CPD IN THE NEWS

Workers issues aren't just something highlighted on Labor Day. In fact, next year's session of the Maryland General Assembly will likely be full of them.

Labor advocates have been rallying around the "Fair Work Week" bill, which would make employers post schedules for workers at least three weeks in advance. Supporters says workers at bars, restaurants, and in the hospitality industry are especially susceptible to sudden schedule changes.

But that will be far from the only bill to help workers that lawmakers will debate next year in Annapolis, according to Montgomery County Del. David Moon.

"We also hope to see paid sick leave, which has been a top priority for a lot of justice advocates, move in the next session. Women's pay equity has been another top priority that didn't move in the last legislative session. And lastly collective bargaining rights at community colleges has been a topic," he says.

Since state lawmakers adjourned for the year in April, the Montgomery County Council enacted a paid sick leave law at the local level, but it doesn't take affect until next year.

Most employers in Maryland's most populous jurisdiction will have to offer workers one-hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The most those workers can accrue is one week of paid sick leave per year.

Source: WAMU 88.5

For more than two decades, workers in the retail and restaurant industries have struggled to balance family life and other obligations with jobs that demand they be “on call.” Now, under legal pressure and in a tightening labor market, some employers are changing their approach.

On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General’s office announced that six retailers – Aeropostale, Carter’s, David’s Tea, Disney, PacSun, and Zumiez – have agreed to end “on-call” scheduling. From now on, their employees will not need to check each day whether they should come to work, nor do they risk being sent home early without pay when the store is quiet. Four of the companies also committed to giving employees their schedules one week in advance.

Ending “on-call” scheduling will make a big difference for employees, increasing the predictability of work schedules and making it easier to plan other activities. But they aren’t the only ones who will benefit from the change, observers say: It could also bring long-term benefits for businesses and society.

“It’s a pretty significant move,” Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, tells The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview. “Retail companies ... are really starting to recognize that they need to invest in their workforce.”

In the past, workers’ wages were considered a fixed cost, wrote Robert Reich, who served as Labor secretary during Bill Clinton’s presidency and is now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, however, wages became a variable cost: Many businesses used on-call scheduling to trim costs by having as few workers as possible. Some even deployed software systems that highlighted the times when employees were least needed.

That kind of scheduling takes a substantial toll on workers, explains Lonnie Golden, a professor of economics and labor-employment relations at Penn State University-Abington, in a phone interview with the Monitor. Professor Golden was the primary author of an April report for the Economic Policy Institute about the consequences of irregular work scheduling.

Uncertain hours make it hard for workers to plan their daily lives, says Golden. Holding down a second job becomes more difficult, uncertain paychecks mean incomes often fall short, and childcare is an increased challenge.

These employees are most likely to experience “work-life conflict” and be stressed at work, Golden notes.

That also puts businesses with “on-call” scheduling on the wrong side of some state and federal labor laws. In April, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the attorneys general of seven other states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to the six retailers asking them to end the practice, as they have now agreed to do.

Ms. Gleason points to that April letter and other, similar investigations as the "single most influential factor" in moving businesses away from these scheduling practices. Seven other businesses announced that they would end "on-call" scheduling in 2015.

But with a new presidential administration kicking off in a few weeks, the future of these investigations is uncertain.

“The incoming Labor Secretary is [at] the complete opposite end of the spectrum,” Gleason says, making it “incumbent now on states” to continue pushing for these standards.

Worker-friendly policies are becoming bipartisan causes in many states, the Monitor’s Schuyler Velasco wrote in October – and New York is one of several states working toward a legislative ban on “on-call” scheduling. In September, Seattle's city council unanimously passed a “secure scheduling” law, which requires employers to schedule their workers 14 days in advance, and includes a "right to rest" provision that allows workers to decline closing and opening shifts that are less than 10 hours apart.

Businesses themselves may have incentives to end on-call scheduling. In a tightening labor market, employers want to hang on to their workers, notes Golden, who is also a senior research analyst at the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois. And businesses that offer better hours – and more consistent hours – are more appealing to workers, leading to better retention.

The more businesses sign on to these measures, the more workers’ wages are taken out of the cost-cutting equation. More than 300,000 workers have been impacted so far, says Gleason.

Greater certainty about schedules has benefits beyond individual workers, she says. If people know when they’re working, they can also schedule time to be with their children, or attend college and grad school classes.

