CPD IN THE NEWS

OZY - December 23, 2013, by Pooja Bhatia - For decades, talk about economic inequality was taboo. Those who tried were met with accusations of sour grapes, inciting class warfare, or — gasp! — advocating socialism.

But such rhetorical bludgeons appear to have lost force in recent years, and words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse. It’s not quite the head of the table, but it’s not the servants’ quarters either. 

Words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse.

“The core issue of economic justice has been getting more traction now than during most of my time in organizing,” says Andrew Friedman, who’s been a progressive organizer for more than 15 years and now co-directs the Center for Popular Democracy in New York. Derecka Mehrens, executive director of labor-oriented think tank Working Partnerships USA in San Jose, Calif., agrees: “There’s been a sea change in how and even whether we talk about inequality.”

The signs are everywhere. In his November apostolic exhortation, the pope warned of the “tyranny” of unfettered capitalism and called “an economy of exclusion and inequality” sinful. Clear majorities of Americans support hiking the minimum wage and other policies that aim to reduce the wealth gap. Earlier this month, President Obama positioned inequality and lack of social mobility as the “defining issue of our time.” Mayors-elect of major cities all made economic inequality central to their platforms. And this year’s National Book Award for nonfiction went to George Packer’s The Unwinding, which chronicles rising social and economic inequality in the United States.  

Inequality talk is no longer off-limits for a simple reason: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely. 

Some credit the 2011 Occupy movements for popularizing economic inequality. (Or blame it, depending on their perspective.) But the main reason inequality talk is no longer off-limits is probably simpler: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely. Some 10 million people lost their homes in the Great Recession. Although unemployment is at a five-year low, the decline is partly because many have stopped looking for work.

As OZY noted a few weeks ago, the lag between technical “recovery” and job growth is lengthening, and these days it’s lingering four to five years. No wonder the Great Recession’s rough ride seems endless. Moreover, while worker productivity has increased over the past decade, real wages have stagnated or declined — leaving the average worker to wonder just where the gains from productivity are going.

“They hear the news that the stock market is climbing and say, Oh really?” Mehrens says.

Lovely A. Warren won election as mayor of Rochester last month with a campaign lamenting what she called the “two Rochesters,” challenged by crime and poverty, but also boasting prosperous neighborhoods.

Economic inequality has been growing since at least the early 1980s. But it was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike. Economic inequality grew during the Bush years too, but those were the days of subprime homeownership and plasma TVs for all. Five years after the collapse of that easy-credit economy, most Americans are still hurting. The average household has recovered less than half the wealth it lost during the recession.

As a result, income inequality has become a winning issue in some cities. The mayors-elect of New York, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis made economic justice a central plank of their platforms — and did so despite naysayers and with newfound success. New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s “tale of two cities,” for instance, was not much different from Fernando Ferrer’s campaign theme in 2005 or Ruth Messinger’s in 1997 — but only in the New York of 2013 did it resonate. 

It was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike.

Not that the discursive war has been won, mind you. Plenty of people and conservative think tanks still argue that inequality has nothing to do with poverty. Winning a war of words wouldn’t be enough anyway, organizers say: “We need to figure out how to use this sea change in how we talk about inequality to how we act against inequality,” says Mehrens.

The newfound cache of certain phrases has had some perverse effects. Developers and other big employers have latched onto terms like “living wage” but not always with worker-friendly intentions, says Lee Strieb, a researcher with labor organization Unite Here. Developers have “attempted to wrap themselves in the flag of the living wage, almost as a shield to avoid unionization,” says Strieb. ”There is a heightened sensitivity to the need to address [the wage] issue — but to the extent they can address it in a superficial way, they will.” 

Mr. de Blasio’s relentless critique of economic inequality in New York seemed to resonate with voters, who elected him in a landslide.

The shift could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners. 

It’s unclear whether 2014 will set in motion changes to our income distribution. Mayors alone may have little power to tackle the issue. They usually can’t run big deficits and, in cities like San Francisco and New York, space for affordable housing is hard to find. Most important, mayors can’t singlehandedly restore the middle-class jobs that disappeared during the recession.

Yet the shift in tone and rhetoric is significant and could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners. Consider Cam Kruse, 72, a mostly retired civil engineer who is active in ISAIAH, a social justice organization of about 100 churches in metropolitan Minneapolis. Kruse believes in small government. When working full time, he perched in the top one to three percent of earners. And he was a Republican for most of his adult life.

But earlier this year he found himself urging the state legislature to raise tax rates on top earners, which, he said, had fallen through the decades. Growing “gaps” in education, health, housing and transportation worried him. “My success, and that of all the other top earners in Minnesota, has been based on the investments that people before us made,” he testified. “It is our turn to give back and make investments for those who will be our future.” 

The tax increase passed.  

As the country reeled from news that Donald Trump Jr. apparently tried to collude with Russia against former Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton, his father, President Donald Trump, announced a decision that will have ripple effects on the American economy for years to come.

Trump, distressing advocates of tough financial rules and pro-worker monetary policy, on Monday nominated veteran Wall Street lawyer Randal Quarles to serve as the Federal Reserve’s top finance regulator.

Read the full article here.

This season, nearly 50,000 employees at six major retailers nationwide are getting a gift that will reduce their work stress and get them some holiday cheer: An end to on-call scheduling.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and eight other attorneys general announced this week that Disney, PacSun, Aeropostale, Carter's, David's Tea, and Zumiez have agreed to stop using on-call scheduling after an investigation was opened into the welfare concerns of this business model.

The six retailers said they have migrated to a "pool arrangement system."

On-call scheduling forces employees to call the store they work at one to two hours ahead of their schedules to find out if they will or won't be needed at work that day. Companies have used this system to keep labor costs low over the years.

"On-call shifts are not a business necessity and should be a thing of the past," said Schneiderman in a statement. "People should not have to keep the day open, arrange for child care, and give up other opportunities without being compensated for their time."

"I am pleased that these companies have stepped up to the plate and agreed to stop using this unfair method of scheduling," he said.

"When working parents are forced to hold large parts of their days up until the last minute — with no guarantee of work or pay — it is impossible for them to plan ahead for things like spending time at the dinner table or helping [kids] out with homework," said Elianne Farhat, Deputy Campaign Director in the Fair Workweek Initiative at Popular Democracy. "The research is clear that when employees have reliable schedules with adequate hours, retention and productivity go up."

Related: Shift Change: Just-in-Time Scheduling Creates Chaos for Workers

In April 2015, Schneiderman's office sent letters to 15 major retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Forever 21, American Eagle, Uniqlo, Vans, Coach, and BCBG Max Azria, addressing his concern over the welfare of on-call workers and the legal wage in certain states like New York, where employers must pay employees at least four hours of pay for being on call.

The letters and investigation prompted Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J.Crew, Urban Outfitters, Pier 1 Imports, and L Brands (parent company of Bath & Body Works and Victoria's Secret) to swiftly end their on-call practices.

Social media users celebrated Schneiderman's announcement with appropriate holiday spirit, thanking him for giving "a voice" to those who struggled to be heard, and ending a "horrible practice."

The letters were signed and supported by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island

by DAKSHAYANI SHANKAR

Source

New Haven, Conn., was the first city to issue a municipal ID in 2007 following the fatal stabbing of a 36-year-old undocumented immigrant while he cashed a check, according to a 2013 report by the Center for Popular Democracy on municipal ID programs.

Read the full story here.