Arrested in St. Louis fighting for labor rights

Thousands gathered in St. Louis to support mine worker's benefits

Thousands gathered in St. Louis to support mine worker’s benefits

 

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

On Monday, the National Consumers League joined two legendary labor leaders – Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers of America, and Larry Cohen, President of the Communications Workers of America – at a rally and protest outside Peabody Energy headquarters in St. Louis. We made history by rallying with 6,000+ members of the UMWA, CWA, UNITE HERE, SEIU, and Jobs for Justice and then marched to the federal courthouse several blocks away, where a group of us were arrested for “impeding traffic” by sitting down in the street. Why were we there? Because the Patriot Coal company, which was created by Peabody Energy, is filing for bankruptcy, which will leave 22,500 coal miners and their families without health care and retirement benefits. Peabody Energy continues to rake in massive profits despite Patriot Coal filing for bankruptcy.

At this rally were some true legends: Van Jones, an environmental advocate and former Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the White House, spoke about environmentalists needing to care about workers facing dire loss of health care and retirement income as much as spotted owls or crickets. The NAACP’s director in Missouri, Adolthus Pruitt, read aloud sections of the Peabody annual report detailing the burgeoning profits the company was earning year after year. And of course, the two distinguished labor leaders, Roberts and Cohen.

If ever there was a just cause, this is it: ensuring that 22,500 miners who, for decades, performed dangerous labor hundreds of feet below ground, and who bargained for health care and retirement benefits for their families and gave up wages and other benefits in the process, get the benefits and income they are due. The National Consumers League proudly stands with these workers and their families, and that is why I and Van Jones and Larry Cohen and so many others spoke out, marched, and got arrested in St. Louis.

Another successful LifeSmarts National Championship

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I am returning from the 19th annual LifeSmarts competitions this year in Atlanta elated as always with the energy and enthusiasm of the very talented teenagers that come to our nationals’ competitions.  Everyone who comes to nationals is a winner in more ways than one. They are literally winners because they’ve won their state competitions. But they are also winners because they have so much consumer savvy – often far more than their peers and even their parents or family members.

LifeSmarts tests contestants in five different areas: personal rights and responsibilities, health and safety, the environment, technology and personal finance. The National Consumers League sponsors LifeSmarts because we believe that young adults who understand the world around them and can navigate often complicated financial transactions with savvy and know how will make better consumers.

This year we had teams from 39 states competing – and hundreds of teens in the room cheering their teams on, getting to know kids from other states, studying lessons online in preparation for their competitions and having a lot of fun in their off time.

There are many other competitions for youth – spelling bees, math quiz shows, overall knowledge testing – but there are none that provide young people with the practical skills they will need to help keep them financially and economically on course for the rest of their lives. We are proud of the LifeSmarts program and we look forward to growing it so that youngsters from all 50 states can benefit from the practical skills the LifeSmarts program teaches them.

Consumers need an FCC chair on their side

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission announced that Julius Genachowski would soon be stepping down after four years as chairman. Now, all eyes are on the White House as it prepares to nominate his successor.

The FCC serves a critical role as a government watchdog and is charged with the important task of protecting the public interest in the telecommunications industry. Though the FCC is bound by law to weigh the interests and concerns of all parties, it is clear that consumers depend on the FCC to protect them and the public interest first and foremost.

Any consumer who has opened their mobile phone or cable bill in recent years understands the importance of having an FCC chair that is on their side. While the Obama Administration will undoubtedly consider a number of worthy candidates, we believe that the next FCC chair should have significant experience in public interest advocacy.

In the coming months and years, the FCC will consider a wide range of issues that impact consumers on a daily basis. Spectrum auctions will determine the shape of our mobile broadband future. The transition from a copper-based to IP-based telephone system will be felt by all Americans. Enforcement actions against fraudsters will protect millions of consumers.

The next FCC chair will play an enormous role in shaping how these and the myriad other issues the Commission handles on a daily basis are addressed. A background in public interest advocacy is therefore critical to helping that person understand how these issues affect consumers at a very basic level.

