GOP Court Activist Strikes Down NLRB Ruling
Lawsuits have successfully shut down the only two regulations put forward by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during the Obama administration.
The NLRB has proposed two controversial rules since President Obama took office — one that would require employers to post notices explaining collective bargaining rights to workers, and another that would speed up union elections.
In a court ruling against the union election rule this week, federal judges have now come down against both regulations, forcing the NLRB to halt implementation of each.
Business groups have supported efforts by Republicans in Congress to challenge the NLRB rules through legislation, but have had more success thwarting the regulations on their own in the courts.
“It does raise the question of agency overreach,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“After issuing two rules and seeing them struck down because [of a] lack of authority, I wonder if that doesn’t give the board pause and [cause it to] question what rulemaking authority it does have,” Conrad said. “If agencies are going to engage in rulemaking, they are going to have to know how to dot the I’s and cross the T’s.”
The Chamber and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace sued the NLRB over the union election rule. On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg struck the rule down, saying the NLRB lacked a quorum when it voted on the final rule in December.
It followed a decision last month by U.S. District Judge David Norton, who ruled that Congress didn’t give the labor board the authority to issue the notice rule in response to a challenge from the Chamber and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
The NLRB’s notice rule had survived an earlier legal challenge to the notice rule from the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Right to Work Foundation and others. That decision has since been appealed.
In response to the court rulings, the NLRB suspended implementation of the rules until the appeals process is resolved. It’s unclear when, or if, the rules will ever be reinstated.
Congress couldn’t achieve the same result. Legislation passed in the House last year to void the union election rule has gone nowhere in the Senate.
“Those bills have been sent over. They have been passed pretty overwhelmingly,” said Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs for the Associated Builders & Contractors. “But they are just gathering dust on [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid’s [D-Nev.] desk.”
It is chairman of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which includes several business groups. The coalition has grown to more than 600 members and has spent well over $1 million on legal costs in 2011 and 2012 for various legal challenges to the NLRB, according to Burr’s estimates.
“I continue to get people wanting to join the coalition every week,” Burr said. “We know we need to raise between now and the middle of next year another million dollars, at least.”
There is a possibility that the labor board could reissue the union election rule, which worries business groups.
Boasberg said his decision didn’t reflect the merits of the regulation, but rather the fact that only two members voted on its final passage — not the three needed for a quorum, since Brian Hayes, a Republican NLRB member, didn’t participate in that vote. The judge said the NLRB could vote again on the rule if it had a quorum of three members.
The NLRB now has a full allotment of five members, following three recess appointments by President Obama in January. The Chamber, the Coalition and others are challenging those recess appointments in separate cases.
“It would be a vote by the board, and it becomes a question whether it’s a legitimate quorum, whether it’s a legitimate board,” Conrad said.
In the meantime, worker advocates have been left frustrated by the court rulings against the NLRB rules.
“Ultimately, unless these rules are reinstated, workers are left with an unfair process,” said Erin Johansson, research director for American Rights at Work. “It may be a few months more before they get the medicine of these rules.”
Johansson said unions were ready and willing to organize under the new union election rule, but that’s not possible at the moment. She called the challenge to the notice rule “laughable.”
“It’s helping someone learn a right they already have,” Johansson said.
Unions want the election rule in place, and some say they would support the NLRB voting again on the regulation if necessary.
"We want the rule back in place as soon as possible. If that means a revote, we would be supportive of that,” said Tim Schlittner, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Schlittner added the union believed the rule “was technically sound when it was first voted upon.”
Others in labor have decried the ruling against the union election rule, including the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union.
An AFL-CIO official said the nation’s largest labor federation supports whatever action the board needs to take to ensure the rules get implemented as soon as possible.
Nancy Cleeland, an NLRB spokeswoman, said the agency has not decided on its next step regarding the ruling against the union election rule. The agency has already said it will appeal the decision against the notice rule.
By Kevin Bogardus
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/228213-judges-halt-union-regulations
Monday, October 1, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Prop 32 a Massive Fraud on Unions
CA Proposition 32:
A fraud to end all frauds against Unions
It was Lyndon Johnson who best understood that the key to political empowerment for the disenfranchised was to give them access to the electoral process. That's why he made passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 his top priority.
But it's doubtful he would think too kindly of a measure we might call the Rich Persons and Corporations Empowerment Act of 2012. During this election season, Californians undoubtedly will be hearing about it on TV and radio until their eardrums bleed. That's because it will be on the November ballot as Proposition 32, a wolf in sheep's clothing dressed up as the "Stop Special Interest Money Now Act."
In this state, we've come to expect ballot initiatives sponsored by business interests to be, essentially, frauds. But it's hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32. If there was any doubt left that the initiative process has been totally corrupted by big business and the wealthy, this should put it to rest for all time.
We'll start by examining what Proposition 32 purports to do.
On the grounds that "special interests have too much power over government," the measure bans direct contributions to California candidates by corporations and labor unions. It prohibits the collection of "political funds" from corporate employees and union members via payroll deduction, even if the employee or member voluntarily approves. (That's more stringent than the previous versions, which merely required that union members give written permission for political expenditures once a year.) Political funds include money spent for or against a candidate or ballot measure or for a party or political action committee, or PAC.
Sounds pretty good so far, doesn't it? "It looks temptingly like reform," says Trudy Schafer, program director for the League of Women Voters of California. "But it's not."
That's because Proposition 32 bristles with enormous loopholes tailor-made for businesses and their wealthy backers. To begin with, it exempts such common business structures as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts. If you're a venture investor, land developer or law firm, Proposition 32 doesn't lay a finger on you.
The drafters, who include conservative attorneys Thomas Hiltachk and Michael Capaldi, know full well that payroll deductions are how unions get almost all of their funds, and businesses get almost none of theirs.
The infusion of big money into politics has become a more important issue since the Supreme Court's infamous 2010 Citizens United decision awarding free speech rights to corporations, as though they are people. The decision liberated corporations to contribute to electoral campaigns virtually without limitation. That has turbocharged fundraising by so-called super PACs such as Karl Rove's conservative American Crossroads, the Mitt Romney-supporting Restore Our Future, and thePresident Obama-supporting Priorities USA.
The Proposition 32 campaign says the measure is carefully crafted to comply with Citizens United, but if that's so, it's just another sign of how flawed and deplorable the Supreme Court ruling was. At the moment, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, business outspends organized labor 15 to 1.
