New York, NY- Survivors of last year’s horrific fire at Tazreen factory in Bangladesh, which produced apparel for Walmart, joined U.S.-based workers from across Walmart’s supply chain to pressure the retailer to make necessary improvements to unsafe work conditions that can prevent future tragedies.

The fire killed 112 garment workers and was among the worst factory fires in the country’s history. Walmart blocked potential life-saving upgrades to improve safety conditions at the Tazreen factory, has not offered compensation to the workers’ families and has taken no responsibility for the fire.

“I decided to come to the U.S. to bring my message directly to Walmart because I don’t want anyone else to have to live through a horrible fire like I faced at Tazreen. I can’t remain silent- Walmart must improve conditions in Bangladeshi garment factories before the death toll from fires climbs any higher,” said Suma Abedin, a Bangladeshi garment worker who jumped out of the burning factory and survived the November 2012 fire.

“Workers in the supply chain – from Bangladesh to the local WalMart counter- are getting shortchanged while the companies are making billions,” said Gonzalo Chirino, a NJ Port truck driver. “Some workers, like the ones in the factory in Bangladesh, paid with their lives.”

Abedin and the supply-chain workers led a “funeral procession” to the home of Michelle Burns, member of Walmart’s Board of Directors, in remembrance of the deceased fire victims and delivered recommendations and their own set of core principles for improving workplace safety:

“The families of the workers who died in the Tazreen fire are living in extreme poverty because they lost their primary wage-earner. Meanwhile, Walmart and other brands have refused to pay any money to the families of the victims and they are left wondering how they will support their children,” said Kalpona Akter, Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity. “The Bangladesh Fire & Building Safety Agreement is the only program that includes worker representation and requires brands to pay enough so that factories can afford to make necessary repairs. As long as corporations refuse to sign the agreement, Bangladeshi workers will suffer because Walmart and others won’t pay one penny more to protect the lives of workers who have made these companies so profitable.”

Walmart sets the standards for workers in its supply chain, and yet it turns a blind-eye to dangerous workplace conditions and supplier environments in the U.S. and abroad. The retailer’s Board of Directors has the power to influence policy change to protect workers, but instead they remain silent.

“We are calling on consumers and community members to support supply chain workers  in their struggle so that each worker can truly enjoy what Walmart touts as its own Standards for Suppliers: decent wages, protection under the law and the right to peacefully form or join trade unions,” said Maritza Silva-Farrell, Senior Organizer with ALIGN.

“We are standing up for a safer workplace environment because too many people of color are suffering from dangerous conditions in warehouses, where we are often not given the necessary training and protective equipment,” said Reynalda Cruz, worker at a NJ pharmaceutical supplier for Walmart. “We are tired of this treatment and demand improvements in order to do our jobs safely.”

New York, NY–This morning, members of the Getting Our Money’s Worth Coalition responded to the Authorities Budget Office’s Multi Year Analysis of IDA Financial Assistance Practices. The new data was posted on the agency’s website, at http://www.abo.ny.gov/.

Statement by Matt Ryan, Executive Director, ALIGN

Oversight agencies like the Authorities Budget Office and the Comptroller’s Office have been sounding the alarm about the shortcomings—and huge expense—of job creation programs like Industrial Development Agencies. It’s time our elected leaders in Albany do more to address the jobs crisis by bringing greater performance, accountability and transparency to New York’s broken economic development system.

Statement by Jennifer Diagostino, Executive Director, Coalition for Economic Justice

The tax exemptions granted by hundreds of Industrial Development Agencies around the state come with a huge price tag, which is mostly born by local taxpayers, governments and school districts. Local communities must be empowered to have a voice in the subsidy decision-making process, and must have the tools to monitor the performance of their investments and get a money-back guarantee when companies fail to live up to their agreements. This should be the case with the more than $2 billion IDAs have given in taxpayer dollars in recent years, as well as the more than $7 billion spent each year by New York’s main corporate subsidy programs.

Rally Calls For Passage of Community Safety Act to Protect Condom Promotion & Syringe Exchange Efforts 

Tell the NYPD to End the War on Public Health – Condoms & Clean Needles Aren’t Crimes!

The NYPD’s stop and frisk practices are putting New Yorkers at risk for HIV and other health problems, according to a coalition of people living with HIV/AIDS, syringe exchange participants, sex workers, LGBTQ youth, human rights advocates and service providers who gathered at City Hall during a VOCAL-sponsored rally on May 3, 2013.  The coalition called for passage of the Community Safety Act as an important step towards preventing the NYPD from interfering with public health programs.

