Ace Contract News

Monday, 13 January 2014

"Beware of Pay Day Lenders And How They Word Their Adverts"

#AceDebtNews says be careful about borrowing money to get out of #debt The simple wording of an advert can look attractive, but read the small print? These types of ad's, want you to borrow, when worded like this - If you have a job and a bank account we can get you money FAST! 2.Bad Credit ? No Credit ? —NO problem !—

Need advice and guidance on getting out of debt with borrowing more money then contact Adam Christian Debt Management Services


Elwood Stooksbury commented: "I just want to say I'm new to blogging and site-building and seriously savored this website. Very likely I'm going to bookmark your site . You definitely come with good writings. Cheers for sharing your webpage."
Respond to this comment by replying above this line

New comment on Ace Finance News

in response to acefinance:
These are the type of loans adverts that you should avoid! 1. Would you like to see $1,000 in your bank account as soon as tomorrow ? If you have a job and a bank account we can get you money FAST! 2.Bad Credit ? No Credit ? —NO problem !— We have over 100 […]
I just want to say I'm new to blogging and site-building and seriously savored this website. Very likely I'm going to bookmark your site . You definitely come with good writings. Cheers for sharing your webpage.
Reply    Comments
Want less email? Modify your Subscription Options.

Enhanced by Zemanta

"The Passage of the Uniform Small Loan Law Part One"

#AceDebtNews says for many a year and more than l care to remember l have studied and looked deeply into rules and regulations governing lending, of any kind! When l first read about this law and how it affected lending right up until the 1940's l was surprised to learn, that certain companies could keep interest rates higher than the norm.



acefinance posted: "For many a year and more than l care to remember l have studied and looked deeply into rules and regulations governing lending, of any kind! When l first read about this law and how it affected lending right up until the 1940's l was surprised to learn, t"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Ace Finance News