Today, no big business needs to mulct its employees for piddling weekly deductions for its PAC, when it can shovel out by the trainload any money it has collected via the sale of goods and services. Some corporations do take PAC contributions from employees by payroll deductions, but it's typically a tiny proportion, mostly concentrated among careerist midlevel executives and above.
"When corporations can just write a check from their general treasury, the idea that this is a meaningful restriction is ridiculous," says Richard L. Hasen, an election and campaign law expert at UC Irvine. The share of corporate political spending coming from employee payroll deductions "has got to be a drop in the bucket, and putting it in there is just a fig leaf."
What about the Proposition 32 campaign's claim that the measure is all about, and only about, reducing the power of "special interests"? In the interest of being fair and objective, we should be very careful about the word we select to describe this assertion. So let's keep things simple: It's a lie.
How can we know? We can start by examining the campaign's contributors. As it turns out, the claim that you need a big-money ballot campaign to wipe out the influence of special interests carries its own contradiction, in the same way a skunk packs its own stench.
Among the very top contributors to the campaign, according to public filings, are A. Jerrold Perenchio ($250,000), Thomas Siebel ($500,000), B. Wayne Hughes ($200,000) and Charles Munger Jr. ($992,000).
Perenchio, a billionaire Hollywood mogul, was the second-largest individual political donor in California from 2001 to 2011, with $16.9 million in contributions mostly to Republican and conservative interests, according to a compilation by the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. He's contributed $2 million to American Crossroads and $500,000 to Restore Our Future.
Siebel is a Silicon Valley billionaire perhaps best known in California political circles for his introduction of Sarah Palin, then the newly minted GOP vice presidential candidate, at a 2008 rally as "the embodiment of pure, unadulterated good," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. In 2010 he donated $250,000 to American Crossroads.
The Kentucky-based Hughes is the patriarch of the Public Storage empire. His donations to American Crossroads: $3.5 million, making him one of its top donors in 2010. He's given nearly $2.3 million to California political entities in the 2001-11 period, exclusively Republican.
Munger is a physicist who was the third-largest individual political contributor in California in 2001-11, with $14.1 million in contributions, mostly to GOP interests. His father, Charles Sr., has long beenWarren Buffett's investment partner.
Whatever you might think about these individuals' political viewpoints, some things are crystal-clear:They're the special interests. They're the fount of the cash that, according to the Prop. 32 pitch, constitutes "the most corrupting influence in politics."
And most important of all: They're conveniently exempt from Proposition 32.
It doesn't matter that their wealth comes from corporations that would be barred from funneling money directly to candidates — Hughes from Public Storage, Siebel from Siebel Systems and Oracle, Perenchio from Univision. Their individual bank accounts remain unfettered.
If you've been wondering why people whose fortunes come from business would invest so much money to enact a measure that purports to limit the political influence of business, now you know.
Proposition 32 isn't designed to stop the flow of cash into California politics; it's designed to cede California politics totally to characters like this. Any of them could get anything he wants from Sacramento. Could you?
Another fact the Prop. 32 cabal doesn't want you to know is that donations to candidates and parties — the contributions most directly covered by the measure — constitute a tiny portion of corporate political spending in California. Power really resides in the initiative process, and that's where businesses put the big bucks.
Over the last two years, for example, the tobacco company Altria (formerly Philip Morris) has donated $33.5 million to California political campaigns. Less than $700,000 went to candidates or parties. Much of the spending went to defeat Proposition 29, this spring's tobacco tax initiative.
Then there's Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In 2009-10, PG&E spent $53.5 million on politics in California. Less than $600,000 went to candidates. Most of the rest financed the utility's majestically dishonest ballot initiative to kill public power programs.
Because under Proposition 32 such spending could be financed out of money that business and wealthy individuals — but not unions — can access, the measure would tilt the initiative playground even further in business' favor.
The treatment of unions and corporations as though they're equivalent political players is an ideological fantasy. Unions are organizations whose members have democratic rights to vote on their leaders and their policies, political or otherwise. (Nonmembers represented by unions in collective bargaining already have the right to withhold dues attributable to strictly political activities.) Corporation owners, or shareholders, don't have democratic rights unless they hold controlling stakes.
When a union engages in politics, you know it's generally reflecting the interest of its members. When a corporation does, whose interest is it reflecting? Could be a few dozen people, one huge shareholder, or a CEO and his cronies on the board.
Moreover, as the labor expert Joseph Rauh observed decades ago, giving a political voice to an increasingly disenfranchised working class is fundamental to the role of organized labor. The fate of bills "affecting working men and their unions," he wrote, "may be of as great importance to union members as the collective bargaining process itself."
The message the perpetrators of Proposition 32 are sending to you, the California voter, is that they think you're stupid. Really, really stupid.
When you go to the voting booth or fill out your mail ballot this November, stop for a moment and ponder this question: Should I hand over my vote to people who think of me that way?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120819,0,5536069,full.column
Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik
A fraud to end all frauds against Unions
It was Lyndon Johnson who best understood that the key to political empowerment for the disenfranchised was to give them access to the electoral process. That's why he made passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 his top priority.
But it's doubtful he would think too kindly of a measure we might call the Rich Persons and Corporations Empowerment Act of 2012. During this election season, Californians undoubtedly will be hearing about it on TV and radio until their eardrums bleed. That's because it will be on the November ballot as Proposition 32, a wolf in sheep's clothing dressed up as the "Stop Special Interest Money Now Act."
In this state, we've come to expect ballot initiatives sponsored by business interests to be, essentially, frauds. But it's hard to conceive how one could be more fraudulent than Proposition 32. If there was any doubt left that the initiative process has been totally corrupted by big business and the wealthy, this should put it to rest for all time.
We'll start by examining what Proposition 32 purports to do.
On the grounds that "special interests have too much power over government," the measure bans direct contributions to California candidates by corporations and labor unions. It prohibits the collection of "political funds" from corporate employees and union members via payroll deduction, even if the employee or member voluntarily approves. (That's more stringent than the previous versions, which merely required that union members give written permission for political expenditures once a year.) Political funds include money spent for or against a candidate or ballot measure or for a party or political action committee, or PAC.
Sounds pretty good so far, doesn't it? "It looks temptingly like reform," says Trudy Schafer, program director for the League of Women Voters of California. "But it's not."
That's because Proposition 32 bristles with enormous loopholes tailor-made for businesses and their wealthy backers. To begin with, it exempts such common business structures as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts. If you're a venture investor, land developer or law firm, Proposition 32 doesn't lay a finger on you.
The drafters, who include conservative attorneys Thomas Hiltachk and Michael Capaldi, know full well that payroll deductions are how unions get almost all of their funds, and businesses get almost none of theirs.
The infusion of big money into politics has become a more important issue since the Supreme Court's infamous 2010 Citizens United decision awarding free speech rights to corporations, as though they are people. The decision liberated corporations to contribute to electoral campaigns virtually without limitation. That has turbocharged fundraising by so-called super PACs such as Karl Rove's conservative American Crossroads, the Mitt Romney-supporting Restore Our Future, and thePresident Obama-supporting Priorities USA.
The Proposition 32 campaign says the measure is carefully crafted to comply with Citizens United, but if that's so, it's just another sign of how flawed and deplorable the Supreme Court ruling was. At the moment, according to the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, business outspends organized labor 15 to 1.
Today, no big business needs to mulct its employees for piddling weekly deductions for its PAC, when it can shovel out by the trainload any money it has collected via the sale of goods and services. Some corporations do take PAC contributions from employees by payroll deductions, but it's typically a tiny proportion, mostly concentrated among careerist midlevel executives and above.
"When corporations can just write a check from their general treasury, the idea that this is a meaningful restriction is ridiculous," says Richard L. Hasen, an election and campaign law expert at UC Irvine. The share of corporate political spending coming from employee payroll deductions "has got to be a drop in the bucket, and putting it in there is just a fig leaf."
What about the Proposition 32 campaign's claim that the measure is all about, and only about, reducing the power of "special interests"? In the interest of being fair and objective, we should be very careful about the word we select to describe this assertion. So let's keep things simple: It's a lie.
How can we know? We can start by examining the campaign's contributors. As it turns out, the claim that you need a big-money ballot campaign to wipe out the influence of special interests carries its own contradiction, in the same way a skunk packs its own stench.
Among the very top contributors to the campaign, according to public filings, are A. Jerrold Perenchio ($250,000), Thomas Siebel ($500,000), B. Wayne Hughes ($200,000) and Charles Munger Jr. ($992,000).
Perenchio, a billionaire Hollywood mogul, was the second-largest individual political donor in California from 2001 to 2011, with $16.9 million in contributions mostly to Republican and conservative interests, according to a compilation by the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. He's contributed $2 million to American Crossroads and $500,000 to Restore Our Future.
Siebel is a Silicon Valley billionaire perhaps best known in California political circles for his introduction of Sarah Palin, then the newly minted GOP vice presidential candidate, at a 2008 rally as "the embodiment of pure, unadulterated good," the San Francisco Chronicle reported. In 2010 he donated $250,000 to American Crossroads.
The Kentucky-based Hughes is the patriarch of the Public Storage empire. His donations to American Crossroads: $3.5 million, making him one of its top donors in 2010. He's given nearly $2.3 million to California political entities in the 2001-11 period, exclusively Republican.
Munger is a physicist who was the third-largest individual political contributor in California in 2001-11, with $14.1 million in contributions, mostly to GOP interests. His father, Charles Sr., has long beenWarren Buffett's investment partner.
Whatever you might think about these individuals' political viewpoints, some things are crystal-clear:They're the special interests. They're the fount of the cash that, according to the Prop. 32 pitch, constitutes "the most corrupting influence in politics."
And most important of all: They're conveniently exempt from Proposition 32.
It doesn't matter that their wealth comes from corporations that would be barred from funneling money directly to candidates — Hughes from Public Storage, Siebel from Siebel Systems and Oracle, Perenchio from Univision. Their individual bank accounts remain unfettered.
If you've been wondering why people whose fortunes come from business would invest so much money to enact a measure that purports to limit the political influence of business, now you know.
Proposition 32 isn't designed to stop the flow of cash into California politics; it's designed to cede California politics totally to characters like this. Any of them could get anything he wants from Sacramento. Could you?
Another fact the Prop. 32 cabal doesn't want you to know is that donations to candidates and parties — the contributions most directly covered by the measure — constitute a tiny portion of corporate political spending in California. Power really resides in the initiative process, and that's where businesses put the big bucks.
Over the last two years, for example, the tobacco company Altria (formerly Philip Morris) has donated $33.5 million to California political campaigns. Less than $700,000 went to candidates or parties. Much of the spending went to defeat Proposition 29, this spring's tobacco tax initiative.
Then there's Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In 2009-10, PG&E spent $53.5 million on politics in California. Less than $600,000 went to candidates. Most of the rest financed the utility's majestically dishonest ballot initiative to kill public power programs.
Because under Proposition 32 such spending could be financed out of money that business and wealthy individuals — but not unions — can access, the measure would tilt the initiative playground even further in business' favor.
The treatment of unions and corporations as though they're equivalent political players is an ideological fantasy. Unions are organizations whose members have democratic rights to vote on their leaders and their policies, political or otherwise. (Nonmembers represented by unions in collective bargaining already have the right to withhold dues attributable to strictly political activities.) Corporation owners, or shareholders, don't have democratic rights unless they hold controlling stakes.
When a union engages in politics, you know it's generally reflecting the interest of its members. When a corporation does, whose interest is it reflecting? Could be a few dozen people, one huge shareholder, or a CEO and his cronies on the board.
Moreover, as the labor expert Joseph Rauh observed decades ago, giving a political voice to an increasingly disenfranchised working class is fundamental to the role of organized labor. The fate of bills "affecting working men and their unions," he wrote, "may be of as great importance to union members as the collective bargaining process itself."
The message the perpetrators of Proposition 32 are sending to you, the California voter, is that they think you're stupid. Really, really stupid.
When you go to the voting booth or fill out your mail ballot this November, stop for a moment and ponder this question: Should I hand over my vote to people who think of me that way?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120819,0,5536069,full.column
Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik
Thursday, August 16, 2012
SF Council Votes for New Postal Bank Idea
Resolution to Investigate the Establishment of a new
http://sflaborcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/08-06-12Res2InvestigateEstbOfPostalBankingSystem.pdf
Whereas, expanding postal services and developing new sources of revenue are important
components of any effort to save the public Post Office and preserve living-wage jobs; and
Whereas, many countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Japan, have a long and
successful history of postal banking, where customers do their basic banking at their
neighborhood post office; and
Whereas, in the U.S. a Postal Savings system operated successfully from 1911 to 1967,
providing a safe and efficient place for customers to save and transfer funds – until it was
killed under pressure from the banking industry. Postal Savings was set up to attract the
savings of immigrants accustomed to saving at post offices in their native countries, provide
safe depositories for people who had lost confidence in private banks, and make it more convenient for working people than private banks (since post offices were open substantially longer than bankers’ hours); and
Whereas, postal banks, called Kiwibanks, are now thriving in New Zealand, with bank branches called PostShops in local post offices – “putting us in more locations than any other bank in New Zealand literally overnight (without wasting millions on new premises!)” [Kiwibank website] In an early “move your money” campaign, New Zealanders voted with their feet. In an island nation of only 4 million, Kiwibank attracted 500,000 customers away from the Australian big banks in just four years; and
Whereas, the giant banks that dominate the U.S. financial and political system are corrupt institutions that defrauded homeowners in the mortgage scandal, and engaged in complex multi-Billion dollar hijinks that brought on the 2007-09 financial crisis. The American working people have lost faith in these banks as a trustworthy place to put their hard-earned money; and
Whereas, a USPS bank would offer a “public option” for banking, providing basic checking and savings – and no complex financial wheeling and dealing. Postal banks could serve the 9 million people who don’t have a bank account and 21 million who use usurious check cashers, giving low-income people access to a safe banking system; and
Whereas, the Post Office is uniquely positioned, with a lot of branches around the country and an already successful business in money orders. It is a trusted and venerable institution older than the Constitution, at a time when people do not have much trust in banks. It is funded not with taxes but with postage stamps, which buy the labor and machines to transport your letter 3000 miles. It is the only U.S. agency that serves all its customers six days a week. And it is perhaps the last form of communication that protects privacy, since tampering with the mail is against federal law; and
Whereas, the Post Office should be saved and it can be saved. A Postal Bank, combining teller services with postal services, could help achieve this, while at the same time offering a competitive alternative to a runaway Wall Street banking monopoly that Congress seems unable to control; and
Whereas, the 2012 National Convention of the National Association of Letter Carriers unanimously adopted an almost identical resolution, calling for the postal unions to investigate the establishment of a Postal Banking System in the U.S.
Therefore be it resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council urges Congress and the Executive Branch to investigate the possibility of the establishment of a public Postal Banking System in the U.S. – drawing on the rich experience of successful postal banking in Germany, France, Italy, Japan and New Zealand – and using our unprecedented network of post offices to provide safe basic checking and savings to our hundreds of millions of postal customers; and
Be it finally resolved, that we forward this resolution to affiliate unions, area labor councils,
Calif. Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and Change to Win Federation, for concurrence and action.
Submitted by Lili Beaumont, NALC 214, and adopted by the Executive Committee of the San
Francisco Labor Council on August 6, 2012.
Respectfully,
Tim Paulson
Executive Director
OPEIU3 AFL
Postal Banking System
http://sflaborcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/08-06-12Res2InvestigateEstbOfPostalBankingSystem.pdf
Whereas, expanding postal services and developing new sources of revenue are important
components of any effort to save the public Post Office and preserve living-wage jobs; and
Whereas, many countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Japan, have a long and
successful history of postal banking, where customers do their basic banking at their
neighborhood post office; and
Whereas, in the U.S. a Postal Savings system operated successfully from 1911 to 1967,
providing a safe and efficient place for customers to save and transfer funds – until it was
killed under pressure from the banking industry. Postal Savings was set up to attract the
savings of immigrants accustomed to saving at post offices in their native countries, provide
safe depositories for people who had lost confidence in private banks, and make it more convenient for working people than private banks (since post offices were open substantially longer than bankers’ hours); and
Whereas, postal banks, called Kiwibanks, are now thriving in New Zealand, with bank branches called PostShops in local post offices – “putting us in more locations than any other bank in New Zealand literally overnight (without wasting millions on new premises!)” [Kiwibank website] In an early “move your money” campaign, New Zealanders voted with their feet. In an island nation of only 4 million, Kiwibank attracted 500,000 customers away from the Australian big banks in just four years; and
Whereas, the giant banks that dominate the U.S. financial and political system are corrupt institutions that defrauded homeowners in the mortgage scandal, and engaged in complex multi-Billion dollar hijinks that brought on the 2007-09 financial crisis. The American working people have lost faith in these banks as a trustworthy place to put their hard-earned money; and
Whereas, a USPS bank would offer a “public option” for banking, providing basic checking and savings – and no complex financial wheeling and dealing. Postal banks could serve the 9 million people who don’t have a bank account and 21 million who use usurious check cashers, giving low-income people access to a safe banking system; and
Whereas, the Post Office is uniquely positioned, with a lot of branches around the country and an already successful business in money orders. It is a trusted and venerable institution older than the Constitution, at a time when people do not have much trust in banks. It is funded not with taxes but with postage stamps, which buy the labor and machines to transport your letter 3000 miles. It is the only U.S. agency that serves all its customers six days a week. And it is perhaps the last form of communication that protects privacy, since tampering with the mail is against federal law; and
Whereas, the Post Office should be saved and it can be saved. A Postal Bank, combining teller services with postal services, could help achieve this, while at the same time offering a competitive alternative to a runaway Wall Street banking monopoly that Congress seems unable to control; and
Whereas, the 2012 National Convention of the National Association of Letter Carriers unanimously adopted an almost identical resolution, calling for the postal unions to investigate the establishment of a Postal Banking System in the U.S.
Therefore be it resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council urges Congress and the Executive Branch to investigate the possibility of the establishment of a public Postal Banking System in the U.S. – drawing on the rich experience of successful postal banking in Germany, France, Italy, Japan and New Zealand – and using our unprecedented network of post offices to provide safe basic checking and savings to our hundreds of millions of postal customers; and
Be it finally resolved, that we forward this resolution to affiliate unions, area labor councils,
Calif. Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and Change to Win Federation, for concurrence and action.
Submitted by Lili Beaumont, NALC 214, and adopted by the Executive Committee of the San
Francisco Labor Council on August 6, 2012.
Respectfully,
Tim Paulson
Executive Director
OPEIU3 AFL
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Farm Workers Need Help
ACE TOMATO WORKERS NEAR CONTRACT
After two decades, Ace Tomato workers are so close to getting their contract.
