On February 14, 2007, Harold Ford was hired as "Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor" at Merrill Lynch. The New York Times estimates his current salary at more than $1 million a year.
On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America. Harold Ford, Jr. retained his position. In late 2008, Merrill Lynch was asked by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to provide details on what bonus payments, if any, it planned to hand out. According to Cuomo, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up its planned date to hand out $3.6 billion in bonuses despite Merrill Lynch losing billions for the year- losses which prompted Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch. While names of bonus recipients are not released, it is almost assured that Harold Ford, Jr. was among them, given his position and that Bank of America kept him on. According to Cuomo, 696 individuals collected bonuses of at least $1 million or more, so we can assume Ford collected a bonus at least that large and most likely, given his position, larger.
Here's why this is all interesting to me. Last Thanksgiving, Bank of America fired over three dozen union security guards represented by SEIU 32BJ. In the process, by firing their contractor, Bank of America also stripped 130 security guards of their health care coverage, not to mention their families. And during the holiday season, too. Ho ho ho, said the Bank of America executives.
Now, Reuters reported last week that Bank of America is planning on paying bonuses "close to the levels of 2007", all while these workers are still laid off and more have no health care benefits.
So, let's summarize:
1. Merrill Lynch pays millions of dollars in bonuses to failed employees who wreck the company and the economy... including Harold Ford, Jr.
2. Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch and then fires several dozen union security guards and strips 130 total of their health care benefits, on Ford's watch.
3. Bank of America plans to pay another round of bonuses this year to its executives- at 2007 levels, and also on Ford's watch.
4. Harold Ford, Jr. contemplates running for Senate.
People who work hard everyday trying to create a better life for their families deserve better, especially when the heads of oil companies are enjoying record profits and astronomical pensions.
Pretty comparable situation to today. Record profits and astronomical bonuses, some of which were collected by Ford as the people who guard him were being laid off and stripped of their health care benefits.
So here's two questions for Mr. Ford:
1. If you are the Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor, what did you do, if anything, to prevent union, blue-collar workers from being fired, or kept 130 families from losing their health care in the middle of winter?
2. If you are the friend of labor you claim to be, what are you doing to ensure these employees get their benefits and jobs back?
It is incredible many of these security guards have been left out in the cold while your firm is set to pay out one of its biggest bonus pools ever. Last year Bank of America paid out $3.3 billion in bonuses for 2008 performance, and Merrill Lynch paid out $3.6 billion. Merrill Lynch executives, including you, received these bonuses even though the firm lost $3.8 billion.
[...]
As you contemplate a run for the Senate, it is time to show your commitment to improve the quality of life for all New Yorkers- not just the Wall Street elite. I hope that you will help correct this problem at Bank of America and ensure that the officers at your buildings are restored to their previous positions and have their full benefits restored.
Will Harold Ford, Jr. speak out on behalf of SEIU 32BJ members and their families, and work to correct this problem? Or will he toe the Wall Street corporate line- the same line that pays millions in bonuses to executives while thumbing noses at those who protect them?
To turn a phrase, put your mouth where your money is, Harold.
"Bank of America's in a spiral, this greed's going viral!" That was the chant from protesters outside Bank of America's shareholders meeting today. It was the culmination of dozens of demonstrations across the country led by Take Back the Economy and SEIU to Fire Ken Lewis, Bank of America's loathsome CEO. They delivered over 90,000 signed "taxpayer proxy cards," which called on BofA to can Lewis, commit to genuine financial reform, curb predatory lending, provide workers affordable healthcare, and stop lobbying against Employee Free Choice. And the result? Ken Lewis is out as chairman!
This is a huge win for progressives, myself included, who have been up in armsfor months over BofA's decision to continue its shamelessly greedy, predatory practices after receiving tens of billions in bailout funds. This outrage spilled onto YouTube, where Brave New Films put together a video narrated by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, documenting all of the reasons why Lewis deserved to be fired. As The NY Times reported today:
That message has resonated with some big shareholders of Bank of America. Calpers, the huge California public pension fund, said Tuesday that it was voting against re-electing Mr. Lewis and the rest of the bank's board. The fund joins Calstrs, the California teachers retirement fund, and several other state and union pension funds in opposing Mr. Lewis.