acefinance:
For many a year and more than l care to remember l have studied and looked deeply into rules and regulations governing lending, of any kind! When l first read about this law and how it affected lending right up until the 1940's l was surprised to learn, that certain companies could keep interest rates higher than the norm.
The Uniform Small Loan Law (USLL) allowed specially-licensed lenders to charge much higher interest rates than those allowed by most state usury laws. In return, small-loan brokers had to adhere to strict standards of transparency. The USLL was the Russell Sage Foundation's primary device to combat the problem of high-rate lending to poor people in the first half of the twentieth century. The Foundation drafted successive versions of the law and fought for its passage in state legislatures. About two-thirds of the states had passed the USLL when the Foundation ended this
effort in the 1940s. This paper describes the USLL and reports econometric models of which states passed the USLL and when. We find that the demographic and political factors that occupied much of the Foundation's own discussion played little role. Measures of state economic structure as well as the presence of credit unions and banks, on the other hand, are powerful correlates of the state's passage. There is no evidence of spatial dependence across states in the law's passage.
For its first 40 years the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) was heavily involved in efforts to reform the conditions under which poor Americans obtained credit. Through its lobbying, publications, and other efforts, the Foundation operated as the clearing house for information, leader of several reform proposals, and primary interlocutor for lenders and industry groups that sought to improve their industry's image. This paper focuses on one particular initiative, the Uniform Small Loan Law (USLL). The USLL formed the heart of the Foundation's early efforts to improve
credit conditions for poor people. The USLL reflected two central ideas. Supporters thought that making small loans was an inherently expensive business, and that the only way to encourage legitimate lending was to let capital earn a realistic profit. The law also reflected a perception that borrowers were hurt less by high interest rates than by other features of "loan-sharking," such as lack of transparency. This paper focuses on the USLL's passage: which states passed the law and when. Section 1 provides background on the problem of credit for poor people, as well as the RSF's views of the problem. Section 2 focuses on the law itself. Section 3 describes the data and methods we employ, and Section 4 discusses our results.
1. Credit for the Poor and the Foundation's activities:
Starting in the 1890s, U.S. reformers came to view credit as a serious problem in causing or exacerbating poverty (Calder 1999: 112-123). In their eyes, borrowers usually sought small loans only because of financial necessity: unexpected medical expenses or loss of income due to unemployment. The dire circumstances for such emergency borrowing drove small debtors into the hands of usurers, loan sharks, and
other unscrupulous lenders. The Foundation was established in April of 1907 and credit for poor people remained a major focus until World War II. The first approach it tried was to publicize the problem (via a "crusade") and warn borrowers about the dangers they faced. But mostly the RSF tried to cultivate new sources of credit that could drive out the "loan sharks." This included Remedial Loan Societies, charitable lenders that
extended credit to poor people at much lower rates than those charged by for-profit lenders. RSF provided financial and organizational support to a number of remedial loan societies, and to their national organization. RSF also played a key role in the early U.S. credit-union movement, but the Foundation's ardor for credit unions cooled by the 1920s. One reason was the intellectual understanding noted above.1 Institutional and personal conflicts were also important. Edward Filene's Twentieth Century Fund staked out credit unions as its policy turf, and while the Fund tried several times to work with the RSF, the relationship remained awkward. The personal problems stemmed from repeated conflict between Roy Bergengren, who was Filene's man for the credit-union groups, and various figures at the Foundation. The RSF also tried to promote consumer lending by commercial banks, again seeking market competition that might reduce costs to borrowers. Commercial banks were late entrants into this field, in part because of legal restrictions on the lending activities of national banks. RSF assisted several New York banks in setting up these new loan departments.2 It also considered various legislative measures, although these ran aground of the question of whether state laws legalizing personal loans applied to federally-chartered banks. In general and despite RSF efforts, commercial banks were slow to make small loans to individuals (RAC 28/216, p.7).
2. The Uniform Small Loan Law:
Most of the Foundation's efforts went into the creation and promulgation of a uniform law to cover small-loans. Support for the USLL involved two tasks: writing (with other interested parties) a model law, and then encouraging its promulgation and passage. This "uniform law strategy" was relatively new to American politics. In the 1880s, the American Bar Association (ABA) devised a long-term plan to standardize state laws. Legal variability across states was an ongoing problem. National legislation to deal with various social and economic problems was simply
1. The conceptual underpinnings of the credit-union and USLL approaches are quite different. Credit unions are non-profits that distribute all surplus to members. The entire point of the Uniform Small Loan Laws was to attract private capital into this type of lending with the promise of profits. Credit unions experienced little of the legislative opposition that the Uniform Small Loan law encountered.
2. One bank that set up a new loan department was the First National City Bank of New York, whose president, Charles Norton, joined the RSF board of trustees in 1918, not an option because of how the U.S. constitution allocated powers between state and national government. The uniform law strategy seemed to offer a solution: promulgating uniform laws at the state level ensured constitutionality and defused the problem of multiple jurisdictions. RSF staff believed that a decision in one state could establish (political) precedent in other states (LC 4, "Anti-Loan Shark Committee" folder). One of the prime movers behind uniform laws was the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). This group emerged from the ABA in the late 1880s and was later supported by the American Law Institute (Grant 1938, p.1086). Together, they promoted model laws, eventually including the Uniform Commercial Code (Frank 1998, White 1997). The first law proposed by the NCCUSL was the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act of 1896, adopted in thirty-eight states and territories by 1910 (Lapp 1910). This was followed by a uniform warehouse receipts act, uniform sales act, and so on (Guild 1920).
RSF correspondence suggests that the foundation tried to coordinate with the NCCUSL on laws pertaining to credit: 
3. As a commercial law serving a social purpose, the USLL was something of a hybrid. One feature of the uniform-law strategy seems odd for the USLL. As Smythe (2005) emphasizes for the Uniform Sales Act, there are issues where legal differences across states impose higher transactions costs. A firm might prefer that all the states in which it does business have identical laws to reduce legal uncertainty and the costs of inter-state sales. No such strong rationale applies for the USLL. Some of the larger chain lenders that operated under the USLL might well have preferred that the small-loan law in each state be similar. But they rarely lent across state lines.
RSF and the USLL:
At first, the RSF extended its "crusades" approach and pushed state authorities to enforce existing laws. A more ambitious strategy entailed pushing particular legislation. Starting in 1910, Ham was involved with state efforts to regulate the small loan business. By 1913 Ham, working with the National Federation's Committee on 3. One letter of 17 November, 1919, was sent to a J. Hansell Merrill, appointed by the NCCUSL to consider anti-loan shark laws. See LC 4, "Anti-Loan Shark Committee" folder.
Legislation, had determined eight key features that state laws should contain. All successive drafts of the USLL negotiated over the next decades reflected these ideas. They included: (1) Licenses for USLL lenders; (2) Bonds to ensure compliance; (3) A maximum interest rate higher than that allowed for banks (3.5% per month), coupled with a prohibition on ancillary fees; (4) Enforcement by public officials; (5) Penalties for violation; (6) Notice to employer and to wife in the case of assignment of wages; (7) Records that can be inspected by supervision officer; (8) Borrowers to receive memorandum of transaction along with relevant sections of state law.
The USLL defined a small loan as $300 or less (average annual earnings of a non-farm worker were $1,434 in 1925). The first incarnation of the USLL was New Jersey's Egan Act, passed in 1914.4 Ham's role in passage of the Egan Act went well beyond that of technical advisor. He drafted the legislation and organized support at each stage. This pattern continued, with revisions to the Uniform Law and efforts to pass it in other states. Between 1911 and 1915, six states including New Jersey passed versions of the USLL. As opposition formed, the law passed on close votes in six more states in 1917, but failed in California. The Foundation mustered a considerable lobbying effort. By 1929, RSF staff had visited more than thirty states to urge adoption of the law (RAC 28/216). When Leon Henderson was hired by RSF in 1925, his first act was to visit states where the USLL was in operation. Through 1929 he organized support for the Act in the states where it was in play, and fought efforts to weaken the law in states that had enacted it.
Related articles
Comment    See all comments    Like
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://acefinance.me/2013/08/19/the-passage-of-the-uniform-small-loan-law-part-one/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Are we having fun yet - getting deeper in debt?