Tell the ALRB to implement the contract now by joining the virtual picket line.
Workers at Ace Tomato are tired of waiting. They are tired of dirty bathrooms, the lack of fresh water and decades of low pay. You might ask, why don't they vote for a union? They did--back in 1989! But, more than two decades later they still are waiting for their contract. And the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), California's legal agency charged with protecting the workers, did nothing but shuffle paperwork.
The UFW fought for and passed a law in California requiring employers to negotiate in good faith or face mandatory mediation. The way this works is a mediator speaks to both sides and neutrally sifts through both sides' documents and recommendations and at the end submits a report of terms to the ALRB which is essentially a contract. Both sides have the right to review this report and object. Then the ALRB either agrees with the objections to the report or rejects them. If they reject the objections, the report becomes a contract that both sides must legally abide by.
After several months of discussion, the mediator submitted his report to the ALRB on June 28. As expected, the company objected, but on July 25 the ALRB ruled against the company and ordered Ace Tomato to implement the final mediator's report as the contract.
It appears the company instead decided to follow their normal delaying tactics that have worked so well. They ignored the Board order!
When we heard the wage increases and other improvements were not happening, we asked the ALRB to go to court to force the company to follow the law and implement the contract the workers have been waiting more than 20 years for.
The ALRB could have and should have immediately gone to court when the company thumbed their nose at the law. Instead they sent the company a letter saying they would give them until 5 pm today, Tuesday, August 7th, to respond to the UFW’s request.
The workers are furious that the ALRB is again opening the door to the company's delaying tactics. Workers know from experience that given an inch, this company can keep up the delaying tactics for years.
Ace Tomato workers will travel to Sacramento tomorrow and hold a picket line in front of the ALRB's office demanding that the ALRB get a court order to tell the company to immediately comply with the law. Won't you join Ace Tomato workers and picket virtually by taking action and e-mailing the ALRB today?
http://action.ufw.org/ace
After you take action please share this campaign with your friends and family. You can send them an e-mail, post this campaign on your Facebook and/or Twitter page by clicking here or going to http://action.ufw.org/page/share/ace
Check out our website at: www.ufw.org and keep up with the latest news.
Check out the UFW's Social Networking pages. Click to visit our Facebook Fan Page, Facebook Cause, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace,and Care2 pages. Please link to us and become our "Friend" and follow us on Twitter too!
If you want to receive our alerts at a different e-mail address, send an e-mail to ufwofamer@aol.com
Please add us to your safelist: Please add ufwofamer@aol.com to your address book so that our messages don’t get trapped in your spam filter. If you have questions about how to do this, drop us an e-mail.
This email was sent to ruthhstraussmd@earthlink.net.
United Farm Workers, P.O. Box 62, Keene, CA 93531, http://www.ufw.org
After two decades, Ace Tomato workers are so close to getting their contract.
Tell the ALRB to implement the contract now by joining the virtual picket line.
Workers at Ace Tomato are tired of waiting. They are tired of dirty bathrooms, the lack of fresh water and decades of low pay. You might ask, why don't they vote for a union? They did--back in 1989! But, more than two decades later they still are waiting for their contract. And the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), California's legal agency charged with protecting the workers, did nothing but shuffle paperwork.
The UFW fought for and passed a law in California requiring employers to negotiate in good faith or face mandatory mediation. The way this works is a mediator speaks to both sides and neutrally sifts through both sides' documents and recommendations and at the end submits a report of terms to the ALRB which is essentially a contract. Both sides have the right to review this report and object. Then the ALRB either agrees with the objections to the report or rejects them. If they reject the objections, the report becomes a contract that both sides must legally abide by.
After several months of discussion, the mediator submitted his report to the ALRB on June 28. As expected, the company objected, but on July 25 the ALRB ruled against the company and ordered Ace Tomato to implement the final mediator's report as the contract.
It appears the company instead decided to follow their normal delaying tactics that have worked so well. They ignored the Board order!
When we heard the wage increases and other improvements were not happening, we asked the ALRB to go to court to force the company to follow the law and implement the contract the workers have been waiting more than 20 years for.
The ALRB could have and should have immediately gone to court when the company thumbed their nose at the law. Instead they sent the company a letter saying they would give them until 5 pm today, Tuesday, August 7th, to respond to the UFW’s request.
The workers are furious that the ALRB is again opening the door to the company's delaying tactics. Workers know from experience that given an inch, this company can keep up the delaying tactics for years.
Ace Tomato workers will travel to Sacramento tomorrow and hold a picket line in front of the ALRB's office demanding that the ALRB get a court order to tell the company to immediately comply with the law. Won't you join Ace Tomato workers and picket virtually by taking action and e-mailing the ALRB today?
http://action.ufw.org/ace
After you take action please share this campaign with your friends and family. You can send them an e-mail, post this campaign on your Facebook and/or Twitter page by clicking here or going to http://action.ufw.org/page/share/ace
Check out our website at: www.ufw.org and keep up with the latest news.
Check out the UFW's Social Networking pages. Click to visit our Facebook Fan Page, Facebook Cause, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace,and Care2 pages. Please link to us and become our "Friend" and follow us on Twitter too!
If you want to receive our alerts at a different e-mail address, send an e-mail to ufwofamer@aol.com
Please add us to your safelist: Please add ufwofamer@aol.com to your address book so that our messages don’t get trapped in your spam filter. If you have questions about how to do this, drop us an e-mail.
This email was sent to ruthhstraussmd@earthlink.net.
United Farm Workers, P.O. Box 62, Keene, CA 93531, http://www.ufw.org
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Phone and Mail Unions Unite in Action
CWA Stands Up to Verizon on August 11
Rally in Philadelphia.
Tens of thousands of workers will unite next week in Philadelphia -- the birthplace of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- to demand economic freedom and opportunity for all.
CWA and IBEW workers will be kicking off the activities with a rally at Verizon’s office. Meet promptly at 9:45 a.m. at 900 Race Street.
We will then march to Eakins Oval, in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where we will join more than 30,000 people from all over the country to stand up for the middle class and urge all Americans -- especially elected officials -- to stand with us.
It's time for everyone to stand up and be counted.
Photo of CWA President Larry Cohen:
CWA Supports a Public Postal Service
CWA stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Association of Letter Carriers in its battle to save the US Postal Service, CWA President Larry Cohen said last week at the biennial NALC convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Photo of CWA President Larry Cohen addressing the biennial NALC convention in Minneapolis.
