Wall Street is Moral Bankrupt - Phil Angelides

Chair of Financial Inquiry Committee Assails Wall Street’s Continuing
'Breaches of Ethics'

On the very day that Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith announced his resignation in revulsion over how the firm is callously “ripping their clients off,"

Phil Angelides, chair of the nation’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, expressed his continuing disgust with how Wall Street has become “a casino floor as big as New York, New York,” after wiping away $9 trillion of household wealth “like a day trade gone bad.” Speaking at a Responsible Investment Forum of investors, pension fund managers and union and community leaders, convened in Los Angeles by Heartland Capital Strategies (HCS), Angelides assailed the financial system centered on Wall Street for “becoming a conduit for speculation rather than productive investment.”

Citing HCS as “a clearinghouse for what’s good in investment,” Angelides asserted that four years after the market collapse, “the financial crisis is still metastasizing.”“The ultimate tragedy of the past decade,” he said, “is that we created $13 trillion in mortgage securities—many of which were destructive—rather than deploying that capital in ways to make us a global leader in renewable energy or in rebuilding our infrastructure.”

The forum, the second of four sponsored by HCS in collaboration with the Blue Green Alliance, focused on the need to revitalize the real economy through value-added investments in the nation’s infrastructure and by developing new sources of clean energy. Recalling President Harry Truman’s condemnation of Wall Street financiers as “gluttons of privilege” in their pursuit of power, Angelides said that “widespread breaches of ethics” have continued to drive maldistribution of the nation’s wealth.“

Since May 2009,” he pointed out, “92 percent of the nation’s economic growth has gone to corporate profits and zero to wages” while also noting that we now have the lowest ratio of wages to GDP since the Great Depression. Calling the implosion of financial markets “in many respects a crisis by design,” resulting in large part from the push for deregulation, Angelides averred that the need exists to “remake the contours of our economy, not just restart it.” “There isn’t a better time to talk about how to mobilize capital and create wealth in our economy,” he concluded.

Angelides also moderated a panel of fund managers and pension consultants engaged in making value-added investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency that bring first-rate returns, as well as contributing to the economy and the community at large. Jim McDermott, managing director of the US Renewables Group and formerly the owner of a successful online postage business, explained that in addition to earning solid returns, unlike IT, “renewables touch people in many ways every day: engineering to design them, labor to build them and facilities to sustain them. So they breed a long-term relationship with the community.” He advocated an investment approach that draws on the global best-of-class intellectual properties in tech being developed in American universities, scaling them up for domestic production and exporting these products, as Germany is successfully doing to great advantage.

“When people say that clean tech does not pay, it’s just not true,” he added. “Only those that were too highly leveraged failed.” Ed Smeloff, a project developer for SunPower and former chair of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, asserted that “clean tech is not a niche market, it is going to be the transformative technology for the remainder of the century, since more greenhouse gases will go into the air in first 20 years of the 21st century than in the entire 20th century.” Public policy has always driven the utility industry, he said, adding that what’s needed now is access to the integrated network of the grid—the high voltage transmission system—as well as “credit worthy off-takers of the system.” “What has enabled the market to take off in the U.S.,” he concluded, “is tax policy for renewables,” which led him to hail the extension of the Investment Tax Credit until 2016.

When Angelides asked if there has been a recalibration of return expectations by Taft-Hartley pension funds, Sarah Bernstein, a principal with the Pension Consulting Alliance (PCA), replied that since the 2008 crisis, “Everybody is lowering their perception of necessary returns. Everybody is looking at risk.” A lively discussion ensued among the 33 participants in the forum about how best to package proposals to investors to ensure their value-added qualities are recognized and compelling in the context of the current trepidation about risk.

John Williams, CEO of Impact Investments LLC, suggested that the goal should be to provide a level of due diligence beyond Taft-Hartley, a protocol that builds the U.N. principles for Responsible Investment into proposals in order to give investors the ability to compare projects, which will encourage them to select those with the most sustainable returns, including the added value of advancing environmental, social and governance principles. Williams said his firm is developing metrics that will make such a protocol available for fund managers and pension trustees alike to use in assessing the value-added components of proposed investments.