As anyone who's been there recently can testify, the blame in Spain falls mainly on the banks – as it does in Ireland, in Greece, in the US, and pretty much everywhere else too. Here in the UK, feelings were nicely summed up by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which reported on 19 June that 'the public have a sense that advantage has been taken of them, that bankers have received huge rewards, that some of those rewards have not been properly earned, and in some cases have been obtained through dishonesty, and that these huge rewards are excessive, bearing little or no relation to the work done.' The report eye-catching called for senior bankers to face jail.1 In the midst of this cacophony of largely justified accusations, the banks have had a strange kind of good fortune: the noise is now so loud that it's become hard to hear specific complaints of wrongdoing. That's lucky for them, because there's one particular scandal which really deserves to stand out. The scandal I have in mind is that of mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI). The banks are additionally lucky in that there's something inherently unsexy about the whole idea of PPI, from the numbing acronym to the fact that the whole idea of a scandal about insurance payments seems dreary and low-scale. But if there hadn't been so much other lurid wrongdoing in the world of finance, and if mis-sold payment protection insurance had a sexier name, PPI would stand out as the biggest scandal in the history of British banking.















This is a big claim to make: an especially big claim to make at the moment, when bank scandals come around with a regularity which in almost any other context would be soothing. Here's a short recap of some of the greatest hits of the noughties. Just to keep things simple, I'm going to leave out the biggest of them all, the grotesque toxic-asset and derivative spree which took the global financial system to the edge of the abyss. That was the precursor and proximate cause of the difficulties which are affecting the entire Western world at the moment, but the causal mechanisms connecting the initial crisis and our current predicament are a separate subject. The crisis and its consequences are too big to count as a scandal: they're more like a climate. We can all agree that we'd prefer a different climate. We can all agree that we have no idea when this one will change.



