“We will fight back, and we will be there together with you in that fight to save a public Postal Service as if it’s our own fight—because it is our own fight,” he said, according to the convention newspaper.
Addressing more than 8,000 Union members, Cohen said CWA’s fight against corporate greed at Verizon is not unlike letter carriers’ struggle against the Postal Service. “We get management, whether the Postal Service or Verizon, that wants to shrink us, to keep us in a box, until they can shut us down and throw us out,” he said.
He encouraged delegates to continue advocating for workers’ rights.
“When you cut our pay, we say no. When you cut our health care, we say no. When you destroy our retirement, we say no,” he said. “We stand up, we fight back.”
Over 1,000 Letter Carriers Protest Verizon Greedy in Show of Unity
Photo of Letter carriers (mail men and women) protest VeriGreedy in Minneapolis.
More than 1,000 members of the National Association of Letter Carriers last Thursday demonstrated outside a Verizon Wireless store in downtown Minneapolis in support of CWA’s yearlong fight for a fair contract. (Solidarity-ed)
CWA President Larry Cohen had addressed the delegates to the biennial convention earlier in the day, pledging CWA’s support in the battle to save the Postal Service. And in return, letter carriers poured in the street to rally against Verizon’s corporate greed.
“His remarks got the troops fired up,” said Pam Donato, who leads the NALC’s coalition-building and community services work. “We thought that maybe 200 people would show up, but when it came time to rally, I think we topped 1,000. It was massive.”
She added, “It was like breaking bread with family. It’s really a special occasion to rally with another group of workers, to support each other physically, putting to life what you do a lot of times with paper, pen and keyboard.”
Rally in Philadelphia.
Tens of thousands of workers will unite next week in Philadelphia -- the birthplace of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- to demand economic freedom and opportunity for all.
CWA and IBEW workers will be kicking off the activities with a rally at Verizon’s office. Meet promptly at 9:45 a.m. at 900 Race Street.
We will then march to Eakins Oval, in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where we will join more than 30,000 people from all over the country to stand up for the middle class and urge all Americans -- especially elected officials -- to stand with us.
It's time for everyone to stand up and be counted.
Photo of CWA President Larry Cohen:
CWA Supports a Public Postal Service
CWA stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Association of Letter Carriers in its battle to save the US Postal Service, CWA President Larry Cohen said last week at the biennial NALC convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Photo of CWA President Larry Cohen addressing the biennial NALC convention in Minneapolis.
“We will fight back, and we will be there together with you in that fight to save a public Postal Service as if it’s our own fight—because it is our own fight,” he said, according to the convention newspaper.
Addressing more than 8,000 Union members, Cohen said CWA’s fight against corporate greed at Verizon is not unlike letter carriers’ struggle against the Postal Service. “We get management, whether the Postal Service or Verizon, that wants to shrink us, to keep us in a box, until they can shut us down and throw us out,” he said.
He encouraged delegates to continue advocating for workers’ rights.
“When you cut our pay, we say no. When you cut our health care, we say no. When you destroy our retirement, we say no,” he said. “We stand up, we fight back.”
Over 1,000 Letter Carriers Protest Verizon Greedy in Show of Unity
Photo of Letter carriers (mail men and women) protest VeriGreedy in Minneapolis.
More than 1,000 members of the National Association of Letter Carriers last Thursday demonstrated outside a Verizon Wireless store in downtown Minneapolis in support of CWA’s yearlong fight for a fair contract. (Solidarity-ed)
CWA President Larry Cohen had addressed the delegates to the biennial convention earlier in the day, pledging CWA’s support in the battle to save the Postal Service. And in return, letter carriers poured in the street to rally against Verizon’s corporate greed.
“His remarks got the troops fired up,” said Pam Donato, who leads the NALC’s coalition-building and community services work. “We thought that maybe 200 people would show up, but when it came time to rally, I think we topped 1,000. It was massive.”
She added, “It was like breaking bread with family. It’s really a special occasion to rally with another group of workers, to support each other physically, putting to life what you do a lot of times with paper, pen and keyboard.”
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Labor and Student Activists Unite
AFL-CIO PRESIDENT TRUMKA SPEECH to STUDENT ACTIVISTS
Most of you probably don’t know much about unions. I hope you know that unions are nothing but working women and men who’ve come together for the strength to improve our lives – at work and in our economy. Some of you probably think we’re a bunch of stodgy, old-school people with outdated ideas – too interested in what’s good for us and too disinterested in what’s good for others in our communities -- and to be perfectly frank with you, there’s a grain of truth to that – and it’s something we’re working to change. But at the end of the day, our goal is and has always been simple and pure—we want to make life better for working people.
We’re not always spiffy and clean. Some of us are a little rough around the edges. But the labor movement and progressive student activists share the same core values.
And let me say this -- As the next generation of activists and leaders, you are also part of the next generation of workers, and the way you exercise your activism and solidarity on the job will define the future of work.
You see, activism isn’t limited to what we do off-hours or as career advocates. It’s also what we do every day where we work. As progressive activists we have to understand that “workers’ rights” are civil rights, to turn lousy jobs into good jobs -- even if we have to fight for it—and for that matter, to work together with employers who want to do the right things for working families and solve problems to create a sustainable future.
Your generation’s struggle for jobs—for quality jobs—with fair wages and good benefits, so that those of you who have student debt can have the ability to pay it down and have the opportunity to live the life you want: the ability to get married, to raise a family if you want to, to start a business, to fight for the causes you believe in, and to leave a stronger America for the generations that follow you -- that struggle is the struggle of the labor movement, and that struggle is also my struggle.
You see, activists from my generation and before me also needed solidarity on and off the job to improve this country. The struggles of working people haven’t changed all that much, and that’s why we share so many values in common.
Unions have been fighting for social and economic justice since our beginnings.
We’ve worked for decades, and will continue to fight, to make sure no employer can
pay you less just because you are a woman, or person of color.
We’ve supported benefits for same-sex couples since the early 1990s.
We fight today for the passage of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform.
We stood with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the activists of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. We supported Occupy Wall St. We’re working to address the issue of college debt, and we’ll stand with the activists and the movements of tomorrow.
And, my friends, we will stand with you through it all.
Today, America is in crisis. We’re at a tipping point. Wall Street and corporate CEOs have pretty well figured out how to make mountainous profits off the backs of America’s workers, especially young workers. Big money has locked Washington in stalemate. Things can’t continue in this vein for very long.