Occupy LA Bank Protesters Arrested

Bank Protesters Arrested
After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check

VIDEO: Protesters Arrested After Trying to Cash $673-billion Check -
Lynette Romero reports
VIDEO: Occupy LA Protest Continues - Chip Yost reports
VIDEO:
"Occupy LA" Protest Calls For End To Corporate Greed - Jennifer Gould
reports


LOS ANGELES, Calif. (KTLA) -- Ten protesters were
arrested at a downtown Los Angeles Bank of America
branch on Thursday afternoon. A group marched inside the
bank and tried to cash a $673 billion check. The protest was organized by
the Refund California campaign. "Occupy L.A." protesters,
inspired by the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in New York,
also joined in, authorities said.The protesters tried to cash an
over-sized check made out to the "People of California," LAPD
Lt. Paul Vernon said.

Ten protesters -- six men and four women -- were arrested after
refusing to leave the bank, police said. Earlier in the day Thursday,
Occupy L.A. protesters took over the intersection of 7th and
Figueroa streets, prompting police in riot gear to respond to the scene.
Protesters also covered Bank of America ATM's with caution tape. Thursday's
demonstrations were the latest in a series of protests in the
Southland. On Tuesday afternoon, several dozen protesters with signs and
a bullhorn picketed outside the Westwood home of a One West Bank
executive. About 50 demonstrators showed up outside the home and stayed
about 30 minutes as Los Angeles Police Department officers looked
on. Some "Occupy L.A." protesters have been camping outside City Hall in
downtown L.A. The loosely organized group is protesting what it perceives
as corporate greed. It hopes to encourage social change and political
involvement. Organizers say their target is pretty straight forward:
corporations that they believe have taken control of the ability of Americans to
get decent jobs and to keep other freedoms. Organizers also want to make
it clear that this occupation is a "non-violent" one.

General Strike in Spain

Spain to go on General Strike March 10

The CNT, Spain’s anarchist labor union, issued a statement yesterday announcing that they will be convoking a nation-wide general strike for March 29 against the labor reform passed on Thursday by the Parliament.

This coincides with strikes that have already been called for Galicia and the Basque Country. In these regions the call was made jointly between “minority” unions such as the CNT and CGT as well as regionally-important unions linked to nationalist movements. On the national scale, however, the CNT has called the strike on its own. According to Spain’s labor law, strikes are only official if called, or convoked, by a union or another official body. In the message announcing the strike call, the CNT said that they hope to give coverage to any workers’ organizations that want to take action.

Spain’s two main unions, the UGT and the CCOO, have also called for a strike on that day, but speak only of “amending” the labor reform. This is a continuation of their policy of social peace – in February they signed a major agreement with the employers’ confederation in which they gave major concessions. Recognizing the growing disillusion that many workers are feeling towards these unions, the CNT is promoting a different form of unionism, one which is not based on professional bureaucrats and policies of social peace, but rather on the direct action and solidarity of workers.

This appears to be the first nation-wide general strike since the end of Francisco Franco’s dictatorship to be called for by a union other than the CCOO or UGT, though it remains to be which unions, if any, will follow the CNT in calling for a general strike. The CNT’s statement was clear that, although the strike is only called for March 29, this should be seen only as one step in a growing mobilization which seeks not only to remove this labor reform in its entirety, but also to go on the offensive with the goal of social transformation.

http://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/strike-everywhere/#more-2131

British UNIONS Defy Gov't Pension Cuts

Unions say no to Tory pension cuts

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27811

The NUT, PCS, UCU and EIS unions could be part of a 750,000-strong strike on 28 March. The Tories (Conservatives) have unilaterally declared that the majority of their talks with unions are over. These had been over government plans to “reform” public sector pensions in health, education and the civil service. Talks over local government pensions are continuing. The Tories want to impose serious attacks on millions of workers in these sectors. This is despite the fact that a number of union leaderships have rejected the plans and many are still consulting members. The government wants to force public sector workers to work longer, pay more into their pensions each month and get less when they retire. It plans to impose stark rises on workers’ pension contributions from next month.

Carl, a teacher and NUT member in Bolton, told Socialist Worker, “What’s happening is a disgrace and I’m prepared to strike indefinitely. “I know many people who are considering withdrawing from the pension scheme because of the changes. “Private sector workers often don’t pay into pension schemes because they don’t trust them. Unfortunately we no longer trust ours either. ”DisagreeA treasury minister last week said that talks with the unions over changes to health, education and civil service pensions were “constructive”.

Unions disagree.NUT general secretary Christine Blower said, “The NUT has not signed up to these proposals and neither has the majority of the other teacher unions.“We cannot accept our members being asked to pay so much more and work so much longer for their pensions and receive so much less in retirement.

”PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said, “(Gov't) Ministers’ obstinacy means we have this ludicrous charade of what is now our fourth ‘final’ offer. We will continue to talk to other unions about planning further widespread coordinated industrial action. "Unison said it would ballot its 450,000 members in the NHS on the offer. The GMB promised to consult members in the NHS and civil service. And Unite denounced the government for “having avoided any meaningful negotiations over the last year”. It is “recommending that its members in the NHS, Ministry of Defence and government departments and in teaching reject the proposals”. The union is consulting its NHS members.Workers in public sector unions overwhelmingly voted for discontinuous strikes against the pension attacks last year.

This means that unions already have a mandate to call further strikes, regardless of fresh consultations. Anna, a teacher in Somerset, said, “People don’t see a consultation in the same way as an official ballot and so may not feel the need to vote in the same way. If the turnout is low, unions should still call the strike.“NUT members at my school are for taking action on 28 March. And they don’t just want it to be one day—they support further action after that too.”

Unions Not Committing to Pres. Obama

Not All Labor Leaders Happy With AFL-CIO’s Obama Endorsement
by Mike Elk

Last May, AFL-CIO President Trumka declared labor’s political independence by pledging to use the power of Super PACS to reach out to nonunion voters and build labor's own political organization and message outside of the Democratic Party.

Yesterday, the leaders of the labor federation unanimously endorsed President Obama for re-election, saying he “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights, pay and health and safety on the job.” “There's not a lot of choice here, that’s the sad part of this,” says Matt McKinnon, political and legislative director of the Machinists union (IAM), which is affiliated with AFL-CIO and endorsed the president earlier this year. “He’s been a disappointment in several areas, but he came through with some decent appointees.”The expected endorsement represents the reality that organized labor leaders still feel trapped in a two-party system, with a not-always labor-friendly Democratic Party on one side and a downright hostile Republican Party on the other. This tension continues despite the endorsement, as witnessed by the fact that the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO is continuing its boycott of the Democratic National Convention. The boycott was called because the DNC is being held this September in largely nonunion facilities in one of the most poorly unionized states in the country: North Carolina.

A few labor leaders are complaining that the way the AFL-CIO handled the endorsement does not represent a new trend in “political independence” for the labor movement, but rather a return to business as usual. The endorsement came relatively early—before the Republican primary season has even ended and nearly six months before the DNC in Charlotte. (It endorsed Obama for election in June 2008, but endorsed John Kerry in February 2004.)

In my opinion, the endorsement hurts organized labor's ability to have leverage over Obama’s actions during the remainder of his first term. A cautionary tale, in my view, is how a few days after the Communications Workers of America (CWA) endorsed President Obama for re-election, the president signed a bill funding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that, according to CWA President Larry Cohen, makes the organizing rights of airline and rail workers “worse than it’s ever been.”