Washington is filled with lobbyists who have deep backgrounds in telecommunications and technology policy. They play an important role in helping the Commission address the often complex issues that it faces on a daily basis. That said, the FCC’s mission is to defend the public interest, not corporate bottom lines. Having someone at the top of the agency’s leadership who comes out of the public interest community will ensure that the FCC’s decisions reflect that critical responsibility.

Warren shining light on 2008 financial meltdown

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Hurrah for Elizabeth Warren! The new Senator from Massachusetts is shining a bright light on so-called financial regulators from her perch on the Senate Banking Committee. This past week Warren asked officials from the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve to provide information to the public and the Committee.

These two federal agencies – each with responsibility for overseeing financial institutions – proved pathetically unwilling and unable to protect the public during the financial meltdown of 2008.

Warren and banking committee colleagues asked Daniel Stipano of the OCC to turn over information on what happened that led to massive foreclosures in 2008. Stipano claims there is a “longstanding policy not to publish information deemed part of the bank oversight process.” Stipano also said disclosing investigative findings by outside consultants in their review of the foreclosure crisis would make “institutions less willing to be forthcoming with us” during bank examinations.

The problem, which former FDIC Chief Sheila Bair describes in her book “Bull by the Horns,” is that these consulting firms are hired to review bank practices and paid princely sums to do so by the very banks themselves, which is a built-in bias.

PricewaterhouseCoopers told the Senate it received a whopping $425 million to conduct reviews for US Bancorp, Citigroup, and SunTrust Banks. The total amount made for conducting reviews is roughly $2 billion.

Senator Jack Reed, a great consumer champion himself, argued at the hearing that the consulting firms should be paid by the regulators instead. That’s a good idea – it does mean that tax dollars could be going to pay these fees (though there could be fund created to pay for consultant review by imposing a surtax on banks) but there are two advantages. First, the government can negotiate consultant services for much lower rates (government doesn’t always strike great bargains for professional services but it often does), and second, this would remove the bias inherent in banks hiring consultants to review their practices.

One thing is clear: Senator Warren’s voice on the banking committee is proving to be the game changer consumer advocates had hoped for.

March Madne$$

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I was watching the NCAA basketball Final Four this past week and asking myself, what happened to college sports? What about the idea that sports is a part of college life, not the only part; naïve, I know. But March Madness takes the obsession with college sport to a whole new level. How did these games become an enormous media frenzy, especially basketball, generating tens of millions of dollars and commercials every few minutes and huge corporate sponsorships. These players are amateurs and are forbidden from earning a dime from their labor. But someone – who? – is benefitting from huge amounts of money being generated.

I opened the pages of The Nation and found some answers. Dave Zirin, one of the few journalists who is a critic of the sports industry, had written a piece about March Madness. Zirin says that most of the programs don’t make money – but that the NCAA leadership greedily pays itself millions in salaries and coach salaries have soared: average annual pay has ballooned to $1.64 million for football coaches. The president of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, refuses to discuss his seven-figure salary, or offer any perspective on the money juggernaut of the NCAA.

Emmert rejects the notion that student athletes should be paid something – anything – for their labor. “The student athletes are students. They are not employees.” A former college football player, Zirin writes about how much things have changed since he played in the 1960s. “When I played at Syracuse …it wasn’t like that. We had a regular season and 20 days of spring practice. Now it’s year-round. …you get hurt…tough, you’re out. And there’s no workers’ comp for injuries.”

Turns out the 68-team basketball tournament that makes up March Madness generates 90 percent of the NCAA’s operating budget. In that budget is included total compensation for NCAA top execs, nearly $6 million, with the President earning $1.1 million. Revenue also comes from video games, posters, jerseys, and boutique credit cards featuring images of popular athletes.