Even once we've banished the elephant to his corner of the room there's plenty of scandal and disaster to be getting on with. I'll deal with two outliers first, because they are exceptions, for multiple reasons: they involve foreign banks, they are trading-floor disasters of a traditional kind, and they didn't cost any money to anyone apart from the banks themselves and their shareholders. These losses were caused by Kweku Adoboli, the UBS wunderkind who lost £1.4 billion in 2011, and Bruno Iksil, the 'London Whale' at JPMorgan Chase, who in 2012 lost an amount described by his boss Jamie Dimon as 'a tempest in a teacup', until it turned out to be $6.2 billion. There were a number of classic features to these mishaps. The financial instruments involved were complex; they were things no one outside the City had heard of until they blew up (in Adoboli's case, they were 'forward-settling Exchange Traded Fund positions', in Iksil's they were credit default swaps on an index called the CDX IG 9); and although both banks are foreign-owned and based, these actions happened in London. Adoboli's feats were deemed criminal and he has gone to jail; Iksil's weren't and he hasn't. (Adoboli's frauds were in cash terms the largest in British history.)







Kweku-Adoboli-007Kweku-Adoboli-007 (Photo credit: thetaxhaven)


Enhanced by Zemanta

If you invested $1 in the stock market in 2000, today it would be worth a $1....?

Post I Like To Share On My Google Plus Feed!  

"The U.S. stock market is on almost everybody's list at the top of where people think the most opportunity will be in the next year. I don't disagree with that," Fleming said at the Delivering Alpha conference presented by CNBC and Institutional Investor. But, he added, if you invested $1 at the March 2000 peak "you would still have a dollar."


If you invested $1 in the stock market in 2000, today it would be... $1.

SEE WHY: http://cnb.cx/14f21wv

You received this notification because CNBC was in a circle that you had subscribed to.
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 USA

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 27 August 2012

Labour Urges Government To Delay Virgin Trains Decision

Labour Urges Government To Delay Virgin Trains Decision:
Labour is urging the Government to delay signing a new West Coast Mainline contract so MPs have a chance to fully scrutinise the deal.

Maria Eagle, the shadow transport secretary, has said the decision to take the franchise from Virgin Trains and award it to FirstGroup should be put on hold until Parliament returns next week.

The politician said there were concerns over how the move would affect fares and levels of service.

Her plea comes after Louise Ellman, the chairman of the House of Commons Transport Committee, wrote to Transport Secretary Justine Greening asking her to hold off signing the final contract, saying that "important issues" had been raised.

More than 100,000 members of the public have also signed an online petition against the decision, in a campaign supported by double Olympic champion Mo Farah, Apprentice star Lord Sugar and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver.

Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson has offered to run the line for free to allow Parliament time to debate the issue.

The entrepreneur, who has claimed that FirstGroup's bid will lead to "almost certain bankruptcy", on Sunday made a last-ditch appeal to the Government to delay signing the 13-year contract on Tuesday.

He said Virgin Trains and Stagecoach would operate the joint venture on a not-for-profit basis or donate profits to charity if the franchise needed to be extended beyond December for a few months to allow Parliament to investigate the decision.

Sir Richard is also pressing for an independent audit of the Department for Transport's decision over the £10 billion deal.

Sir Richard said: "It is far better for MPs to have the chance to debate the issues, and question ministers on the detail before the decision is finalised.

"To assist in this process, there should be an independent audit of the DfT decision to ensure it has been based on correct criteria and reliable forecasting of customer numbers, revenue and payments to Government.

"We must ensure that this crucial decision is taken with all the facts correctly assessed and understood."

Virgin has operated the West Coast line since 1997 and has more than doubled annual passenger numbers over 15 years.

FirstGroup claims it will deliver better value for taxpayers.

It plans major improvements to the InterCity West Coast franchise to enhance the customer experience, including improved wifi and catering, as well as additional services and more seats and reducing standard anytime fares by 15% on average.

This is our opinion and feelings about the the posts added to this blog by ourselves and writers who have asked to write on our blog network and does not necessarily represent our agreement or disagreement with the writers concerned.Please tweet your opinion at #AceNewsServices and or add to your tweets alternatively email me at News & Views 

Thank you, Ian [Editor]

Houses Of Parliament 'Could Be Closed' For Five Years For Refurbishment

Houses Of Parliament 'Could Be Closed' For Five Years For Refurbishment:
Parliament could be relocated for up to five years whilst essential repairs are made, according to commons officials.