“Anybody who negotiates a contract knows that you start off with an ultimate idea of what you want and you don't stop negotiating till the very end. I don’t get why they are doing this so early,” says South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt, who is not in favor of endorsing Obama. “Of all things the labor movement should know, it’s how to negotiate. I don’t think they know how to negotiate anymore.” (Editor's note: See correction and appended statement from DeWitt below.)

In the offical endorsement statement, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said that Obama “has moved aggressively to protect workers’ rights," but the statement glosses over the fact that Obama has often ignored, blocked or stymied key workers’ rights and health and safety regulations. In the last month alone, Obama has pushed increasing federal workers' pension contributions (in his proposed 2013 budget). Last month also marked the one-year anniversary of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delaying publishing OSHA rules that would prevent workers' exposure to cancer causing silicia dust. Typically, the OMB is supposed to review rules for only 90 days, but under industry pressure the White House has reportedly prevented the rules from being published. Acoording to a study by Public Citizen, 60 workers' lives could have been saved if the White House had immediately moved to implement stronger silicia regulations.

And what has President Obama done to help American workers organize themselves into unions, or protect the collective bargaining rights they currently enjoy? From where I stand, the short answer is not much. While the president's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have helped pass several pro-labor rules, those rules are by no means permanent. (They could be changed by a future NLRB board that is dominated by anti-union appointees.) The FAA budget bill referred to above, though, marks the only federal legislation that Obama has signed that (negatively) affects the ability of organized labor to collectively bargain.

Remember the Employee Free Choice Act, the great legislative hope of the labor movement as President Obama came into office? He allowed the bill, which would have made it easier for all workers to unionize by allowing them to bypass secret ballot election if they so choosed, to die entirely. As President, Obama publicly distanced himself from labor law reform—he didn't give a single major speech on the subject of workers’ rights, as opposed to immigration and climate change. Likewise, as I documented, Obama’s most recent State of the Union address did not mention the unprecedented attacks on workers’ rights at the state level, in places like Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. Indeed, United Electrical Workers union Political Director Chris Townsend argues that the most high-profile comments the Obama administration has made regarding labor law have been speeches attacking teachers unions. Townsend points to a speech by Obama at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in March of 2009 calling on teacher unions to allow more flexibility in their contracts; he also points to the president's remarks endorsing the mass firing of unionized teachers in Central Falls, R.I., in March 2010. Townsend, whose union is not endorsing Obama for re-election, worries that by glossing over Obama’s deficiencies, the federation's unions hurt their credibility with their own members. "Why should union leaders—from shop stewards right up the national union president —why should we sacrifice our hard-earned credibility with our members for the sake of some politician? Do they sacrifice any of their precious credibility for us, in our battles with the bosses? Rarely, if at all, and only at election time,” Townsend says. “The membership knows this, and there's no point in trying to conceal it or gloss over it with good-news-only press releases. It's bad enough we are locked in this two party trap. We don't have to make it all worse by not leveling with the members about what we are really facing."

Some argue that the attacks supported by GOP presidential candidates (e.g., a national right-to-work law) are so extreme that organized labor should endorse any Democrat to ward off a Republican in office. Dewitt, from South Carolina, where Governor Nikki Halley has said publicly that “unions are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina,” disagrees with this approach. “I run one of the only state federations that did not endorse our Democratic nominee for Governor last time around," says Dewitt. "He was a nice guy, but he did not know how to say the word—Union.” Dewitt says that unions also hurt their credibility with their members when they go all out for Democrats who are lukewarm at best in their support for organized labor. “I spend half of my time trying to talk to membership upset with their international. We have to act like labor leaders and not corporate labor leaders," Dewitt says. "We don't have strong labor leaders. They are always making a deal on something. I don’t know how we keep [union members] in places like South Carolina if we don’t truly represent them.” The AFL-CIO has occasionally taken a more confrontational approach with Democrats in recent years. In 2010, organized labor poured millions of dollars into a primary challenge to Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln—she ended up winning the primary, but losing the general election to a Republican. In a recent interview with In These Times, however, Trumka said “I don’t have any plans right now” to primary Democrats in Congress who have been unfriendly toward labor."