The NYPD was criticized for confiscating syringes and condoms found during street stops and arresting people, even though syringe exchange and condom promotion programs are funded by the City to prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis C, STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

“Practicing harm reduction or safer sex shouldn’t be a crime, but that’s the message the NYPD sends when they arrest people for carrying syringes or defend using condoms as evidence of prostitution-related offenses” said Hiawatha Collins, a VOCAL-NY Board member and leader, a grassroots organization that works to end HIV/AIDS, mass incarceration and the war on drugs.  “Let’s face it, the NYPD’s use of stop and frisk is incompatible with Mayor Bloomberg’s own public health efforts.”

“NYPD’s stop and frisk practices are doing nothing to increase public safety. Instead, they are getting in the way of public health because NYPD officers often confiscate condoms found during street searches and use them as evidence to justify an arrest for prostitution-related offenses,” said Chris Bilal, a youth leader at Streetwise and Safe (SAS), an organization that works on policing of LGBTQ youth of color. “This is why we need City Council to pass strong protections against profiling based not only on race and religion, but also based on gender, sexual orientation, and age – so that condoms can’t be used to profile women of color and LGBTQ youth of color, so that condoms won’t be considered evidence of intent to engage in prostitution-related offenses, so that having condoms on you will only be evidence of pride, community, common sense, and safety.”

Fania Febres from Make the Road NY said: “About a year ago, I was walking on Roosevelt Ave from 69 St. I stopped in front of Music Box, on 74th St and Roosevelt to talk to a friend. I had two condoms on my bra. After I said goodbye to my friends I kept walking, and about a block later, some undercover cops stopped and searched me. They found the condoms and I was arrested on prostitution charges. This practice of using condoms as evidence needs to stop. We want to be able to carry condoms as young people to protect ourselves, but now I am afraid to carry them. It’s a threat to the public health to this city and it puts us all at risk.”

“Police officers who arrest or harass people for carrying syringes are not only ignoring the law, they’re putting the safety and lives of New Yorkers at risk,” said Council Member Jumaane Williams.  “Mayor Bloomberg has shown leadership in supporting syringe access programs as a life-saving public health measure. We need the NYPD to do the same when it comes to the impact that stop and frisk has on efforts to prevent HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs. Through the passage of the Community Safety Act, all New Yorkers can be confident that bias-based profiling or harassment against them will not be tolerated and that an independent oversight mechanism will exist to help ensure public safety for all.”

“This is yet another example of the administration’s inconsistencies between laudable policy goals and actual practice,” said Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito. “We cannot allow stop and frisk to undermine our city’s efforts to promote public health through vital programs like needle exchange and condom distribution. This issue perfectly illustrates the importance of both the Profiling and Inspector General bills, which will bring additional protections from discriminatory police practices and much-needed systemic oversight of the NYPD.”

“When police profile based on gender identity or sexual orientation or when they use needles or condoms as evidence of wrongdoing, they are falsely criminalizing young LGBT individuals and vulnerable populations with HIV/AIDS,” said Council Member Margaret Chin.  “In my district, I’ve heard from youth advocates who have been stopped simply because they were transgender. We must fight against policies that traumatize our youth and create a climate where it is not okay to use condoms and where it’s safer not to carry syringes even if it’s the difference between using a clean needle or not. This is a real public health concern – and why the Community Safety Act is so important for my community.”

“The way in which the NYPD’s Stop and Frisk policy is carried out is problematic for many reasons, its negative public health implications being one of them,” said Council Member Debi Rose.  “I believe it is having a huge impact on the health of victims and their communities.  They are dealing with the stress of worrying about being stopped when they leave their homes, and then the post-traumatic stress impact after experiencing one of these encounters. Stress can lead to poorer physical and mental health. Another negative public health byproduct of how the policy is implemented is that New Yorkers – mostly women of color and LGBTQ people –are being stopped and frisked and arrested for prostitution if they have a condom on their person, even though the city actually encourages people to use condoms as part of its public health policy to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy. For these and many other reasons, the Stop and Frisk policy needs strong review and oversight, which the Community Safety Act would provide.”

“NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactics are undermining New York City’s HIV prevention efforts,” said Margaret Wurth, consultant with the Health and Human Rights Division at Human Rights Watch. “New York City distributes more than 35 million condoms each year, but the police are taking them out of the hands of those who need them the most.”

A recent report by Drug Policy Alliance and the New York Academy of Medicine, Blueprint for a Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy, explores how New York City’s current approaches to drug policy work at cross-purposes.  One of the best examples of our contradictory approaches is arrests for syringe possession.

“I have been an outreach worker for almost a decade and every day I hear another participant tell me officers ripped up their card, made inaccurate claims about syringe laws, and made an illegal arrest,” said Liam Gibson, Peer Mentor at the New York Harm Reduction Educators (NYHRE).   “We educate our participants about their rights and their health, Ray Kelly needs to educate the officers about the law.”

The bank — the largest by assets in the U.S. — says that by late spring, it will stop charging customers repeated overdraft fees in a single month, when one of these online payday lenders keeps trying to pull out automatic payments again and again — from a checking account that’s already empty. And the bank will train staff to make it easier for customers to stop payments and close accounts that they’ve previously authorized an online payday lender to access for bi-weekly or monthly payments.

All that might have helped 33-year-old office assistant Sharmene Smith of Birmingham, Alabama — if only her own credit union had put such policies in place a couple years ago. At that point, she had just recently started supporting herself for the first time.

“I guess you could say I was just trying to make it,” says Smith. “And I was in a relationship where it was financially draining. I was pretty much the only one working.”

Smith, who was then living in Virginia, borrowed $1,600 — plus more than $500 in fees, plus interest to come out of each payment — from two different lenders she found online. Both were based out-of-state.

Then, her salary couldn’t keep up.

“They wanted their money and they withdrew it no matter what,” Smith says. “And even when I closed the account they kept trying. If it was on the 15th of the month, it was like, the 15th at 1 o’clock, the 15th at 3 o’clock. And I was getting all these overdraft fees.”

There are two problems here, say consumer advocates who oppose this type of predatory lending.

First, there are the practices of the online payday lenders — their outrageously high interest rates and add-on fees, their aggressive collection practices. According to experts at the Virginia Poverty Law Center, where Smith eventually turned for help, much of what she experienced is actually illegal in Virginia, and in more than fifteen other states that have imposed restrictions on high-interest lending or banned it outright. These lawyers say that even though lenders may be based in other states or overseas (many operate out of the Caribbean), state and federal consumer-protection laws where the borrower lives apply.

Second, there is Smith’s own bank — acting as aider-and-abettor of the online lender. Public-interest attorney Susan Shin of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project in New York says mainstream banking institutions are helping online lenders take borrowers’ money, while loading on their own exorbitant fees in the process.*

“What we’ve seen is that banks are really trying to profit from this practice of refusing to allow their customers to stop these payments,” says Shin. “And they’re charging overdraft fees, $34 a pop, which can add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, to their low-income customers, which is really harmful for them. They don’t have many resources to begin with.”

Shin’s organization has filed a federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase on behalf of two such payday-loan borrowers who are former customers of the bank (Subrina Baptiste and Ivy Brodsky v. JPMorgan Chase). Shin says the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act requires banks to let customers cancel recurring automatic withdrawals without getting permission from the payday lender. And she says the customers’ account agreements with the bank allowed them to close their accounts even if withdrawals were scheduled or pending.*

Shin and advocates at the Virginia Poverty Law Center cited multiple instances in which borrowers had cancelled automatic withdrawals, only to have the lender resubmit the withdrawal in a slightly different amount, or in two equal parts, and have the money transferred out of their account to the lender anyway. In some cases, banks reopened accounts that customers had closed, in order to facilitate online lenders’ withdrawals, even though the customer had rescinded the lender’s authorization to do so.

JPMorgan Chase’s announcement today indicates the bank is at least moving in the direction consumer advocates want.

Virginia-based banking analyst Bert Ely thinks other big banks will follow JPMorgan Chase’s lead as they too come under increased scrutiny and pressure over a variety of consumer banking practices and fees. But Ely doubts this is a major cash-cow for any of the big banks.

“Most people don’t deal with payday lenders, so I doubt how much additional revenue the banks are getting through these overdrafts that arise out of payday lender payments.”

Ely believes these customers are actually costly for the banks to service — as bank compliance officers try to sort out when to let the online payday lenders do their stuff, and when to slam the electronic door shut.

Payday lenders prosper by turning what are supposed to be two-week transactions into long-term debt, which can carry rates of 500 percent or more if borrowers take months to pay off. In 1976, New York made it a felony to make these kinds of loans.

The sponsors of the bills on check-cashing stores have tried to make them seem innocuous. But an analysis by the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project finds that even the most affordable loan offered under the Assembly bill would entail an interest rate of nearly 50 percent, if proposed fees are taken into account.

Supporters of the exemption portray it as a boon to poor communities that lack access to banking and credit. Poor neighborhoods, however, already pay too much for financial services. Beyond that, if New York gives check cashers an exemption to issue loans that exceed the current 25 percent limit, lobbyists will eventually seek similar exemptions for other financial institutions.

Public interest groups have spoken out against the bills. They include the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society, which says it extended $43 million in assistance last year to more than 61,000 servicemen and women, many of whom had been trapped with high-interest loans they could not afford. The check-cashing-store exemption, it says, “would be harmful to active and retired Sailors, Marines, and their families residing in New York and struggling to make ends meet in this difficult economy.”

The answer to the problem is not to gouge these communities but to bring legitimate financial services to neighborhoods that need them.

A new report published last week by the Pew Charitable Trusts states that while consumers often turn to payday lenders in order to avoid writing bad checks or getting hit with overdraft fees, in many cases customers wind up paying overdraft and payday loan fees. “Although payday loans are often presented as an alternative to overdrafts, most payday borrowers end up paying fees for both,” the report states. The payday lenders make out, the banks make out — and the losers are their customers.

The fees can add up especially quickly and snowball when banks refuse to block payday lenders from accessing borrowers’ accounts — which can then trigger overdraft fees from the bank.

According to the New York Times, a growing number of payday lenders set up shop in states with looser lending regulations, or even overseas in places like Malta and the Bahamas, to get around state usury laws. A New York City advocacy group for low-income and minority residents filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank last fall for what it says are illegal and exploitative tactics that have cost the two named plaintiffs thousands of dollars in penalty fees it contends they shouldn’t have had to pay. The Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), which brought the suit against Chase on plaintiffs’ behalf, says banks shouldn’t be willing to let online payday lenders take money out of customer accounts in states where such loans are illegal.

(MORE: Uh-Oh: Banks and Credit Unions Peddling Payday Loans)

A representative of the American Bankers Association told the New York Times that banks are “not in a position to monitor customer accounts to see where their payments are going.”

Last month, four senators introduced a bill in Congress that would require payday lenders to comply with the laws where borrowers live rather than where the lender is located. “Over twenty states have passed legislation to stop abusive lending, but these efforts have been challenged by the growing online presence of payday lenders,” Jeff Merkley (D-OR) says in a statement about the bill.

For borrowers today, though, agreeing to take out a payday loan with an annualized interest rate as high as 500% is only the start of the problem. Payday loans are marketed as a quick-cash solution for a brief period of time, but a lot of people can’t make the payment when it’s due. They then take out a new loan and the cycle begins again, until they’re in over their heads.

The Pew study found that 27% of payday loan borrowers get hit with checking account overdraft fees because they don’t have the money to make their loan payments. Nearly half of borrowers who use online payday lenders say they have incurred an overdraft fee when the lender tried to make an automatic withdrawal.

(MORE: Would You Pay $520 in Interest to Borrow $375? 12 Million Americans Did Last Year)

In theory, this shouldn’t happen if bank customers revoke a payday lender’s ability to dip into their account. “Federal law is clear that if the consumer has notified the bank orally or in writing up to three business days before the scheduled date that the consumer has revoked authorization, the bank must block all future payments,” says Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center.

But NEDAP staff attorney Susan Shin says bank customers are routinely denied that right in practice. They’re given the runaround or told that there’s nothing the bank can do. Naturally, the payday lenders aggressively go after the money they’re owed. They keep trying to make automatic debits even if the borrower’s bank account balance is negative and the customer has tried to have the lender’s access cut off. “We say banks are facilitating abuse… when they refuse to stop these payments,” Shin says.

According to the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, Chase hit customer accounts with overdraft fees of around $34 for each debit when the account fell into the red. Shin says when the negative balance grew to a point at which the bank stopped paying out, the lender attempted dozens more debits over a short period of time — each of which incurred a new $34 overdraft fee.

“Banks then charge their customers hefty fees for each of the repeated debits, further harming their customers, but generating substantial profits for themselves,” the lawsuit states.

Chase released a brief statement via e-mail explaining, “We are working with the customers to resolve this.”

(MORE: Selling Your House? Choose Your Words Carefully)

While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other federal initiatives have tried to rein in overdraft fees charged to bank customers, the fees remain big business, especially for big banks. Research company Moebs $ervices says that banks earned $31.5 billion in overdraft fee revenue for the fiscal year ending last June 30, a $700 million increase over the previous year.

And in general, the bigger the bank, the bigger the fee. The largest banks charge an average of $35 per overdraft. “We found that a financial institution’s asset size has a direct correlation to what it charges for overdraft fees – the larger the asset size, the heftier the fee to checking account holders,” Michael Moebs, CEO and economist at Moebs $ervices, wrote in a release last month.

In addition to a handful of state lawmakers, payday loans have caught the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well. The agency is looking at several payday lending practices, and Director Richard Cordray said at an advisory board meeting last month, “One of our priorities is to make sure consumers who are deciding whether or not to take out a payday loan are presented with clear information about the risks and costs associated with that loan.”

Shin calls the dynamic between payday lenders and banks “really disturbing,” adding: ”It seems like a blanket policy to not help people.”

Participatory Budgeting update from Neil Reilly, District 39 District Committee Member and former Transit Committee Delegate

Through patience and persistence, bringing real change to our neighborhoods is possible through Participatory Budgeting—even when a project doesn’t fit the budget or scope of PB!

As a budget delegate serving on the Transit Committee last year—the first year of PB in New York—I spearheaded a project to improve the subway stations in the district. I compiled the suggestions submitted by district residents for improvements at all of the F/G stations from Church Avenue through Bergen St, as well as the R station at 4th Avenue/9th Street. The suggestions ranged from improving lighting to repairing track tiles to repainting the ceilings.

With a Transit Committee colleague I toured each station, noting the areas that matched residents’ descriptions and also noting potential work that could be included in a district-wide proposal to improve our subways. These ideas turned into a formal proposal to the MTA, which reviewed the feasibility and likely pricetag of the items on our list.

Many things, such as tile repair throughout a station and construction of elevators or escalators, are well beyond the $1 million scope of PB capital projects. However, items like benches and signage qualify as capital work and fit in the scale of PB. The scarcity of neighborhood maps, for example, near station exits is not only easy to remedy but also very inexpensive. In fact, the MTA told me, the MTA was willing to do a handful of the improvements I proposed on the agency’s own dime and outside the PB process. I see this as a major win for the district: helpful improvements are being undertaken by the MTA with its own funds, leaving room for other necessary items to win PB dollars.

My interactions with City agencies through PB—how working together in these ways can be a new experience for both sides, and my success in achieving the MTA’s commitment to undertake my proposed improvements—affected me on several levels. I decided to become engaged with the PB process at the district-wide level through the District Committee. While keeping an eye on the excellent work of this year’s Transit delegates, I have pursued expanding voter participation—particularly among seniors—and coordination between delegates and their respective group facilitators. In addition, I’m currently participating as both a researcher and a subject in an analysis of the PB process organized by the Urban Justice Center, and am conducting my own research into the MTA capital budgeting process.

And the big day for our project finally arrived! Today I met some MTA officials, station managers, and a construction crew for a walk-through of the 7th Avenue station. I pointed out the work that I had noted in my original proposal, which was well received by the MTA staff. It was an exciting experience to meet with the individuals who would plan and execute the improvements that had their genesis in PB through the suggestions of district residents and the work of my delegate committee.

This experience has reinforced in me the value of PB. Even when items fall outside the scope of the process, it still serves as a useful alert to policymakers and public servants that there are needs to be addressed in our communities. And when these efforts pay off, we get better pubic services and a strong connection to our City government.

That’s when I came across a volunteer opportunity to participate as a Budget Delegate in the 2013 Participatory Budgeting process with Council District 8. After reading up about the process and the responsibilities, I realized what a great opportunity it was!

I’m proud to say that thus far this opportunity has given me a sense of inclusion and empowerment. Although I’m from the South Bronx I work in Harlem and consider myself a stakeholder in the community. PB gives the power back to the community–the power to play an active role in improving the aesthetic and built environment in their own backyard.  As an aspiring Urban Planner  this process further grounds me in believing in the power of community and the bottom-up approach. Thank you PB!

- Krystal Peartree, District 8 Budget Delegate

Voting will take place from April 1 to April 7. Click on the links below for your district to find out how you can vote and what you’ll be voting on!

Who can vote?

If you live in one these districts and are 16 years of age or older, you can vote! Click on your district to find out when & where you can cast your ballot.

Not sure if you’re in one of the districts? Look up your home address here. Can’t participate because your district isn’t part of PBNYC?