victories, from a raise in the state's minimum wage, to the adoption of paid sick days' legislation in New York City to the passage of pro-immigrant language access initiatives in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. And, in the face of fierce opposition from outgoing Mayor Bloomberg, CPD and our allies secured passage of new laws to stop the discriminatory policing tactics of the NYPD -- Stop and Frisk. CPD brought our policy expertise, strategy insights, and coalition coordination experience to these fights -- helping drive them to victory.

The New York victories mirror the work we are engaged in across the country -- in 27 states with more than 90 partners nationally. Through strategic and sustained local and state victories, driven by strong community and labor partners, and supported in important ways by CPD, we can secure tangible improvements in working people's lives and generate the upward pressure and momentum necessary to refocus national policy on furthering values of equity, opportunity and democracy for all.

Strong local organizations with a clear vision and an appetite for bold action are well able to scale up to win national victories when strategic opportunities present themselves. Last May, for example, the Home Defenders League, a project of LCCG and many close allies, staged a dramatic week of action which included civil disobedience by foreclosed homeowners at the Department of Justice as well as at other sites. Their actions tied together the simmering public outrage over the lack of prosecutions of Wall Street banks with a need to find relief for the hard hit families and communities. Five months later, reports of a pending $13 billion federal settlement with JPMorgan Chase suggest the long fight may be about to yield results.

The launch of the merged and expanded Center for Popular Democracy and Action for the Common Good is our ambitious move to help increase the strength, scale and reach of community organizing. Together, we are stronger. Together, we can build the power we need to win.

Source

KIM BROWN, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Kim Brown in Baltimore.

Interests rates will remain unchanged. That coming out of this week’s meeting of the Federal Reserve in DC. The official word from the feds, per their own statement, was that job gains have been “solid”, that household spending has been growing strongly, and inflation is running below expectations. But does this mean that the economy is actually doing well or are we still in a recession dressed up to appear better than what it actually is?

Joining us today from New York City is Jerald Epstein. Jerald is the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. He’s also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald welcome back.

JERALD EPSTEIN: Thanks a lot Kim.

BROWN: Jerald let’s start with the basics and then we can delve a little bit deeper. If the economy is showing the signs of strength as the Fed has indicated, then why didn’t they raise interest rates now and do you think that they are likely to do so at all this year?

EPSTEIN: Well I think Janet Yellen who’s the chair of the Fed, is aware that even though it’s been showing strength and the economy has been growing moderately for several years now, that there’s still much more room to go. That is that wage growth has gone up a tiny bit more than inflation recently, it’s still pretty stagnant, pretty flat line and she knows there’s still a number of workers out that who are so discouraged that they haven’t joined the labor force. So Janet Yellen is concerned about the labor force and the growth of wages but the problem is twofold. First of all, it’s always dangerous to raise interest rates around election time. So traditionally the federal reserve, they’ll try not to do that, move interest rates right around an election. So that’s one factor leading them not to do anything.

The second factor leading them not to do anything is that keeping inflation under control is one of their main mandates. They have two. Maintaining inflation at a low rate and they have a 2% target, and reaching high employment. Inflation is still below 2%. There’s really no signs of inflation going up. So there’s no compelling reason from the point of view of the macro economy to raise interest rates.

BROWN: It’s funny that you mention that the Fed is less likely to raise interest rates or even mess with the interest rate around election time because the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump has already accused Chairwoman Yellen of keeping the interest rates unchanged in order to appease the Obama administration. She of course has denied this. What are your thoughts?

EPSTEIN: Well I don’t think she did it for Clinton or Obama. But it is I think a tradition and it’s common for Federal Reserves not to raise and certainly change interest rates right before an election. So she is in sort of a tradition of what the Federal Reserve typically does. And it’s also typical especially recently for politicians to make the Federal Reserve the whipping boy or girl for political reasons. Sometimes there’s good reasons. For that.

But there was something kind of unusual for this meeting. In the recent meetings it’s been unanimous to keep interest rates the same or to mostly do what the Federal Reserve has done. But this time it was quite contentious. There were actually 3 people on the federal open market committee, the ones who make this decision who voted to raise interest rates.

This is kind of challenge to Janet Yellen’s leadership in this regard and it also shows what kind of pressure the Federal Reserve is under, particularly from the banks and the mutual fund industry, the insurance industry because with interest rates being so low, it’s very difficult for them to eek out much of a profit. And is typically the case when interest rates are very low for a very long period of time. Some sectors and very powerful important sectors of the financial industry push very hard for interest rates to be raised and they usually get a pretty good hearing at the Federal Reserve [be]cause the Federal Reserve has traditionally done pretty much what the banks have wanted them to do.

BROWN: Jerald it seems as if there’s not enough agreement between the Federal Reserve and among every day Americans on how well this economic recovery is going. So let’s unpack some of the elements of this. Starting with Chairwoman Janet Yellen’s comments on labor markets.

JANET YELLEN: We’re generally pleased with the progress of the economy and the decision not to raise rates today and to wait for some further evidence that we’re continuing on this course is largely based on the judgement that we’re not seeing evidence that the economy is overheating and that we are seeing evidence that people are being drawn in in larger numbers than what I would’ve expected into the labor market and that that’s healthy to continue.