But I might surprise you by saying that this isn’t all bad news. The good news is that we’re going to change it – I’ve never seen more determination to change it. America is in the process of rediscovering collective power to make things better for all of us, politically, socially, and economically.
My story in how I got involved within this movement is probably similar to yours. I can remember when I blew out my knee in college and lost my football scholarship. Unable to afford to go to college, I went home and got a job in a coal mine. I had to figure out how to finish my degree while working full time in some of the most dangerous work conditions imaginable. About that time I got involved in a movement in my union called Miners for Democracy.
Miners for Democracy wanted to return our union to its activist roots so it would answer not to our employers, but to our members—so we could use our union to improve ourselves. People said it couldn’t be done, but we didn’t know any better. I thought hard about what to do next, and I talked to a lot of people. I’m lucky that my father always had a head and the heart for doing the right thing. I’m lucky my mother gave me my passion and my fire.
It took years. I ended up getting my law degree, with the support of my union. It took the Miners for Democracy years of activism, risk and perseverance, but we came out on top, and that’s the shortest possible version of how I became the youngest president in the history of the United Mine Workers of America.
It would be a gross understatement to say that not everybody was supportive along the way. I think a lot of people thought I was out of my mind, or just a dreamer.
But it didn’t stop me. It still doesn’t. I’m lucky that I’ve been able to spend my entire professional life in the service of working people, of union members. And we’re still working to make sure that our labor movement struggles to help working people every way we can—first, last and always.
We try to keep our eye on a simple vision. I believe that every single working person in America who works hard and plays by the rules should have a fair shot at a decent life—the opportunity to be who they want to be and earn good pay and benefits and a secure retirement. And I believe that this ideal is not a cost to be weighed against national prosperity, but that the two are one and the same.
Here’s the most amazing thing. Our goals are much closer than most people realize. Wall Street hasn’t learned its lesson -- of course not. And sometimes it seems like some people just wish we could return to the upside of a bubble economy.
But something is happening in America.
Just a few short years ago, the DREAM Act was nowhere. Now, because the DREAMers refused to take no for an answer, it has momentum and national support from the President of the United States.
Not even a decade ago, marriage equality was considered far-fetched. It was used as a tool of the right wing. Now it, too, has the endorsement of the President of the United States, and a majority of Americans.
Collective bargaining? It dropped out of the public consciousness years and years ago -- but today, support for the rights of workers is back.
In the experience of a young person, some of these struggles may seem long, but I can look back and see that they weren’t long at all, not when measured against the history of the struggle for justice. Not when measured against the sea change they represent.
There is no end to what Campus Progress can do. You don’t sit around talking about problems. You generate ideas, and you get things done.
Look at how lucky we are! I wouldn’t want to be a leader of the American labor movement at any other time. And you? You are strong activists with your entire careers in front of you.
This is the moment that counts. You couldn’t script a better time. It is time for us to act. And I know that you will.
I want to thank each and every one of you, and I wish for all of you a future of hope and dedication -- and one that is forever young. Thank you
by Jackie Tortora
Most of you probably don’t know much about unions. I hope you know that unions are nothing but working women and men who’ve come together for the strength to improve our lives – at work and in our economy. Some of you probably think we’re a bunch of stodgy, old-school people with outdated ideas – too interested in what’s good for us and too disinterested in what’s good for others in our communities -- and to be perfectly frank with you, there’s a grain of truth to that – and it’s something we’re working to change. But at the end of the day, our goal is and has always been simple and pure—we want to make life better for working people.
We’re not always spiffy and clean. Some of us are a little rough around the edges. But the labor movement and progressive student activists share the same core values.
And let me say this -- As the next generation of activists and leaders, you are also part of the next generation of workers, and the way you exercise your activism and solidarity on the job will define the future of work.
You see, activism isn’t limited to what we do off-hours or as career advocates. It’s also what we do every day where we work. As progressive activists we have to understand that “workers’ rights” are civil rights, to turn lousy jobs into good jobs -- even if we have to fight for it—and for that matter, to work together with employers who want to do the right things for working families and solve problems to create a sustainable future.
Your generation’s struggle for jobs—for quality jobs—with fair wages and good benefits, so that those of you who have student debt can have the ability to pay it down and have the opportunity to live the life you want: the ability to get married, to raise a family if you want to, to start a business, to fight for the causes you believe in, and to leave a stronger America for the generations that follow you -- that struggle is the struggle of the labor movement, and that struggle is also my struggle.
You see, activists from my generation and before me also needed solidarity on and off the job to improve this country. The struggles of working people haven’t changed all that much, and that’s why we share so many values in common.
Unions have been fighting for social and economic justice since our beginnings.
We’ve worked for decades, and will continue to fight, to make sure no employer can
pay you less just because you are a woman, or person of color.
We’ve supported benefits for same-sex couples since the early 1990s.
We fight today for the passage of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform.
We stood with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the activists of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. We supported Occupy Wall St. We’re working to address the issue of college debt, and we’ll stand with the activists and the movements of tomorrow.
And, my friends, we will stand with you through it all.
Today, America is in crisis. We’re at a tipping point. Wall Street and corporate CEOs have pretty well figured out how to make mountainous profits off the backs of America’s workers, especially young workers. Big money has locked Washington in stalemate. Things can’t continue in this vein for very long.
But I might surprise you by saying that this isn’t all bad news. The good news is that we’re going to change it – I’ve never seen more determination to change it. America is in the process of rediscovering collective power to make things better for all of us, politically, socially, and economically.
My story in how I got involved within this movement is probably similar to yours. I can remember when I blew out my knee in college and lost my football scholarship. Unable to afford to go to college, I went home and got a job in a coal mine. I had to figure out how to finish my degree while working full time in some of the most dangerous work conditions imaginable. About that time I got involved in a movement in my union called Miners for Democracy.
Miners for Democracy wanted to return our union to its activist roots so it would answer not to our employers, but to our members—so we could use our union to improve ourselves. People said it couldn’t be done, but we didn’t know any better. I thought hard about what to do next, and I talked to a lot of people. I’m lucky that my father always had a head and the heart for doing the right thing. I’m lucky my mother gave me my passion and my fire.
It took years. I ended up getting my law degree, with the support of my union. It took the Miners for Democracy years of activism, risk and perseverance, but we came out on top, and that’s the shortest possible version of how I became the youngest president in the history of the United Mine Workers of America.