Two influential investor advisory groups, the RiskMetrics Group and Glass Lewis, have also recommended voting against Mr. Lewis.
Now it seems like all of this work, all the ranting and protesting, is finally starting to pay off as we see a major black eye for Lewis and corporate America. Lewis will remain BofA's CEO, but according to the AP, angry shareholders voted to separate that job from chairman, which will go to board member Walter Massey. This may not be as exciting as if BofA had ousted Lewis altogether, but it proves we can hold these bailed banks accountable for their ruthless ways. We can make examples of their CEOs--the poster boys of greed--as we demand re-regulation and the end to an era of corporate excess.
"There's literally billions of reasons to fire Ken Lewis," said SEIU's Stephen Lerner, slamming the controversial Bank of America CEO yesterday on CNBC's "Power Lunch." Just what are these billions of reasons? Well, there's over $5 billion Bank of America dished out in executive bonuses while receiving $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. There's the $10 billion Bank of America collected from raising overdraft and interest fees. Not to mention the hundreds of billions Bank of America caused shareholders to lose when its stock plunged after the Merrill Lynch acquisition. No wonder Lerner and the SEIU are leading the charge to Fire Ken Lewis.
Now that Rick Wagoner is out at GM, my money is on Lewis as the next corporate CEO on the chopping block. As David Sirota pointed out recently, it will be a tragic double standard if the White House doesn't call for Lewis's resignation at this point. Bank of America's bailout abuses, continued predatory lending, and other wasteful corporate practices have been so atrocious that the best defense Thad Woodard, CEO of the N.C. Bankers Association, could muster for Lewis to keep his job was, "I can tell you right now that Ken Lewis is not Satan." That bit of praise was by far the most amusing moment from yesterday's "Power Lunch," though a close second was when Woodard ganged up with the show's hosts to twist calls for Lewis's resignation into an attack on unions.
The Chamber took to their blog and ambiguously wrote, "No. No we are not."
It's well documented by Sam Stein at The Huffington Post that bailout recipients have been asked to funnel money to groups that are running anti-worker ads like the ones announced yesterday by the Chamber.
So I wrote, "Let me pose a more specific question: Is the Chamber actively rejecting money from bailout recipients?"
Another one quickly answered, the U.S. Chamber continues to accept as members companies which receive both public and private funds. In addition we do not believe that the receipt of taxpayer money abrogates an individual or groups’ rights under the First Amendment.
My original answer to the original question still stands, beyond question.
Actually, it's not beyond question -- and Jonathan Martin at Politico agrees:
Adam Green over at OpenLeft pushes the Chamber of Commerce to say that they're still accepting dues from bailed-out companies.
The goal is to make the case that the Chamber is using taxpayer dollars to help fund their anti-EFCA campaign (of which they have launched new ads targeting moderate Democratic senators).
The Chamber's Brad Peck says they're not using bail-out money for the campaign.
I've asked how exactly they know that to be the case.
A bunch of folks have joined the Facebook group asking the same question, and have used the contact info posted in that group to email Chamber execs directly.
The Chamber of Commerce’s solution for fixing our economic crisis is to use funds from taxpayer bailed-out companies to fight smart economic policies that will restore balance to our economy and help rebuild the American Middle Class.
...American taxpayers have had enough. The Chamber of Commerce must stop accepting taxpayer funds to lobby against taxpayer interests.
It's a pretty cut-and-dry case.
Taxpayer money went to companies so they could rebuild their fundamentals. By the Chamber's now-admission, bailout recipients are giving some of that money to the Chamber (aka, not using it to rebuild their fundamentals). Then, the Chamber uses that taxpayer money to fund ads against workers in political swing states.
We'll now see if the Chamber is as oblivious to the PR disaster that is about to hit them as the Wall Street execs who used bailout money to redecorate their offices and pay bonuses were.