Whilst Westminster's rotten plumbing, asbestos panels and creaking electrics are overhauled, MPs would either be housed in temporary chamber or a conference centre half a mile away, reported the Sunday Times.

The temporary evacuation is one of the options being suggested in an ongoing report into the renovation of Westminister by the House of Commons Commission, chaired by Speaker John Bercow.

house of parliament




Architect Charles Barry designed the building in the Perpendicular Gothic style


Commons officials believe moving the House of Commons and House of Lords to a different location is the most cost effective option, at an estimated £3 bn cost to the taxpayer.

"We either move out or spend £10bn over 20 or 30 years trying to do the work during the summer recess," a commons official told the Sunday Times.

In January the Commons Commission agreed a year long study should be conducted into renovating the Grade I listed building.

There were fears that Big Ben was leaning, the construction of tube tunnels had caused cracks to appear in the walls. It was even thought that parliament may be sinking into the Thames, putting the lives of those who work in Westminster in danger.

big ben leaning


Fears that Big Ben was leaning and that Parliament was sinking drove the year-long study into possible options. However Bercow said that the building was "structurally safe"


Additionally, the building is known for its rodent problem and leaky toilets. Theresa May has had to deal with suspicious liquid dripping down from the ceiling, whilst senior Tory official Iain Corby told the Times " a waterfall" poured into the parliamentary Labour Party office last year.

Despite that a number of MPs have criticised the moving of parliament, with Greg Hands Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham calling it an "absurd proposal"

Nadine Dorries claimed that in the Houses of Parliament "what we have is unique and passionate" but admitted that "rodents were a problem"


Ian Lavery MP for Wansbeck tweeted that parliament was a "superb place" but suggested instead of holing up in a replica whilst the repairs were made, why not have parliamentary sessions across the country.

Labour's Deputy Leader in the Lords, Philip Hunt said it was a good opportunity to move parliament to "beautiful Brum"


The SNP's Pete Wishart MP expressed astonishment at the price tag for planned refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament, claiming the price tag showed the importance of Scottish independence.

"This puts the much-criticised Holyrood project into perspective. With estimates for refurbishment, let alone relocations, starting at an incredible £3 billion, it is seven times the final bill for the Scottish Parliament - and that's before the work even gets off the ground.

"This massive bill is one 'union dividend' that the anti-independence campaigners won't be keen to put on their flyers.

"A yes vote in the independence referendum in 2014 will save people in Scotland that enormous cost and move all decisions to a modern, progressive Parliament at Holyrood."

The posts l provide are not our views and also are shared from a number of contacts, news and blogging services. They are not always tried and tested by us unless it states!Please tweet this post at #AceNewsServices or email your News & Views 

Thank you, Ian [Editor]

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Temp Worker Nation: If You Do Get Hired, It Might Not Be for Long