It would be a gross understatement to say that not everybody was supportive along the way. I think a lot of people thought I was out of my mind, or just a dreamer.
But it didn’t stop me. It still doesn’t. I’m lucky that I’ve been able to spend my entire professional life in the service of working people, of union members. And we’re still working to make sure that our labor movement struggles to help working people every way we can—first, last and always.
We try to keep our eye on a simple vision. I believe that every single working person in America who works hard and plays by the rules should have a fair shot at a decent life—the opportunity to be who they want to be and earn good pay and benefits and a secure retirement. And I believe that this ideal is not a cost to be weighed against national prosperity, but that the two are one and the same.
Here’s the most amazing thing. Our goals are much closer than most people realize. Wall Street hasn’t learned its lesson -- of course not. And sometimes it seems like some people just wish we could return to the upside of a bubble economy.
But something is happening in America.
Just a few short years ago, the DREAM Act was nowhere. Now, because the DREAMers refused to take no for an answer, it has momentum and national support from the President of the United States.
Not even a decade ago, marriage equality was considered far-fetched. It was used as a tool of the right wing. Now it, too, has the endorsement of the President of the United States, and a majority of Americans.
Collective bargaining? It dropped out of the public consciousness years and years ago -- but today, support for the rights of workers is back.
In the experience of a young person, some of these struggles may seem long, but I can look back and see that they weren’t long at all, not when measured against the history of the struggle for justice. Not when measured against the sea change they represent.
There is no end to what Campus Progress can do. You don’t sit around talking about problems. You generate ideas, and you get things done.
Look at how lucky we are! I wouldn’t want to be a leader of the American labor movement at any other time. And you? You are strong activists with your entire careers in front of you.
This is the moment that counts. You couldn’t script a better time. It is time for us to act. And I know that you will.
I want to thank each and every one of you, and I wish for all of you a future of hope and dedication -- and one that is forever young. Thank you
by Jackie Tortora
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
LIBOR Arrests Start
Exclusive: Prosecutors, regulators close to making Libor arrests
(Reuters) - Prosecutors and European regulators are close to arresting individual traders and charging them with colluding to manipulate global benchmark interest rates, according to people familiar with a sweeping investigation into the rigging scandal.
Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have recently contacted lawyers representing some of the suspects to notify them that criminal charges and arrests could be imminent, said two of those sources, who asked not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.
Defense lawyers, some of whom represent suspects, said prosecutors have indicated they plan to begin making arrests and filing criminal charges in the next few weeks. In long-running financial investigations it is not uncommon for prosecutors to contact defense lawyers before filing charges to offer suspects a chance to cooperate or take a plea, these lawyers said.
The prospect of charges and arrests means prosecutors are getting a fuller picture of how traders at major banks allegedly sought to influence the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, and other global rates that underpin hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets. The criminal charges would come alongside efforts by regulators to five major banks, and could show that the alleged activity was not rampant at the lenders.
"The individual criminal charges have no impact on the regulatory moves against the banks," said a European source familiar with the matter. "But banks are hoping that at least regulators will see that the scandal was mainly due to individual misbehavior of a gang of traders."
In Europe, financial regulators are focusing on a ring of traders from several European banks who allegedly sought to rig benchmark interest rates such as Libor, said the European source familiar with the investigation in Europe.
The source, who did not want to be identified because the investigation is ongoing, said regulators are checking emails among a group of traders and believe they are close to piecing together a picture of how the suspects allegedly conspired to make money by manipulating rates. The rates are set daily based on an average of estimates supplied by a panel of banks.
"More than a handful of traders at different banks are involved," said the source familiar with the investigation by European regulators.
There are also probes in Europe concerning Euribor, the Euro Interbank Offered Rate.
It is not clear on which individuals and banks federal prosecutors are most focused. A top U.S. Department of Justice lawyer overseeing the investigation did not respond to a request for comment.
Reuters previously reported that more than a dozen current and former employees of several large banks are under investigation, including Barclays Plc, UBS and Citigroup, and have hired defense lawyers over the past year as a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., continues to gather evidence.
Activity in the Libor investigation, which has been going on for three years, has quickened since Barclays agreed last month to pay $453 million in fines and penalties to settle allegations with regulators and prosecutors that some of its employees tried to manipulate key interest rates from 2005 through 2009.
Barclays, which signed a non-prosecution agreement with U.S. prosecutors, is the first major bank to reach a settlement in the investigation, which also is looking at the activities of employees at HSBC, Deutsche Bank and other major lenders.
HSBC declined to comment. Officials at Citigroup and UBS were not available for comment.
The Barclays settlement sparked outrage and a series of public hearings in Britain, after which Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond announced his resignation from the UK bank.
The revelations have raised questions about the integrity of Libor, which is used as a benchmark in setting prices for loans, mortgages and derivative contracts.
Adding to concerns are documents released by the New York Federal Reserve Bank this month that show regulators in the United States and England had some knowledge that bankers were submitting misleading Libor bids during the 2008 financial crisis to make their financial institutions appear stronger than they really were.
Among other details, the Fed documents included the transcript of an April 2008 telephone call between a Barclays trader in New York and Fed official Fabiola Ravazzolo, in which the unidentified trader said: "So, we know that we're not posting um, an honest Libor."
The source familiar with the investigation in Europe said two traders suspended from Deutsche Bank were among those being investigated. A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.
The Financial Times said on Wednesday that regulators were looking at suspected communication among four traders who had worked at Barclays, Credit Agricole, HSBC and Deutsche Bank.
Credit Agricole said it had not been accused of any wrongdoing related to the attempted manipulation of Libor by Barclays, but had responded to requests for information from various authorities related to the matter.
Beyond regulatory penalties and criminal charges, banks face a growing number of civil lawsuits from cities, companies and financial institutions claiming they were harmed by rate manipulation. Morgan Stanley recently estimated that the 11 global banks linked to the Libor scandal may face $14 billion in regulatory and legal settlement costs through 2014.
In the United States, the regulatory investigation is being led by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has made the Libor probe one of its top priorities.
(Reporting by Matthew Goldstein and Jennifer Ablan in New York and Philipp Halstrick in Frankfurt, with additional reporting by Emily Flitter in New York and Aruna Viswanatha in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Alwyn Scott, Maureen Bavdek and Dale Hudson)
Related News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)