Maybe smarter heads at the Chamber will prevail, and they'll take this issue off the table by publicly rejecting money from bailout recipients. We'll see...
This question was based on the fact that the Chamber just announced $1 million in new ads against the Employee Free Choice Act -- while bailout recipients like AIG and Bank of America are apparently being asked to funnel money to groups doing precisely this type of ad.
Is the Chamber of Commerce using bailout money to attack workers?
No. No we are not.
Let me pose a more specific question: Is the Chamber actively rejecting money from bailout recipients?
If yes, than Mr. Peck's answer holds true. If no, than Mr. Peck's answer seems quite questionable.
Oddly, the very month that Bank of America was asking Congress for a bailout, the Chamber of Congress put out this press release:
U.S. Chamber Announces 2008 Corporate Citizenship Awards Finalists...
Corporate Stewardship, Large Business Award, honoring overall values, strategies, and practices in companies with annual revenue greater than $5 billion—Bank of America, KPMG LLP, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, Siemens USA, and Verizon Communications
Really? Bank of America is the Chamber's model of corporate stewardship?
This puts the burden of proof squarely on the Chamber. Taxpayers deserve to know: As the Chamber runs millions in ads, it is activley rejecting money from bailout recipients?
This diary is mostly derivative of the SEIU blog, but I felt this was a blog post worth sharing among many people and a cause worth supporting:
I have a story for you.
Two CEOs lead two large public companies that start sinking, putting thousands out of work and toppling the American economy. Both CEOs accepted billions in taxpayer dollars to sustain their companies, but both failed to stop their companies' downward spirals.
One CEO -- GM's Rick Wagoner -- got his pink slip from President Obama this morning. The other -- Bank of America's Ken Lewis -- accepted bailout funds while continuing to fleece consumers and taxpayers.
It's time for the Obama Administration to show the door to CEO Ken Lewis in order for real reform to take hold at Bank of America.
How do you know when your bank is standing in the way of economic recovery? Well, take the following quiz. Your bank took $45 billion in bailout funds and:
a) Blew it on an overseas bank investment, DC lobbyists, corporate jets, executive bonuses, and a lavish Super Bowl party worth $10 million alone.
b) Announced it would lay off 35,000 workers while refusing to provide adequate health care for the rest of its 212,000 employees.
c) Asked participants on a conference call to donate large sums of money to vulnerable anti-union Senatorial candidates in order to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act.
d) Blamed the financial crisis on dead mothers.
e) All of the above.
Sadly, for Bank of America, the answer is "e" as in "egregious." TPMMuckraker had a story Friday about Theresa Hatt, a Bank of America customer who died of cancer last month at 52. When her son, Paul Kelleher, called Bank of America to let them know, an estates representative asked if Kelleher intended to pay off the balance of his mother's credit card. When he said he wasn't obligated to, the representative said, "I know that if it were my mother, I'd pay it. That's why we're in the banking crisis we're in: banks having to write off defaulted loans."
Apparently, Bank of America instructs representatives from its collections unit to deceive customers intentionally, both about the legality of paying off balances and obviously about the morality of it as well. Not only that, but the bank also rewards its reps who do bring in "collectible money" with fat bonuses of upwards of $5,000 a month. This is a business practice so sickening it ought to have every Bank of America customer shredding their ATM cards in disgust.
On the surface, the story of recent labor activism in Chicago sounds like a wonderful moment in progressive advocacy. Workers for Republic Windows and Doors staged a protest after the company shut down without giving them prior notice, as required by state and federal law.
Progressives targeted Bank of America, a major creditor of the company, even though the company, not the bank, infringed the workers' rights. Progressives argued that because Bank of America received funds under the federal "bailout," it should extend additional credit to the company so that the workers could receive wages and benefits to which the law entitles them.
But the story is far more complicated than the simplistic narrative of EVIL BANK versus POOR WORKERS and SUFFERING COMPANY indicates. Here's why!