“Employees are going to be better off, and maybe even society,” she says.

By Ellen Powell

Source

Buzzfeed - 05.21.2015 - Randa Jama, a wheelchair attendant at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, would be referred to as a “voluntary” part-time worker in the jobs data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). She only works weekends, spending weekdays caring for her children, in large part because she couldn’t afford a babysitter without much better hours and pay.

Though Jama says she would prefer to be working full-time, that information doesn’t filter through to the nation’s monthly employment report. The same goes for many other workers — almost a million, mainly women, one advocacy group estimates — who can’t work the full-time hours they want to, and aren’t classed alongside other unemployed or underemployed people in official data.

The distinction comes from a question, asked as part of the BLS population survey, about underemployment caused by “economic” or “non-economic reasons.” It classes factors like child care as non-economic reasons people aren’t working more hours - and commonly refers to these workers as “voluntarily” part time.

“The number of people working part time for economic reasons is a closely watched economic indicator,” reads the interviewer’s manual for the survey, as “a measure of underemployment and of the inability of the nation’s economy to generate the types of jobs desired.”

Those working part-time for “non-economic reasons” (sometimes referred to as “voluntarily” part-time) are not watched the same way.

“They reflect personal, rather than business, reasons for working part time,” the manual says. It means measurements of the economy’s ability to create full-time work could be overlooking many part-time working women who are not working full-time because of a lack of child care, or other family obligations.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argues that while the terminology “economic” and “non-economic” is correct, describing workers in need of child care as “voluntarily” part time is misleading.

“What we’re trying to measure is the strength of the economy,” Baker told BuzzFeed News. “For that, they’re asking the right question: ‘If the economy were stronger, would these people have jobs?’ But if the economy were stronger and these women still didn’t have child care, they still wouldn’t be working full-time.”

Baker said the unemployment numbers also don’t account for women who would like to be working full- or part-time, but aren’t actively looking for work because they can’t afford child care. Similarly, workers who are part-time because of transportation issues — such as an inability to get to and from jobs in the suburbs — would be counted as “voluntarily” part time for “non-economic reasons,” despite wanting full employment.

A recent study by the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), a liberal advocacy group, estimated about a million women want to work full-time but can’t due to these “voluntary” reasons.

“In theory the economy could be robust enough where these women could have their needs met,” said Aditi Sen, a CPD researcher who co-authored the study. Policymakers may put less focus on full employment for women, she argued, if the official statistics don’t include their desire for full time work.

Justin Wolfers, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and professor at the University of Michigan, said that the BLS isn’t hiding any data.

“There’s no doubt that above and beyond the people we count as unemployed there is slack at a number of margins,” he said, giving the example of jobless workers who are not actively seeking work but who would take jobs if they were offered them. This group is also not included in the top-line numbers of the jobs report.

Wolfers said the BLS publishes extensive data and statistics on those margins, adding that the CPD report may not be a “reflection on the current moment, but something that’s been going on.”

Karen Kosanovich, an economist with the Current Population Survey program at the BLS, said the survey asks those who are working part-time for non-economic reasons if they would prefer to be working full time, but their answers are not released with the jobs report data.

“The reason for part time work and the desire for full time work are separate,” said Kosanovich. “They’re asked in separate questions, and we don’t have any tables that include that [latter] information.”

The last time the BLS population survey questions were revised was back in 1994. New questions helped capture a population of workers that previously went unrecorded.

“The biggest thing the new questions caught were women and men working at the part-time margin, especially women doing work outside the home,” said Brad Hershbein, a visiting fellow at The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institute.

Both Hershbein and Baker said adding new questions in the BLS survey could help capture the growing share of contemporary workers with irregular schedules — such as those moonlighting as an Uber driver for 15 hours a week. They could show more people in the workforce working part-time — with ramifications for overall data on unemployment — just like the questions added in the ’90s did.

“They made these changes [to the survey] to keep up to date with who’s working and what work looks like now, but they haven’t updated it in 20 years,” Hershbein said. “And it turns out the way they asked the questions increased the labor force participation.”

Source: Buzzfeed

Democrat and Republican lawmakers on Wednesday took issue with the current structure of regional Federal Reserve Bank boards, though they couldn't agree on how to reform the quazi-private-public firms.

The twelve regional Fed banks have come under increased scrutiny in recent months after Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton issued a statement in May saying she supports removing bankers from regional Fed boards and increasing director diversity. Her comments heightened the public profile of an issue that otherwise hasn't received much focus.