ESPN is deeply ensconced in this money machine generated by March Madness, acting as the number one broadcaster of college sports, so there’s no critique from ESPN. Meanwhile, the student athletes get no compensation for their spectacular performance. Zirin quotes a coach: “look at the money we make off predominantly poor black kids…” Desmond Howard, who won the Heisman trophy playing for Michigan in 1991, called the system “wicked,” telling USA Today, you “see everyone getting richer and richer. And you walk around and you can’t put gas in your car? You can’t even fly home to see your parents.”

Zirin recommends the following reforms:

  • The athletes should have workers’ compensation protections.
  • Scholarships should be guaranteed for four years so players can’t be dismissed by their coaches.
  • Ceilings should be put on coach salaries, with money savings going toward paying stipends to the athletes.
  • NBA and NFL should fund their own minor leagues, so universities don’t have that responsibility.
  • NCAA should be abolished – Zirin calls it a “corrupt cartel.”

We’ve come so far from the days when college athletes were college students first, and athletes second. These reforms would go a long way toward bringing those old, more sane times back.

The President’s Push For Rebuilding the Nation’s Infrastructure is Just The Right Medicine

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I’m on vacation in FL for the week and reading the Palm Beach Post’s coverage of President Obama’s speech from the port of Miami calling for a surge in spending on infrastructure. I couldn’t agree more. The President is not saying that all such spending should be taxpayer funded. Instead, he’s asking for a public-private partnership, including improving Miami’s rail connection to Hialeah, and in turn, with rail lines all over the country. Right now, port traffic must go through downtown Miami, causing costly delays in transporting the cargo that can be avoided with a tunnel under Biscayne Bay.

This kind of public works project will provide jobs, and likely good jobs that pay livable wages and benefits, and can help repair crumbling infrastructure affecting bridges, dams, tunnels, and sewer systems.  This is a win-win-win, because the taxpayers get better services and improved systems, workers get jobs, and the public-private partnership means that businesses are kicking in their share and have a stake in the outcome. Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez, a Republican, says the project will create at least 10,000 jobs in the port and is a strong supporter.

I like how the President put it: “There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and economy. …My top priority …is to ignite the true engine of our economic growth—a rising, thriving middle class.”

Mr. Obama also outlined a series of other projects which Congress needs to support, including a $10 billion “infrastructure bank.” This is exciting stuff, and just the medicine the nation needs as we climb out of the recession of the last few years. Now we need Congress to get behind the effort.

Hits, misses from DOE on college pricing tool

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

The Washington Post “Color of Money” columnist, Michelle Singletary, and I have something in common. We are both sending a kid to college next year. A recent column is focused on the financial realities of paying for college, and she is none too impressed with a new tool provided by the Department of Education to price out the cost of college. It’s available here. I agree with Singletary’s critique of the site, but I also see a lot of value, and I’ll get to that later.

Singletary wants the site to include a financial aid shopping sheet and she notes that the Obama Administration apparently will have 600 colleges providing financial aid information on the site as of 2013-2014. There will be several important pieces of information, including the costs for the year, estimate of monthly payments graduates would expect to make on federal student loans. Singletary says “and they will supply information about the percent of students who enroll, graduate and repay their loans.” Actually that information is there now and I found that incredibly helpful as a parent.

So here’s what I liked about the site. I have an aversion for for-profit colleges, as I’ve noted in this blog previously. I think they steal money from largely lower-income, military, and minority students, charge ridiculous tuition and when they do even provide a degree – their default rates are very high – that degree is often worth little in the marketplace.

I tested the information available on the site. I plugged in Strayer University in DC, a for-profit entity, to the search engine. Average tuition is $29,000+, graduation rates are 22.7 percent, and the loan default rate is 13.9 percent. Compare that to Catholic University, a well-regarded and longstanding nonprofit university, also in DC. It may be the least difficult of the four major universities in DC to get into. Tuition is $34,000, graduation rates are 68.3 percent, and default rates are 1.7 percent. Yes, it costs $5,000 more a year than Strayer, but your chances of graduating are far greater and your chances of defaulting on your student loans are far lower.