Temp Worker Nation: If You Do Get Hired, It Might Not Be for Long:
Almost one-third of American workers now do some kind of freelance work, and they lack almost every kind of economic security that permanent full-time workers traditionally have had. Though exact figures are impossible to find, many experts and labor organizers estimate that about 30 percent of U.S. workers are “contingent.” That means they don’t have a permanent job. They work as freelancers, temporary workers, on contract, or on call, or their employers define them (often illegally) as “independent contractors.”
Their ranks include writers and warehouse workers, janitors and business consultants, truck drivers and graphic designers—and their number is rising. Richard Greenwald, a sociologist of work and professor at St. Joseph’s College in Brooklyn, estimates that their share of the U.S. workforce has increased by close to half in the last 10 years. In July, Staffing Industry Analysts reported that the average share of contingent workers at companies it surveyed had gone up by one-third since 2009, to 16 percent. Last year, a different survey found that contingent workers averaged 22 percent of the workers at 200 large companies.
These workers are often called the “precariat,” a combination of “precarious” and “proletariat,” because the traditional social safety nets for workers don’t cover them. They have no job security as they hustle from one gig to the next, and they often don’t know where their next job is coming from or when it will come. They very rarely get paid sick days or vacation. They don’t get paid extra for working overtime. They are usually not eligible for unemployment benefits. They generally have to pay both the worker’s and the employer’s share of Social Security taxes. They have to pay for their own health insurance, and Obamacare won’t change that. (Beginning in 2014, people will be able to buy private insurance at group rates, and lower-income and working-class people will get some subsidies to help them pay for it.)
They have few options if an employer cheats them out of their pay. If they are independent contractors, they do not have the right to form a labor union.
“Instability is going to be with us,” says Sara Horowitz, head of the New York-based Freelancers Union. “The truth is that we’re in a period of decline for workers.”
The New Way We Work
Who are freelancers and contingent workers? The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has not done an official study since 2005, when it estimated that they were 10 to 15 percent of the U.S. workforce. If their income is reported on a 1099 tax form instead of on a W-2 form with deductions, its monthly payroll surveys won’t count them as having jobs. Its household surveys will count them as employed, but don’t ask about their job arrangements.
Catherine Ruckelshaus, legal codirector of the National Employment Law Project in New York, counts “everyone who’s not a W-2 employee,” including people paid on 1099s, franchisees, and people paid in cash, such as construction day laborers, as a contingent worker. Richard Greenwald arrived at his estimates by counting sole-proprietorship businesses and people who listed more income on 1099s than on W-2s.
The number has risen significantly in the last 15 years, Greenwald says, and the pace has increased since the recession began, with many new jobs “permatemps.” This trend affects workers at all income levels, but the fastest-growing sector is college graduates in “creative” fields. In the last few years, book publishers and advertising agencies have outsourced their graphic designers, hiring them back as freelancers with no benefits. Many publishers now hire editors on a per-manuscript basis.
“As the industry or technology tweaks, it often does so in a way that’s freelance or nonunion,” says Justin Molito, director of organizing with the Writers’ Guild of America East. For example, writers on HBO’s scripted shows are unionized, but those on basic cable and reality TV shows aren’t.
Greenwald distinguishes between workers who chose freelancing and those who were “shoved into it.” The most successful freelancers, he says, are information technology, management and finance consultants. They have a specific skill and steady clients, and “think of themselves as entrepreneurs.” Many white-collar freelancers make middle-class incomes, $45,000 to $50,000 a year, he says, but they have to pay for the office supplies, health insurance and taxes that would normally be covered by an employer, and they have no security.
This is not just a recession-induced thing, he says. It reflects a long-term change in the economy. Since the 1980s, management’s philosophy has evolved to “look at work as projects.” Instead of keeping workers on staff to perform all tasks needed, they outsource them or hire consultants.
“This gives companies tremendous flexibility without any risk,” Greenwald says. “Flexibility” means they don’t have to keep people on the payroll during slack periods, pay them when they’re sick, pay for their health insurance, or obey workplace regulations. This, he says, has “shifted all the risks that large institutions used to have onto the backs of individuals.”
“It’s a great business model, but as a social model, it doesn’t work,” he explains. Essentially, it means that the world of work is becoming more like the music business, in which a handful of superstars get rich and a minority of professionals have steady work with benefits, but most workers have to scuffle for intermittent, low-paying gigs, and hard work and talent are worthless without marketing skills, clout and charisma. “The bar to get in is low, but the ability to make a living is harder and harder,” he says.