A key point of debate was concerns by consumer groups that having bankers on regional Fed boards creates a conflict of interest since reserve bank staff supervise big and small commercial banks in their districts. This contrasts to the central bank in Washington, which is a government agency with governors that are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. 

For example, among the nine directors who serve on the New York Fed board are Morgan Stanley (MS) CEO James Gorman and two community bank chief executives.

House Republicans indicated during a subcommittee hearing of the House Financial Services Committee that they weren't overly concerned by bank CEOs serving on such quasi-private boards while Democrats questioned the diversity of the panels.

"I don't object to bankers being on the boards," Gwen Moore, D-Wisc., told reporters after the hearing. "I'm concerned about the voice of other directors who are there and their efficacy to participate fully and about mobilizing and empowering them once they are there."

Moore, the top Democrat on the Monetary Policy and Trade subcommittee, said she the boards need more diversity, noting that none of them have hired a Latino or African American as president of the regional Fed banks where they serve.

Meanwhile, demonstrators from a consortium of consumer groups calling itself "Fed Up" attended the hearing, dressed in green shirts with slogans such as "16 of 17 Fed leaders are white."

The group also took issue with bankers on the regional Fed boards and, in their view, a lack of board diversity.

"When these voices are excluded from the conversation, then our interests are excluded," Ruben Lucio, a representative from the Center for Popular Democracy and a member of Fed Up, told reporters outside of the hearing.

According to current rules, regional boards have nine directors divided into three classes. Three banking directors are elected by member banks, another three are designated by the same banks to represent the public and interests of commerce, industry, labor and consumers, and the final class is appointed by Fed governors to represent the public. 

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., said he wanted to delve more deeply into bank executives serving on the boards but noted that the Kansas City Fed, which covers the district he represents, appears to be quite diverse based on a variety of metrics.

It "has a diverse board ethnically, gender wise, labor wise, regional within the Fed and that was the template I'm using," Perlmutter said.

Two regional Fed presidents, meanwhile, pushed back against concerns about conflicts of interest during their testimony. 

Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker noted that strict rules govern their conduct. "They simply have no avenue through which they can influence supervisory matters," Lacker said.

And Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pointed out that bankers who serve on reserve bank boards are prohibited from participating in the selection of bank presidents.

Republicans, meanwhile, focused much of their attention on whether too much influence over monetary policy is wielded by the East Coast, particularly the New York Fed.

Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and chairman of the monetary policy subcommittee, argued that lawmakers should back legislation he sponsored, the Federal Oversight Reform and Modernization Act, or FORM, which includes a provision that would reduce the influence of the New York bank.

The Federal Open Market Committee, the branch of the central bank that determines monetary policy, has 12 voting members made up of seven members of the Fed board of governors and five of the regional Fed banks.

The president of the New York Fed, which supervises Wall Street firms from JPMorgan Chase (JPM) to Goldman Sachs  (GS) and Citigroup (C) , is a permanent voting member but the other regional bank presidents serve rotating one-year terms. Huizenga's legislation would put the New York Fed president into the voting rotation along with all the other regional bank chiefs.

"For crying out loud, the San Francisco bank has a tremendously important area," Huizenga told reporters after the hearing. "Silicon Valley, that stretches from LA to Seattle, has tremendously valuable input and to have them only be a voting member every two or three years doesn't make a lot of sense to me."

Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, said she was concerned that the Western states weren't well represented by the regional Fed bank structure.

"You have members on both sides of the aisle expressing concerns and I would like to know what might be done to rebalance the Fed to ensure that all Americans are represented in monetary policy decisions," she said. 

Don Lamson, of counsel at Squire Patton Boggs in Washington and a former regulator at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, suggested that if the goal is to create greater accountability to Congress, legislators should require the Fed regional bank system to be funded through congressional appropriations instead of the self-funding that exists now.

With that structure, legislators could remove the regional Fed boards, transforming the quazi-private-public entities into government agencies.

An appropriations process, however, would destroy the independence of the Fed, which is vital to setting interest rates and supervising banks appropriately, Moore argued.

Expanding legislative influence would also open Federal Reserve funding to unrelated policy measures that might be attached in an attempt to get them passed. "Come meet with me I'm the chairman of the Fed's appropriations committee," Moore said facetiously.

By Ronald Orol

Source