Let’s try Georgetown University, also highly regarded and in DC, and very selective. Tuition is $26,000. Graduation rates are 93.8 percent and default rates are 1.3 percent. What does that tell you? If you go, you’re likely to graduate and you are very unlikely to default. That’s a good investment.

To my mind, Catholic and Georgetown are priced similarly to Strayer, but are far better investments I think this information is critical for parents and students of all ages. The information I’d like to see added to the site now is how easily graduates find jobs and what they make once they get those jobs. The site wasn’t able to provide that critical information. I have seen that somewhere but I wasn’t able to locate that here. In the next few months, I hope the Education Department make that available.

Thanks to Michelle Singletary for giving these new tools much-needed publicity. The sites are far from perfect, but they do provide some critical information that savvy consumers should be able to use to make a good investment in theirs or their children’s education.

Remembering C. Everett Koop

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

C. Everett Koop’s recent passing reminds us what it means for a public official to put America’s health over ideology. Koop served as Surgeon General of the United States from 1981-1989, appointed by President Reagan. He was a practicing physician who conducting groundbreaking surgeries on babies with birth defects, when he was appointed by Reagan to the post.

Koop’s evangelical upbringing and strong opposition to abortion evoked fear among women’s groups that he would use his post to preach against abortion. He determined early on in his tenure that since abortion wasn’t threatening the health of women, he wouldn’t spend the Surgeon General’s resources on the issue.

Instead Koop, who the New York Times calls “the most influential surgeon general in American history,” devoted his energies to fighting smoking in the United States and raising awareness about AIDS and HIV prevention.  He warned about the consequences of smoking, noting that 300,000 people every year at the time were dying from smoking.

Several senators from tobacco states wanted him ousted from the job. He was unfazed, and his campaign was effective: When he came to the SG job, 33 percent of Americans smoked. Nine years later, the percentage had dropped to 26. By 1987, 40 states were restricting smoking in public places and 17 banned it inside workplaces and offices.

Koop also prepared the first extensive report on AIDS and HIV infection during the early years of the disease’s emergence. He resisted demands from conservatives to remove the recommendations that people use condoms if they weren’t practicing abstinence or monogamy. “Too many people place conservative ideology far above saving human lives.”

He lived a long life and happy life, marrying for the second time at age 93. We owe C. Everett Koop a debt of gratitude for his brave crusades against smoking and AIDS. Americans should remember him as one of the great public health pioneers and a truly outstanding Surgeon General.

President’s Day reflections

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Happy President’s Day! Over this holiday weekend, I’ve been reflecting on last month’s Inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President, and imagining how much NCL’s founders and champions would have liked this man. First off, they would have been proud that our American electorate has voted overwhelming for the second time to send an African American to the White House. During her most active organizing years, Florence Kelley often decried the disreputable treatment of her Black colleagues who were many times banned from hotels and restaurants when social workers or women’s groups gathered at conferences across the country.

Secondly, though our president is moderate in all of his actions, he also has a strong progressive streak that leaders like Florence Kelley, Frances Perkins and Josephine Roche would have greatly appreciated. After being elected with a healthy margin, Obama seems willing to be a little more daring, and thankfully not intimidated by those who fixate on debt and, instead, focus on other priorities: championing comprehensive immigration reform, addressing the pay gap between men and women in the workplace, raising the minimum wage and tying it to inflation, and educating pre-schoolers and giving them a leg up on their future.

The President also announced the formation of a commission to address the rampant problems in the nation’s voting system—and hailed a 102-year-old North Miami woman named Desilene Victor, who endured hours of waiting to vote in the last election. These issues would all have won favor with NCL’s leaders.

Obama challenged his opponents on their opposition to tax increases for the rich at the expense of kids and seniors: “After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks?” Another issue near and dear to the hearts of the NCL’s founders.

The president also called for an infrastructure-boosting bridge-building program and insisted, very forcefully and long overdue that climate change be at the top of the agenda; no, these were not programs that Kelley, Perkins or Roche knew of in their day, but I think they would have approved, largely because these programs mean jobs for working Americans and will protect future generations.