"The AFL-CIO just kicks that can down the road again even as most unions face relentless assaults on wages, pensions and healthcare," says railroad worker Jonathan Flanders of Troy, N.Y., a member of the IAM. "The assaults will not end with Obama's re-election, and we'll find his administration doing little to stop them, outside of occasional lip service."To unionists like Flanders, fed up with what organized labor is getting from Democrats these days, "the project of getting political representation of the working class in its own party still lies ahead.

"The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the South Carolina AFL-CIO did not endorse President Obama for re-election. In fact, state-level AFL-CIO affiliates do not endorse presidential candidates. Dewitt was speaking on her own behalf. We regret the error.

Update (March 15): After this story was published yesterday, South Carolina AFL-CIO President Donna Dewitt told me she received a call from a representative of the AFL-CIO displeased with her disagreement about the endorsement. She e-mailed me the following statement to clarify her position on the matter: "I understand that [the AFL-CIO's presidential endorsement is made] by the national leaders through a deliberative process, just as the state federations conduct endorsement meetings for the purpose of receiving and acting on recommendations of endorsement for State and U.S. representatives from their affiliated union locals and bodies within their state."

"I spoke from a personal perspective, but I need to be clear that I reflect the concerns of the South Carolina AFL-CIO Officers and Executive Board, who listen to their membership and entrust me to speak on their behalf. We know the struggles that all of our states are facing because we have been confronted with these struggles for centuries. Throughout my 16-year tenure I have received support and resources from the AFL-CIO staff and I have strived to comply with all of the AFL-CIO programs in South Carolina. The person who contacted me
from the AFL-CIO implied they don't expect this from a leader that receives support, including financial support, from the national AFL-CIO. My remarks in the article reflect my personal encounters with rank-and-file union members. Many of them fear speaking out on key decisions that are made by their international leaders for fear of retribution. They are proud union members who want a voice in their leaders that reflects their pride in being a union member first.

The demise of Unions may simply be that union leaders have placed their priorities on electing politicians that can still count- and our numbers don’t scare them."

Mail Workers Start to Fight

Postal Workers Mount Fight to Stop Processing Center Closures

Postal Workers (APWU) President Cliff Guffey says the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS's) announcement that it will close nearly half of the nation’s mail processing facilities “has sent a clear message” to workers and customers: If Congress does not take action before the moratorium expires, management intends to dismantle the mail processing network.

The closure of 223 mail processing plants threatens some 35,000 jobs, according to news reports. Guffey says if amendments to a current USPS bill (S. 1789) are adopted: It would prevent the closures of hundreds of mail processing plants and thousands of post offices, halt the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs and stop drastic reductions in service to the American people.

APWU members can click here to send a message to their lawmakers urging them to support a series of amendments recently offered by 27 Senators. Others can call 202-224-3121 and ask to speak to their senators and urge them to support the amendments. Without those amendments, the bill would pave the way for the USPS to carry out the closures of the processing faculties and also shut thousands of post offices, causing massive delays in mail delivery.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the 27 lawmakers offering the amendments, says the USPS plan to close the facilities “is deeply flawed and Congress must change it.”Click here, here and here to find out more.

Tagged under:APWU, Bernie Sanders, jobs, labor, postal workers,

SF Labor Opposes Profiling

San Francisco Labor Council Resolution
Adopted Feb. 27, 2012 by unanimous vote

Oppose City of San Francisco’s Cooperation with FBI and ICE Racial or
Religious Profiling and Surveillance

Whereas, the FBI had its origins during and after World War One and in the 1920s – in a massive campaign to root out, brand as “terrorist”, deport or jail union organizers, anti-war campaigners and immigrants. Portrayed in the press as heroic “gangbusters,” the FBI relentlessly pursued the objective of destabilizing the labor and civil rights movements. Many hundreds of FBI informants and agents were deployed to sabotage labor organizing and the mass campaigns of popular leaders like Marcus Garvey and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The FBI worked to undermine mass popular movements like the veterans’ 1932 Bonus Army occupation in Washington, and Dr. King’s Poor People’s Campaign for jobs and economic justice [forerunners of today’s Occupy movement]. In the 1960s and ‘70s, the FBI employed the COINTELPRO program to infiltrate and destroy popular organizations in the Black, Puerto Rican, Chicano, Native American and other communities; and