BROWN: So the unemployment rate was under 5% in August and the caveat to that is more Americans are working part-time jobs. Plus, the gig economy is one way that people are surviving and supplementing their income. So is unemployment published monthly by the Bureau of Labor statistics, giving us an accurate figure on the number of Americans who are out of the labor force?

EPSTEIN: They don’t have an accurate number. They have estimates and I think it’s true that there’s still quite a few so called discouraged workers who are out of the labor force. It’s also the case like we said in the beginning that wage growth has been stagnant. Look, the Federal Reserve has a real dilemma here. On the one hand and this is typically the case with Janet Yellen who I think does want to indicate that their policies have had some effect, otherwise nobody will want them to continue these policies. And she thinks that they have had some positive effect on employment and I think they have.

But on the other hand their policies cannot turn around the long run decline of our economy. We need much different kinds, much bigger, much more radical policies in terms of public investment to generate jobs, hiking the minimum wage to a living wage, providing much more in a way of a safety net for workers, protecting pensions and other investments. So the list is very, very broad and very deep. And the Federal Reserve has been pretty reluctant to go further down that list.

The Federal Reserve could do more. They could use different tools to invest directly in the economy. There’s a group called Fed Up which has proposed that they do this. But Janet Yellen and her committee want to stay pretty close to their broader toolkit that they’ve developed and are really afraid to, I think take more radical action which they plausibly could take.

But in the end it really raises questions of the Federal Reserve’s legitimacy. Can they take some kind of really radical action without the broader government saying go ahead and do it? And until the political stalemate we have is resolved, I’m afraid the Federal Reserve can’t do much more and that means this kind of stagnation in wages and so forth is going to continue.

BROWN: Jerald you raise an excellent point about wage stagnation and how wages have largely remained flat going back 20, 30, and even 40 years depending on who you ask. But new census data this month says that household income jumped over 5% which is the largest such gain in decades but that top 1% of Americans saw an increase of around 7% rise in their income. If most of the economic recovery gained since the great recession of 2007, 2008--if most of these gains have gone to the top1%, does it still count as a recovery if it’s not being felt by the majority of Americans?

EPSTEIN: No it does and this has been a very lopsided so called recovery and yes there have been some modest gains for the middle class and some working class people. So the Federal Reserve actions have had some positive effect. But until you really change the structure, change the tax policies so that the wealthy have to pay more of their taxes so the multinational corporations can’t park their earnings overseas and not pay any taxes like Apple and other corporations have been doing until you have much more aggressive jobs programs to bring about a Green transition and many other things. We’re not going to have a real recovery. These kind of very small sorts of gains which are gains but aren’t enough are going to be the best we’re going to see.

BROWN: Jerald what’s keeping inflation in check right now? Is it cheap oil prices?

EPSTEIN: It’s several things. First of all, cheap oil prices and other commodity prices are one thing. But they’re also partially related to the headwinds in the global economy against economic growth. China’s not growing as much so they’re not demanding as much oil and other commodities. Many other developing countries aren’t growing so fast. Europe isn’t growing hardly at all.

So this really dampens the demand for all of these commodities and with these prices going down that does keep inflation in check. The other thing is, all of the forces that are keeping wages in check. That is, imports from China, the union busting that’s been going on, the threat of multinational corporations to move abroad. All of these factors plus more are making it very difficult for workers to have their wages go up. Wages are a cost so that to some extent keep inflation in check as well.

And finally you have the retail industry that’s subject to loss of competition that just keeps squeezing and squeezing and squeezing workers more and more. Until we get big increase in the minimum wage, until we get policies to put workers back to work at well-paying jobs, we’re not going to see real wages go up and we’re also not going to see prices go up very much at all.

BROWN: And lastly Jerald, the wealthiest Americans, the top 1% of Americans are fairing very well and we are experiencing income inequality probably at the largest gap since the Gilded Age. We have seen so many sickle economic bubble burst over the past 20 years with the tech bubble bursting in the late 90’s and the housing bubble bursting in the mid 00’s. Are we at risk of another such economic bubble burst on the horizon any time soon.

EPSTEIN: Yes, we’re always at that kind of risk. It’s hard to see where exactly the bubble would come from. There are little bubblets going on all over the place that don’t seem so broad and connected up with debt and the financial system that it seems as so we’re going to have a kind of bubble burst the way we saw in 2007, 2008 but we might have bubblets burst in the high tech industry and so forth. What’s more likely is this slow burn of stagnation and increases in distress effecting so many people in the United States except for the wealthy who will continue to do very well. Not only income inequality at all-time highs, wealth inequality, how much assets people own has grown and grow and grow and grown. If you look for example, if the net wealth, that is assets minus liabilities, minus debt of African Americans in this country. A report recently came out that said, the median net wealth of African Americans is zero. There’s no net wealth. So this system cannot continue to go in this form. It helps to explain a lot of the political disorder that we’re seeing. The political fighting up we’re seeing and it’s just going to keep going unless we have some fundamental changes in the economy.

BROWN: Indeed. We’ve been speaking with Jerald Epstein. Jerald is a co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. He’s also professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Jerald as always, we appreciate you joining us here on the Real News.

EPSTEIN: Thank you very much Kim.

BROWN: And thank you for tuning in to the Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a

recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Source