The overall social change “might be as big as the shift from farm to factory,” Greenwald says. “I don’t think that many freelancers have thought of this as a permanent way of life. It seems to be a shift back to 19th-century artisanal culture.”
The Casual Working Class
Though the traditional image of a freelancer is a middle-class professional like a magazine writer or computer consultant, this shift affects a huge number of blue-collar workers too, especially in the fast-growing fields of warehousing, delivery and home healthcare. Many of these workers are now either temps or defined as “independent contractors.”
“Often relying on the use of temporary and staffing agencies, outsourcing in these industries has also resulted in comparatively lower wages for work similar to the jobs previously performed in-house,” the National Employment Law Project reported in “Chain of Greed,” a study of Walmart warehouses released in June.
At the Nissan auto factory in Canton, Mississippi, more than 20 percent of the 4,400 workers are temps, according to the Labor Notes monthly newsletter. The company says it plans to hire 1,000 new workers this year, but all will be temporary. The temps start at $12 an hour, below what permanent workers earn, and workers say no temp has ever been permanently hired at the plant. Even at Ford’s Detroit-area plants, the classic bastion of union industrial labor, local activist Dianne Feeley, a retired United Auto Workers member, says a significant percentage of workers are temps or contract workers.
“A huge problem,” says Catherine Ruckelshaus, is employers illegally defining workers as independent contractors. “Some employers are asking workers to form LLCs [limited liability companies, a form of business that combines features of a corporation and a partnership] before a construction drywall job.”
FedEx Ground, for example, defines its 15,000 drivers as independent contractors, even though they drive company-assigned routes and must drive vans with the FedEx logo and color scheme.
“There are millions of Americans classified as independent contractors by the companies they work for, but effectively working as employees,” American Rights at Work, a Washington-based labor-rights nonprofit, said in a 2007 report on FedEx Ground. “These workers suffer the worst of both worlds: they toil without the protections and benefits of employees, yet are without the control over their work that true independent contractors enjoy.”
The legal definition, Ruckelshaus says, is whether the person is running an independent business—are they investing their own money, and can they pass on increased costs? The Internal Revenue Service’s general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor if the person hiring them has “the right to control or direct only the result of the work,” while the worker decides “the means and methods of accomplishing the result.”
The scam’s advantage for employers is that they don’t have to pay minimum wage or overtime, Social Security, Medicare or unemployment taxes, or workers’ compensation. The result, the American Rights at Work report said, is that FedEx drivers not only make less money than those at UPS, who are permanent workers with a union; they also have to pay for gas and maintenance for their vans. Many lease vans from a company-approved supplier, Ruckelshaus says.
Some employers define even janitors and home healthcare aides as “franchisees,” she continues. For example, an office building’s management might hire a cleaning-services subcontractor, which will then have its workers buy the job of cleaning one section of the building in exchange for a piece of the company’s fee.
Coverall, a Florida-based cleaning-services company, calls its more than 9,000 workers “franchisees,” and its more than 90 regional offices are “support centers.” In Boston, says Ruckelshaus, these franchisees might have to pay the company as much as $10,000 to claim a job, recouping that investment from their wages. If they don’t have the money, they can borrow it from a company-recommended lender. In some cases, she says, they have had to work the first month on spec, getting paid for it only if the Coverall boss approves them for the job. They also have to buy cleaning equipment and supplies from the company. But Coverall makes the deals for the jobs, so the workers can’t raise their rates or ask the client for work on their own.
In home healthcare, a field with 3 million workers, mostly women, that is one of the fastest-growing job categories in the U.S. economy, for-profit agencies are calling themselves “registries” of independent contractors. They do this, says Ruckelshaus, even though they hire the workers, train them, assign them to jobs, and set rates. It means they don’t have to pay minimum wage or overtime.
“There’s no enforcement,” she says. “It becomes part of the structure of these jobs.”
Warehouse and shipping work is a major area of abuse. Walmart and Amazon outsource their massive warehouse and shipping operations to subcontractors, who then use temporary agencies to hire workers. Workers often don’t even know who their actual employer is, says Ruckelshaus.
“They pit these little subcontractors against each other,” says Erin Johansson, research director of American Rights at Work. “To compete and win a contract, you’ve got to pay your workers minimal wages.”
