Fast Food Justice Wins Checkoff in New York City

Little Rock   New York City passed a first-of-its-kind, one and only ordinance last year in an effort to help fast food workers in the city who have been trying to organize under various banners since the Fight for $15 campaign began. The ordinance required employers – in this case, fast food companies – to allow payroll deductions to be processed for membership dues payments to a nonprofit that was not a union or engaged in collective bargaining but was advocating for workers rights.

Fast Food Justice, a nonprofit in New York City meeting those requirements has succeeded in getting 1200 fast food workers to sign such pledges in order to trigger the requirement. These workers have agreed to pay monthly dues to the organization of $13.50 per month. Reportedly, the effort was supported by the Service Employees International Union, which has been the organizer and paymaster of such campaigns for almost all of these efforts in recent years.

Leaders of Fast Food Justice who did the work are of course happy and wild, enthusiastic congratulations to all of them for doing the work and getting the job done. The National Restaurant Association says that it will sue and that the ordinance discriminates against fast food employers, so this may be delayed in court or thrown out completely. The New York Times quoted someone from the National Employment Law Project saying that this accomplishment was important as a step forward towards “sustainability.” Professor Janice Fine, a respected labor scholar, colleague, and friend, said it was “proof of concept,” and that is certainly true, given that the barrier was set high under the ordinance and many believed it would not be achieved, so she’s right as rain on that.

Janice was also quoted further saying, “When I speak to people in other cities, they get really interested. They can imagine a law like this one where they are.” Frankly, while we applaud the success of Fast Food Justice in New York City, Janice and any others asked need to advise organizers to go another direction.

Why should Janice and I say this? Let me list the reasons.

  • It is almost the identical amount of work, perhaps a little more, to get workers to sign dues authorizations to their credit/debit cards or banking accounts.
  • There is no threshold or time barrier to dues being collected other than what the organization sets and the members allow, as opposed to this precedent. [See similar threshold for Texas state workers that only CWA could ever climb until 1992!]
  • This is a highly mobile workforce that will move from operator to operator so employer specific checkoff like this is not as advantageous as direct deposits by the workers. [Can you imagine how much time and trouble it will take Fast Food Justice to get Arby’s to pick up the deduction for a former Papa John worker, when the worker moves to a new job?!?]
  • Direct payment from the workers entails no bars on the type of activity the workers can pursue both on and off the job, both as a workers’ organization or for that matter as a union.
  • There is no legal question or any governmental authority that can challenge direct payment and dues deductions from workers to an organization, since this is constitutionally protected and personal.
  • All forms of employer dues deductions are under attack so whenever we can take the employer out of the equation when a worker decides to join and support an organization – or union – that’s a better course.

So, congratulations Fast Food Justice, and good luck bringing justice to fast food workers, but for those organizations trying to sustain such work, go a better route by directly enrolling workers and facilitating their dues payments through their personal financial tools.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Banks Creating Housing Squeeze Even More than Gentrification

atlantic yards before construction

Atlantic yards before construction

New Orleans   It seems like it has taken forever, but the first units of affordable housing as part of the victorious, but controversial, agreement negotiated between ACORN and Forest City Ratner to be built as part of the Atlantic Yards project, are finally coming to fruition, better late than never, thanks to the 2007-8 housing financing meltdown.

DNA Info reported:

Applications are now open for the first units of affordable housing at the Atlantic Yards Pacific Park complex. The modular tower built by Forest City Ratner Companies is the first building in the 22-acre Pacific Park development (formerly Atlantic Yards to join the city-run affordable housing lottery. The Dean Street property will contain half market-rate apartments and half affordable housing; the tower has 363 units in total.

Rents … will range from $559 per month for a studio at the lowest income requirement bracket ($20,675 to $25,400 per year for one person) to $3,012 per month for a two-bedroom at the highest income bracket (between $104,915 and $144,960 per year, depending on household size), the lottery requirements said.

As the country-and-western song goes, “that’s something to be proud of…,” but the larger issue continues to be in New York and most other cities in the US and around the world how unaffordable housing is. Ironically, as much as the delay at Atlantic Yards had to do with the meltdown in bank lending because of the housing bubble, banks are still at the heart of unaffordability.It’s not /just /gentrification, in fact, the gentrifiers are as much an effect caused by banks as they are a trigger for rising prices.

Stuart Melvin, ACORN’s head organizer in the United Kingdom, shared a piece from the New Economics Foundation with me several months ago.They noted that:

 

In advanced economies, banks’ main activity is now domestic mortgage lending. A recent study of credit in 17 countries found that the share of mortgage loans in banks’ total lending portfolios has roughly doubled over the course of the past century –from about 30% in 1900 to about 60% today.

 

This is how banks are making money everywhere, rather than through direct lending to consumers or businesses, partially because the land is a solid asset serving as collateral, meaning they can foreclose.  Where the land is scarce as it is in New York, London, San Francisco, and, well, lots of big cities, this makes each parcel more valuable and the next thing you know on the rollup, houses are costing nine times average  annual income throughout England and twenty times annual income in southeast England for example and that’s true for many other cities as well.

All of which squeezes housing developers even more, especially if they are not heavily subsidized by the government, when it comes to providing decent and affordable housing. The same level of bank profits cannot be gained compared to mortgages, so prices balloon, and the available customers who can handle the weight become smaller, and richer, until the whole bubble bursts again.

We countered this in New York through land trusts or mutual housing arrangements, but that is only partially successful. The scale of the issue is too large. Other countries and communities have tried land banks or public corporations.Unless we change our public policy around housing though this is a problem accelerating once again until it crashes against the wall, and in the meantime, low and moderate income families find themselves left with fewer and fewer affordable opportunities for decent housing.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail