California Jury Sues Wall Street

Wall Street Greed: Not Too Big for a California Jury

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Ellen Brown

Sixteen of the world’s largest banks have been caught colluding to rig global interest rates.  Why are we doing business with a corrupt global banking cartel?
United States Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that the too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks are too big to prosecute.  But an outraged California jury might have different ideas. As noted in the California legal newspaper The Daily Journal:

California juries are not bashful – they have been known to render massive punitive damages awards that dwarf the award of compensatory (actual) damages.For example, in one securities fraud case jurors awarded $5.7 million in compensatory damages and $165 million in punitive damages. . . . And in a tobacco case with $5.5 million in compensatory damages, the jury awarded $3 billion in punitive damages . . . .

The question, then, is how to get Wall Street banks before a California jury. How about charging them with common law fraud and breach of contract?  That’s what the FDIC just did in its massive 24-count civil suit for damages for LIBOR manipulation, filed in March 2014 against sixteen of the world’s largest banks, including the three largest US banks – JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup.   
LIBOR (the London Interbank Offering Rate) is the benchmark rate at which banks themselves can borrow. It is a crucial rate involved in over $400 trillion in derivatives called interest-rate swaps, and it is set by the sixteen private megabanks behind closed doors.
The biggest victims of interest-rate swaps have been local governments, universities, pension funds, and other public entities. The banks have made renegotiating these deals prohibitively expensive, and renegotiation itself is an inadequate remedy. It is the equivalent of the grocer giving you an extra potato when you catch him cheating on the scales. A legal action for fraud is a more fitting and effective remedy. Fraud is grounds both for rescission (calling off the deal) as well as restitution (damages), and in appropriate cases punitive damages.
Trapped in a Fraud
Nationally, municipalities and other large non-profits are thought to have as much as $300 billion in outstanding swap contracts based on LIBOR, deals in which they are trapped due to prohibitive termination fees. According to a 2010 report by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union):

The overall effect is staggering. Banks are estimated to have collected as much as $28 billion in termination fees alone from state and local governments over the past two years. This does not even begin to account for the outsized net payments that state and local governments are now making to the banks. . . .
While the press have reported numerous stories of cities like Detroit, caught with high termination payments, the reality is there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) more cities, counties, utility districts, school districts and state governments with swap agreements [that] are causing cash strapped local and city governments to pay millions of dollars in unneeded fees directly to Wall Street.

All of these entities could have damage claims for fraud, breach of contract and rescission; and that is true whether or not they negotiated directly with one of the LIBOR-rigging banks.
To understand why, it is necessary to understand how swaps work. As explained in my last article here, interest-rate swaps are sold to parties who have taken out loans at variable interest rates, as insurance against rising rates. The most common swap is one where counterparty A (a university, municipal government, etc.) pays a fixed rate to counterparty B (the bank), while receiving from B a floating rate indexed to a reference rate such as LIBOR. If interest rates go up, the municipality gets paid more on the swap contract, offsetting its rising borrowing costs. If interest rates go down, the municipality owes money to the bank on the swap, but that extra charge is offset by the falling interest rate on its variable rate loan. The result is to fix borrowing costs at the lower variable rate.
At least, that is how they are supposed to work. The catch is that the swap is a separate financial agreement – essentially an ongoing bet on interest rates. The borrower owes both the interest onits variable rate loan and what it must pay on its separate swap deal. And the benchmarks for the two rates don’t necessarily track each other. The rate owed on the debt is based on something called the SIFMA municipal bond index.  The rate owed by the bank is based on the privately-fixed LIBOR rate.
As noted by Stephen Gandel on CNNMoney, when the rate-setting banks started manipulating LIBOR, the two rates decoupled, sometimes radically. Public entities wound up paying substantially more than the fixed rate they had bargained for – a failure of consideration constituting breach of contract. Breach of contract is grounds for rescission and damages.
Pain and Suffering in California
The SEIU report noted that no one has yet completely categorized all the outstanding swap deals entered into by local and state governments.  But in a sampling of swaps within California, involving ten cities and counties (San Francisco, Corcoran, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, Oakland, Oxnard, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Riverside, and Sacramento), one community college district, one utility district, one transportation authority, and the state itself, the collective tab was $365 million in swap payments annually, with total termination fees exceeding $1 billion.
Omitted from the sample was the University of California system, which alone is reported to have lost tens of millions of dollars on interest-rate swaps. According to an article in the Orange County Register on February 24, 2014, the swaps now cost the university system an estimated $6 million a year. University accountants estimate that the 10-campus system will lose as much as $136 million over the next 34 years if it remains locked into the deals, losses that would be reduced only if interest rates started to rise. According to the article:

Already officials have been forced to unwind a contract at UC Davis, requiring the university to pay $9 million in termination fees and other costs to several banks. That sum would have covered the tuition and fees of 682 undergraduates for a year.
The university is facing the losses at a time when it is under tremendous financial stress. Administrators have tripled the cost of tuition and fees in the past 10 years, but still can’t cover escalating expenses. Class sizes have increased. Families have been angered by the rising price of attending the university, which has left students in deeper debt.

Peter Taylor, the university’s Chief Financial Officer, defended the swaps, saying he was confident that interest rates would rise in coming years, reversing what the deals have lost. But for that to be true, rates would have to rise by multiples that would drive interest on the soaring federal debt to prohibitive levels, something the Federal Reserve is not likely to allow.
The Revolving Door
The UC’s dilemma is explored in a report titled “Swapping Our Future: How Students and Taxpayers Are Funding Risky UC Borrowing and Wall Street Profits.” The authors, a group called Public Sociologists of Berkeley, say that two factors were responsible for the precipitous decline in interest rates that drove up UC’s relative borrowing costs. One was the move by the Federal Reserve to push interest rates to record lows in order to stabilize the largest banks. The other was the illegal effort by major banks to manipulate LIBOR, which indexes interest rates on most bonds issued by UC.
Why, asked the authors, has UC’s management not tried to renegotiate the deals? They pointed to the revolving door between management and Wall Street. Unlike in earlier years, current and former business and finance executives now play a prominent role on the UC Board of Regents.
They include Chief Financial Officer Taylor, who walked through the revolving door from Lehman Brothers, where he was a top banker in Lehman’s municipal finance business in 2007. That was when the bank sold the university a swap related to debt at UCLA that has now become the source of its biggest swap losses. The university hired Taylor for his $400,000-a-year position in 2009, and he has continued to sign contracts for swaps on its behalf since.
Investigative reporter Peter Byrne notes that the UC regent’s investment committee controls $53 billion in Wall Street investments, and that historically it has been plagued by self-dealing. Byrne writes:

Several very wealthy, politically powerful men are fixtures on the regent’s investment committee, including Richard C. Blum (Wall Streeter, war contractor, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein), and Paul Wachter (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s long-time business partner and financial advisor). The probability of conflicts of interest inside this committee—as it moves billions of dollars between public and private companies and investment banks—is enormous.

Blum’s firm Blum Capital is also an adviser to CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which also got caught in the LIBOR-rigging scandal. “Once again,” said CalPERS Chief Investment Officer Joseph Dear of the LIBOR-rigging, “the financial services industry demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to make decisions in the long-term interests of investors.” If the financial services industry cannot be trusted, it needs to be replaced with something that can be.
Remedies
The Public Sociologists of Berkeley recommend renegotiation of the onerous interest rate swaps, which could save up to $200 million for the UC system; and evaluation of the university’s legal options concerning the manipulation of LIBOR. As demonstrated in the new FDIC suit, those options include not just renegotiating on better terms but rescission and damages for fraud and breach of contract. These are remedies that could be sought by local governments and public entities across the state and the nation.
The larger question is why our state and local governments continue to do business with a corrupt global banking cartel. There is an alternative. They could set up their own publicly-owned banks, on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. Fraud could be avoided, profits could be recaptured, and interest could become a much-needed source of public revenue. Credit could become a public utility, dispensed as needed to benefit local residents and local economies.
__________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and a candidate for California State Treasurer running on a state bank platform. She is the author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt and her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, which explores successful public banking models historically and globally.

MD Rep Offers Weak NSA Reform

Congressman Says He Wants NSA Reforms, But Gets Most Cash From Intel Contractors

March 27, 2014 by Watchdog.org 

UPI FILE

Representative Dutch Ruppersberger has received more than $363,000 in campaign contributions from intelligence contractors since 2005.

This article, written by Eric Boehm, appeared on Watchdog.org on March 26.

One of the two representatives pushing a new bill to supposedly rein in America’s overzealous electronic spooks has received more campaign contributions from intelligence contractors than any other member of Congress.

Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) announced he would co-sponsor a bill with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rodgers (R-Mich.) to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone data, but the effort has drawn less-than-enthusiastic reviews from civil liberties watchdogs.

Ruppersberger, whose Congressional district includes the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., has received more than $363,000 in campaign contributions from intelligence contractors since 2005.
That’s $140,000 more than any other member of Congress, according to a new report from MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks political spending.

He’s working with Rogers, an ardent defender of the American spying regime who first denied, then defended, the existence of NSA spying programs after they were made public in June by Edward Snowden. Since then, he has argued for legislation that would make those activities legal rather than trying to shut them down.

Rogers has received $177,000 from intelligence contractors since 2005, according to MapLight.
It’s no surprise their bill hasn’t received a warm reaction this week.

Though the bill would stop the NSA from collecting bulk telephone records of Americans, it would allow intelligence agencies to access telephone service providers’ records without judicial oversight.

“The bill’s modest improvements to the phone records program are not worth demolishing the important judicial role in overseeing these programs,” said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Richardson said the bill is using the momentum in favor of reforms to actually expand government power.

Ruppersberger and Rodgers are hardly the only members of Congress to get wads of campaign cash from the companies who make a living off America’s spy programs.

Contractors handed out more than $3.7 million in campaign contributions since 2005 – and that’s just to members of Congress who sit on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, according to MapLight.

MapLight

The United States spends more than $52 billion annually on its intelligence budget, according to a Washington Post report. But it’s a “black budget,” meaning the numbers are off-the-record for national security purposes, of course.
As much as 70 percent of the intelligence budget is used to pay private contractors, including the usual suspects like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and other companies deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, according to The Post.
Some of that money ends up finding its way back to the pockets’ of members of the very same committees who are supposed to have Americans’ backs by keeping an eye on the intelligence community.

MapLight

From 2005 through 2013, members of the House Intelligence Committee got more than $2.1 million from intelligence contractors, while members of the Senate Intelligence Committee hauled in $1.5 million. Contributions were evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Unless those members are willing to bite the hands that feed, it could squash the notion that President Barack Obama’s plans to limit domestic spying will stand a chance of passing Congress.

Simultaneous to the Roders-Rubberberger bill, Obama this week called for ending the NSA program that collects Americans’ phone data in bulk. (??)  Phone records would remain with service providers instead of spy agencies and would be kept on file for only 18 months instead of five years (which is how long the NSA keeps them). Spy agencies would need judicial approval before being able to access those records.
(Editor: The Collection of 350 million American's phone conversations is UnConstitutional, not just
access to those illegally acquired wiretaps. Mr. President)

His proposal got better reviews from the ACLU and other pro-reform groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, because it keeps judicial oversight as part of the process.

In a statement released through his lawyer, Snowden said the President’s announcement was a “turning point.”

“It marks the beginning of a new effort to reclaim our rights from the NSA and restore the public’s seat at the table of government,” he said.

________________________________________________________________________________

Ruppersberger: Obama made ‘big mistake’ in handling phone surveillance controversy

By Mark Smith in 2013

U.S. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger

Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called Edward Joseph Snowden, who recently leaked classified information about the National Security Agency, “a legend in his own mind,” and said President Obama made “a big mistake” in saying he had informed Congress about the surveillance of phone records, when he actually had not.

Ruppersberger’s remarks came during an address Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Fort Meade Alliance, a business group supporting economic activity around Fort Meade, home of NSA.
According to a statement from Obama, “Now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple of days in the press are secret in the sense that they’re classified, but they’re not secret in the sense that, when it comes to telephone calls, every member of Congress has been briefed on this program. With respect to all these programs, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs.”

Ruppersberger began his remarks at the Hilton BWI Airport by discussing the actions of Snowden, a one-time Arundel High School student and former Booz Allen Hamilton employee.

Ruppersberger said President Obama made “a big mistake” in telling the American people that he apprised “every member of Congress” about the breach. “And he didn’t,” Ruppersberger said. But he said the NSA program is “not going to go away” and that it is a necessary element of protecting U.S. interests.

Other members of Congress had also criticized Obama for his statement.

Ruppersberger spoke to the Fort Meade Alliance audience after an address by the keynote speaker, NSA Director of Installations and Logistics Harvey Davis. Davis spoke in place of the scheduled speaker, NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis, who was called away on official business.

Mark Smith is editor of the Business Monthly

CWA Fights for Fair Elections in NY

New York State Can Lead on Campaign Finance Reform

Share This Article:

Members of CWA Local 1103 leaflet commuters in State Senator Gregg Ball's district, urging support for campaign finance reform.

CWA activists and coalition allies have been working hard to bring campaign finance reform to New York State. For the first time, Governor Cuomo has included campaign finance reform in his proposed state budget, an important step. The New York State Assembly also continued its long-time support of public financing that would use state funds to match campaign contributions from small donors in its version of the budget. The State Senate's budget also references a new campaign finance system, including public financing.

CWA activists and allies in New York State are rallying and calling their state senators, pushing the Senate to pass public financing in the final budget that's due April 1. Governor Cuomo must also prioritize the reforms. This week, members of CWA Local 1168 have been getting calls into the office of State Senator Mark Grisanti (R) to correct misinformation he cites to oppose public financing.

"We're telling Senator Grisanti that we're health care workers from his district and we care a lot about this issue. We know that hospitals and the nursing home industry make big contributions, and we want our concerns about patient safety and working conditions heard as well," said Sarah Buckley, legislative-political action director, Local 1168.

CWA Local 1103 members leafleted train stations in Senator Gregg Ball's district, asking constituents to contact the Senator to urge his support for public campaign financing.

Public financing gives ordinary citizens a greater voice in the political process because they won't be shut out by big contributions from wealthy and corporate donors. Candidates who opted to rely on small donations from individuals would be eligible for a 6 to 1 match. There would be real limits on amounts each donor could give and funds budgeted to enforce the rules.

Small donor matching in NYC has successfully boosted accountability, improved transparency, cut down corruption and lifted up the voices of ordinary citizens, setting the stage for new-Mayor Bill de Blasio's election over other candidates favored by corporate interests.

Learn more at http://fairelectionsny.org/.

Power of Framing Language

Bill Maher explains the power of language framing 

and how Democrats can use it

by BruinKid

On Friday night, Bill Maher explained how Democrats must win back the language framing from the Republicans.

Being a Republican means starting with a bedrock principle, like rich people shouldn't pay taxes, or black people shouldn't vote.  (audience laughter)  And then, figuring out how to sell it to low-information voters, otherwise known as Americans.  Did I say "don't tax rich people"?  I meant "encourage the job creators".  Did I say "don't let black people vote"?  I meant "clamp down on voter fraud".  Did I say "bring back slavery"?  I meant "phase out race-based freedom quotas".  (audience laughter and applause)

Video and full transcript below the fold.

And finally, New Rule: Democrats need to stop despairing about the gloomy midterm predictions, and realize there's actually a glimmer of hope, and it has to do with suicide.  Let me finish.  For decades now, liberals pushed the issue of assisted suicide, and it got nowhere.  Then, they started to call it "aid in dying", and its approval shot up 20 points and it's now legal in 5 states.  That's the power of language.  And if they took the word "dying" out altogether and called it "early retirement"?  (audience laughter)  It would probably win over 10 more states.  If they called it "death by chocolate", they could get all 50!  (audience laughter and applause) Now, that success and the success that Democrats had in rebranding gay marriage as "marriage equality" means they have finally caught on to what Republicans learned a long time ago from their guru on words, deranged madman/friend of the show Frank Luntz.

Frank is the genius right-wing wordsmith who taught Republicans to, instead of saying "estate tax", say "death tax".  Instead of saying "poor people", say "the takers".  Instead of saying "ridiculous toupee", say "healthy head of natural human hair".  (audience laughter)
And what Democrats need to do is start out-Luntzing the Republicans on all the issues.  What's the difference between "drilling for oil" and "energy exploration"?  Nothing, except one sounds like something assholes do, and one sounds like Indiana Jones.  Health care reform?  Everyone likes that.  "Government takeover of health care".  What are you, Hitler?  What's the difference between creationism and intelligent design?  Not IQ points.  (audience laughter)
Being a Republican means starting with a bedrock principle, like rich people shouldn't pay taxes, or black people shouldn't vote.  (audience laughter)  And then, figuring out how to sell it to low-information voters, otherwise known as Americans.  Did I say "don't tax rich people"?  I meant "encourage the job creators".  Did I say "don't let black people vote"?  I meant "clamp down on voter fraud".  Did I say "bring back slavery"?  I meant "phase out race-based freedom quotas".  (audience laughter and applause)
Republicans are always confident they can move the needle on any issue because, A) they know they have the right words to make the hamster hit the pedal.  And B) they have the discipline with those words.  Perhaps you noticed how everyone on the right universally decided at the exact same moment that Obama's "weakness" is what "emboldened" Putin to take Crimea.  And that's not a matter of great minds thinking alike, because for that, you would need great minds.  (audience laughter and applause)
No, that's because once the word is decided on, every single Republican, from the presidential contenders on down to the feces-throwers on hate radio (audience laughter), all chant it like Rain Man over and over until it's beaten into our skulls.
Now I have no hope the Democrats will ever get that organized.  But they could at least keep up the winning streak in the word game.  Starting with, liberals must stop saying they "believe" in climate change or "believe" in evolution.  Evolution is; it's not matter of believing in it.  (massive audience cheering and applause)
I don't believe that water boils at 212°; that's how hot it is when it happens!  It's not ideology, it's soup!  (audience laughter)  But most of all, just remember, you win the word game, you win the issue.
Jesus was for feeding the poor.  Rename food stamps: "Christ coupons".  (audience laughter and applause)  Marijuana legalization should be called "creating green jobs".  (audience laughter and applause)  Abortion is a "natal do-over".  (audience groans)  And illegal aliens are "refried Americans".  (audience groans)
And solar energy has always sounded way too gay for rednecks.  Instead, say "invade the Sun and take its oil"!  (audience laughter and applause)

 Let's not forget Professor George Lakoff who started "Framing" political issues. - editor

Outlawing Union Picketing is UnConstitutional

Tennessee Attorney General: 

Bill Banning Union Picketing is UnConstitutional

by Laura Clawson

 

 

Soon to be banned in Tennessee?

 

A Republican bill to criminalize union picketing has been moving through the Tennessee State House, with a committee vote coming up soon. But it may be running into a snag: Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper says the bill violates the First Amendment.

“HB1688 presents a content-based restriction upon speech. It would criminalize ‘any form of mass picketing activity in the context of a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute’,” the opinion says.

It notes the bill "includes labor-dispute-specific proscriptions on conduct that do not apply in non-labor contexts. Furthermore, the injunction provision of HB1688… would establish a different standard for business and private-property owners who are the targets of labor-related mass picketing.”

The question, of course, is whether likely UnConstitutionality is enough of a reason for Tennessee Republicans to back off of limiting speech because they don't like who's speaking, or what they're saying.    An early response from state Rep. Jeremy Durham, the bill's sponsor, suggests he's not backing down without a fight. 

 

Rep. Ron Paul Calls Sanctions "War"

Ron Paul slams US on Crimea crisis,

Russia sanctions are 'an Act of War'

• Paul tells Guardian change in Ukraine is US-backed coup

Ron Paul has run for president three times. Photograph: Jim Cole/AP

The former Republican congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched a scathing attack on what he calls a US-backed coup in Ukraine, insisting the Crimean people have the right to align their territory with Moscow and characterising sanctions against Russia as “an Act of War”.

He also said providing economic aid to Ukraine was comparable to giving support to rebels in Syria knowing it would end up in the hands of al-Qaida.

The libertarian guru’s remarks in an interview with the Guardian are almost diametrically opposed to those of his son, the Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who has called for stiff penalties against Russia and declared: “If I were president, I wouldn’t let [Russian president] Vladimir Putin get away with it.”

Ron Paul, who retired from his Texas congressional seat in 2012, has always adopted a sceptical view of US foreign interventions. He said that although the US had not been involved in any military overthrow of the government in Kiev, it had facilitated a coup in the sense of “agitating” elements who wanted to usurp Ukraine’s former president, Victor Yanukovych.

“The evidence is pretty clear that the NGOs [non-governmental organisations] financed by our government have been agitating with billions of dollars, trying to get that government changed,” he said. “Our hands are not clean.”

There is broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for the movement that brought about the departure of Yanukovych, as well as criticism of Putin for Russia’s military intervention in Crimea, which many view as a prelude to annexing the territory.

A Russian-backed referendum, in which Crimeans will be asked if they want to align their government with Moscow, will take place on Sunday, although western leaders argue the poll has no legitimacy or legal basis.

Paul said Crimeans should be allowed to break away from Kiev. 

“I think everyone should have right to express themselves,” he said. “It is messy, that is for sure, because two big governments are very much involved in trying to tell the Ukranians what to do.”
However he said Russia had a more justifiable basis for being involved in Crimea than the US, and no government should prevent locals on the peninsula from determining their future.

“That is our how our country was started,” he said. “It was the right of self-determination, and voting, and asking and even fighting for it, and seceding. Of course libertarians were delighted with the secession of the various countries and units of government away from the Soviet Union, so yes, we want the people to make the decisions.”
 
He added: “The people of Ukraine would probably have a loose-knit association, with a rather independent east and west, and an independent Crimea. It would work quite well.”
Paul, who now runs his own internet TV channel, also took issue with a $1bn aid package for Ukraine which is going through Congress.

“Now we’re getting involved with the Europeans in trying to change the government of Ukraine,” he said. “Now they want our money. It is just like when we when we go out and try and throw out [Syrian president Bashar al-] Assad, we end up working with al-Qaida. Now we’re likely to give money to Ukraine so they can pay their bills to Russia. That is the insanity of it all.”
His son, an increasingly strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination, made a similar point in the Senate on Thursday, when he voted against a bill providing aid to Ukraine.

The Kentucky senator is far more pragmatic than his father, however, and is on a mission to recast his reputation as a mainstream potential commander-in-chief. This week, he used an op-ed piece in Time magazine to exhibit his foreign policy credentials, adopting a tough stance against Moscow.

“Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community,” he wrote. “His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s president should be isolated for his actions.”

He added: “Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay.”

Ron Paul with his son Rand, at a 2011 presidential campaign event. 

Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

His father took the opposite view. “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re Acts of War,”
he told the Guardian.

“It is based on a moral principle of theft. They want to target sanctions against 20 or 30 bad Russians who they claim have committed a crime against humanity, and therefore we’re going to freeze their assets and steal them from them.”

When it was suggested his position was opposite to that of his son, Paul replied: “Neither he nor I have ever pretended our views are identical. He still has the most libertarian views in the Senate.”

4 Post Office Unions Fight GOP Cuts

Four Postal Unions Form Alliance to Defend the Public Postal Service - March 2014

A Proclamation

  Postal Union Alliance

 

The U.S. Postal Service is under unprecedented attack.  

A congressionally manufactured financial crisis drains the USPS of vital resources. 

Six-day delivery is under constant threat of elimination. The reduction of service standards and the elimination of half of the nation's mail processing centers has slowed service and wiped out tens of thousands of good jobs. 

Post offices in cities and small towns are being sold or closed or having their hours cut back. Corporate privatizers seek to gain control over larger segments of postal operations-and to get their hands on the Postal Service's $65 billion of annual revenue.

The Postmaster General's policies of subcontracting and degrading service are fueling the privatization drive.

The four postal unions stand together to end the attack.  

 

We stand for a public Postal Service, enhancement and expansion of service, and protection of good union jobs in our communities. We stand with the people of our country in defense of their right to a universal postal service operated in the public interest.

 

We commit to work together to:

• Maintain six-day and home delivery.

• Protect and restore service standards and mail processing facilities.

• Maintain full-time, full-service public post offices in every community.

• Oppose the subcontracting of work and privatization of services.

• Expand postal services to include basic banking, notary, check-cashing and other              services.

• End the corporate welfare of excessive pre-sort discounts.

• Form a common front in the fight for genuine postal reform legislation

.• Organize joint actions and speak in a united voice.

• Unite with other labor unions in defense of the rights of postal workers and all workers.

• Encourage joint efforts of our union members at the local level.

• Support maximum cooperation in the next round of contract negotiations.

• Build an alliance with the American people in defense of the public postal service.

We Stand United to Protect America's Postal Service

Fredric Rolando, President, National Association of Letter Carriers

Mark Dimonstein, President, American Postal Workers Union

John Hegarty, President, National Postal Mail Handlers Union

Jeanette Dwyer, President, National Rural Letter Carriers Association