In this system, according to the “Chain of Greed” report, workers are paid piecework, according to the number of containers or trucks they finish unloading on a shift, instead of an hourly wage. They don’t get paid for anything else they do on the job. The result is “rampant minimum wage and overtime violations,” the report said. Workers also have to unload dangerously stacked piles of boxes, some of which weigh up to 200 pounds, says Johansson.
Walmart insists on ever-lower costs, so “workers are the ones getting squeezed and chiseled,” says Ruckelshaus. “This relationship is hurting low-wage women and those at the bottom of the supply chains, and the big corporations aren’t being held accountable for low wages and poor conditions.”
Another issue is that freelancers have almost no recourse if an employer cheats them. State wage-theft laws do not cover freelancers. If a client stiffs them, it’s considered a business dispute, so their only recourse is to sue in small-claims court. That can take months and multiple court appearances, and even if you win your case, collecting the debt is not guaranteed.
The Freelancers Union says 77 percent of its 180,000 members have had trouble collecting money they're owed. Earlier this year, it lobbied for New York to enact a law that would let stiffed freelancers file wage-theft complaints with the state Department of Labor. But in New York’s gerrymandered legislature, the measure wound up as a “one-house bill”: It passed in the Democrat-dominated Assembly, but never reached the floor in the Republican-controlled state Senate.
“If you have 30 percent of the workforce being exploited, that lowers standards for everybody,” says Johansson.
What Can Be Done?
Traditional union organizing is notoriously difficult with contingent workers. Organized labor’s strongest power over employers is workers’ ability to go on strike and stop production. If freelancers try that on their own, the employer will simply hire someone else. That they have neither a common location nor a collective workforce are also barriers to organizing collectively.
The Writers’ Guild of America, a union of TV and movie screenwriters, has successfully organized freelancers, winning elections and creating collective-bargaining agreements at studios. In July, it won company-paid health benefits, paid vacation, and a minimum salary for writers at two New York reality-show studios. But its 4,000 members’ status is much closer to permanent workers than most freelancers are. They usually work on long-term contracts, typically three or four years, and have “professional relationships and solidarity among themselves,” says Justin Molito.
“This is a long-term movement to aid those who’ve fallen through the cracks,” Molito says. “As other industries become more freelance, the labor movement has to develop strategies to create organizations that provide protections and make improvements.” Those strategies include “building a long-term movement, raising standards across the board, trying to organize an entire industry.”
The Freelancers’ Union’s Horowitz has largely abandoned the traditional union model, to the point where the organization might be more accurately described as a service and lobbying group than a labor union. Permanent workers are losing security and benefits, she says, so why should freelancers expect them?
“I exist in reality,” she says. “The first step is to admit that something’s changed.”
Instead, she touts what she calls the “new mutualism,” freelancers banding together on the principles of “affinity and solidarity,” such as networking and organizing cooperatives to buy food and health insurance. (The group sells nonprofit health insurance to 23,000 members in New York, and plans to expand that to New Jersey and Oregon in 2014, when the Obamacare insurance exchanges open.)
But how is any of that going to help get freelancers paid sick days? “Good luck with that,” she answers.
Organized freelancers “will be able to make the freelance economy work even better,” she explains in an e-mail, “by influencing the freelance labor market, by continuing to improve the laws that affect freelancers (i.e., passing legislation to give freelancers recourse when they are stiffed) and by continuing to give freelancers opportunities to work together.” On the other hand, she says the Freelancers Union will not be able on its own to “reverse larger economic trends” like declining wages in the media industry.
Workers should speak out about abuses, says Johansson. The bad publicity created by “shining a light on working conditions for large companies” such as Walmart and Amazon might help hold them accountable for how subcontractors and their workers are treated.
Legally, she says, “just enforcing the law” against misclassification would help. In June, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the 350 taxi drivers at Baltimore-Washington International Airport had been wrongly classified as independent contractors. Their employer, which has an exclusive contract for taxi service at the airport, is appealing the decision.
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) have introduced bills to tighten the definition of an independent contractor.
Still, trying to improve conditions for freelancers and contingent workers is difficult in an economic system that has been vampirizing workers’ rights and incomes for a generation.
“The social contract that was part of American society for many years is dead,” says Greenwald. “We need to have a serious conversation about who’s winning and who’s not winning.”
The cutthroats can survive in this new world, he says, but “the rest of society is suffering.”
Mon, 08/20/2012 - 13:41

Tweet at #AceNewsServices or email your News & Views and get your article printed.