Whereas, the FBI’s domestic “counter-terrorism” efforts over the last decade have led to racial and religious profiling, harassment, surveillance and infiltration operations aimed primarily at communities of color and American Muslim communities – in their homes, places of worship and workplaces, as well as while traveling.

At the same time, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has profiled, demonized and subjected to indefinite detention immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere; and

Whereas, in September 2010 FBI agents led coordinated, pre-dawn raids or issued Grand Jury subpoenas on 23 trade union, anti-war and solidarity activists in the Midwest. In May 2011, FBI and a police SWAT team smashed into the Los Angeles home of veteran immigrant rights and solidarity activist Carlos Montes. Just as it did in the 1920s, the FBI tried to justify these fishing expeditions by invoking the mantra of “counter-terrorism.” However, many believe the FBI’s real intent was to shut down these outspoken activists and try to intimidate the labor, solidarity and anti-war movements; and

Whereas, since 9/11, the FBI has recruited more than 600 state and local law enforcement agencies to be part of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) organized and run by the FBI in 103 cities nationwide – just as ICE uses “Secure Communities” to effectively deputize local police and use them to target immigrant workers; and

Whereas, local police have been asked to utilize scarce resources for full-time “counter-terrorism” tasks with the JTTF under a secret 2007 agreement with the FBI which was only made public last year. The previously-secret agreement purports to allow police working with the FBI to ignore state and local civil rights protections, and avoid local civilian oversight and scrutiny; and

Whereas, the California State Constitution guarantees an inalienable right to privacy and bans the intrusive surveillance and intelligence practices that are currently being used by the FBI. In addition, SFPD Department General Order requires reasonable suspicion of serious criminal activity, written authorization by the Police Chief and civilian oversight for any intelligence gathering involving First Amendment activities. The City of Refuge Ordinance prohibits the City from assisting Federal immigration enforcement, and the city charter requires that all SFPD activities be subject to local civilian control and oversight; and

Whereas, after a hearing with community members, the S.F. Human Rights Commission issued a report – endorsed by the Board of Supervisors – demanding that SFPD be held to local standards and oversight. In April 2011, the Coalition for a Safe San Francisco, Asian Law Caucus and ACLU raised concerns at a Police Commission hearing after discovering that the SFPD had entered into a secret MOU agreement with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force that violated state and local law and policies. Both the Police Commission and Police Chief stated publicly that they wanted SFPD officers to follow the stronger state and local civil rights standards, but left in place the previously-secret agreement with the FBI that blocks that from occurring.

Therefore be it Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council alert its affiliated Unions to stay vigilant, to respond in the event community members are subjected to abusive FBI or ICE practices in violation of their civil and constitutional rights; and Be it further Resolved, that the Council denounce the racial or religious profiling and surveillance practices of the FBI and ICE. We condemn the continuing raids against immigrant workers and families from Latin America and elsewhere. We condemn the FBI raid on the home of Los Angeles activist Carlos Montes and the FBI raids and subpoenas on 23 anti-war, solidarity and labor activists in the Midwest, and demand restitution; and

Be it further Resolved, that the Labor Council demand that S.F. law enforcement not participate in any racial or religious profiling and surveillance conducted by the FBI, by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, by ICE or by the “Secure Communities” program; and

Be it finally Resolved, that copies be sent to the Mayor of San Francisco; members of the Board of Supervisors; the Chief of Police of San Francisco; and to the office of the FBI Special Agent for this district. ### FBI & ICE racial & religious profiling -

S.F. Labor Council Resolution adopted Feb. 27 2012.