Federal medical privacy rules strengthened; Medication adherence must be protected

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published its long-awaited final rule revising the nation’s federal medical privacy requirements under the HITECH Act of 2009 – a.k.a. the “HIPAA Privacy Rule.” NCL, a founding member of the Best Privacy Practices Coalition, congratulates HHS for strengthening consumer privacy and data security protections, and enhancing enforcement for HIPAA violations by covered entities and their business associates.

The final rule attempts to strike a balance between patients’ privacy concerns and the meaningful benefits of sponsored and non-sponsored communications that can improve adherence to prescribed therapies and greatly improve patient health. Notwithstanding HHS’s efforts, there remains some tension between certain of the privacy protections and the goals of bolstering public health.

The problem of poor medication adherence is a major, and significantly under-appreciated health problem. Studies suggest that nearly three-out-of-four Americans do not take their medication as directed and that the cost to the health care system of non-adherence annually is a $290 billion. To address the problem, NCL is leading a medication adherence public awareness campaign, Script Your Future (www.scriptyourfuture.org). NCL’s campaign is designed to help patients take their prescribed medication as directed and better manage health problems such as diabetes, COPD, asthma, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.

To help combat this problem of poor adherence, most pharmacies, health plans, and doctors provide a broad range of patient-directed communications regarding prescription drug therapies, including communications that encourage patients to stay on prescribed therapy. NCL’s views these communications, particularly “refill reminders,” as tools that help patients follow their medication regimen.

While we are pleased that the rule does allow use of “refill reminders” we are concerned that HHS’s final rule is more restrictive than the prior HIPAA Privacy Rule in requiring patient authorization (opt in) for health care providers’ (and health plans’) capability to use patient information to execute certain sponsored patient communications programs (refill reminders are excepted). To its credit, in addition to codifying the statutory exception for “refill reminder” messages, HHS also maintained the exception for sponsored communications that are delivered in face-to-face settings (e.g., in the pharmacy or doctor’s office).

In particular, we are concerned that the statutory exception for “refill reminders” is available only if compensation received by the covered entity provider or plan is “reasonably related” to the entity’s costs of making the communication. Although Congress included this “reasonable in amount” limitation in the HITECH Act, NCL believes that HHS has gone too far in its preamble interpretation by limiting such compensation to only certain direct costs. Specifically, under the final rule, HHS considers permissible costs to be restricted to those of labor, supplies, and postage to make the communication and that they include “only the pharmacy’s cost of drafting, printing, and mailing the refill reminders.” It sounds like a minor point, perhaps, but we are concerned that this could have a negative impact on patient adherence. We think that a broader definition of costs is called for, including such things as computer hardware, software, and other overhead – because we don’t want to inhibit in any way communications that can help improve the likelihood of patient adherence to medication.

We also are concerned that, from a policy standpoint, the “reasonable compensation” requirement may inhibit HHS efforts to promote medication adherence, and in the end does little to advance patient privacy. For instance, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) requires and rewards patient adherence programs in several respects, including through physicians’ “meaningful use” of electronic health records (EHRs). Furthermore, in order for vendors implementing Medicare part D to qualify for reimbursement, they must make use of CMS’s Medication Management Therapy Programs (MTMP), which are, by their very nature, adherence -focused incentives. In addition, HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has studied the comparative effectiveness of medication adherence interventions and funds adherence educational programs.

We’re concerned that HHS’s interpretation of “reasonable compensation” may not be grounded in good public policy and could actually hamper sponsored adherence efforts, which are widely regarded as beneficial to public health. In the final rule, HHS signaled its intention to issue informal guidance on the “refill reminder” exception. NCL hopes that, in so doing, HHS will make clear that the exception serves an important public health function and that “reasonable compensation” ought to be interpreted in the broadest possible fashion in order to ensure that we are doing all we can to promote improved medication adherence.