The protests at the American Bankers Association Conference in Chicago may have finished on Tuesday, but the campaign to demand that big banks stop using our tax dollars to lobby against financial reform is far from over. Big banks took $17.8 trillion in taxpayer bailouts and then turned around and spent $35 million of the taxpayers' money fighting reform and lobbying against the most basic measures to protect consumers.

Adding to the frustration of the situation is the complete lack of responsibility the delegates from the American Bankers' Association accept for the financial crisis their banks' harmful business practices perpetuated. "Bankers care," the ABA's chairman, Arthur Connelly, told more than 1,000 senior executives from banks across the nation gathered at their annual convention in Chicago. "We want to make life better in our communities...[and] traditional banks are the solution to getting this country back on track."

Newsflash, Mr. Connelly: Taxpayers (and their empty wallets, foreclosed homes, and drained pensions) beg to differ. The ABA's annual convention in Chicago was the scene for the series of major protests this week, as thousands demonstrated to show just how sick and tired they are of having big banks treat them like personal ATMs. We're still enjoying the amazing visuals that resulted from the five demonstrations held outside the ABA convention, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs in downtown Chicago. Check out the photos from the October 27th march and rally, which mobilized 5,000 taxpayers to take to the streets:

You can check out photos from the four other demonstrations protesting the ABA, Well Fargo and Goldman Sachs after the break.

To see our live updates and blog posts from the Showdown in Chicago, visit SEIU's Blog here.

Check out our latest effort in the Don't Wreck the Census Campaign:

"Some politicians come up with dumb ideas. Some come up with impractical ideas that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. And then there are those lawmakers with crazy proposals that would violate the United States Constitution.¹"

Republican Senators Vitter and Bennett hit the trifecta by trying to wreck the US Census.

They've filed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill that would strip funds from the Census Bureau -- if they do not include a question regarding status of United States citizenship to the US Census.

If passed, the Vitter-Bennett amendment would throw a monkey wrench into the U.S. Census by requiring over 120 million questionnaires to be reprinted, wasting over $7 billion in research, planning, and preparation that has occurred for Census 2010.

Don't let them inject their anti-immigrant agenda into every conceivable realm of public life.

Click here to write your Senator and tell them to vote NO on the Vitter-Bennett amendment:

http://action.seiu.org/noonvitterbennett

As we get closer to the vote on the amendment this week -- it's even more important that your Senators know where you stand on a full and accurate count of the US Census.

It is in people's best interest to be counted because the US Census is how our country makes decisions about allocation of resources and local representation, regardless of race or immigration status.

A failed 2010 U.S. Census count has massive implications that could be devastating to communities for the next decade--and supporting an amendment that takes away the ability of the Census to paint an accurate portrait of America is crazy.

Click here to write your Senator: http://action.seiu.org/noonvitterbennett

Thanks for all you do,

Joaquin Guerra
SEIU.org

^{1"Impractical and Unconstitutional."Center for American Progress}

Welcome to the Showdown in Chicago, where the American people have come together to reclaim America and hold Wall Street accountable. It's Day 2 of the annual meet-up of the American Bankers Association, and nearly a thousand taxpayers decided to facilitate a little meet-and-greet between the people that created the financial crisis (and got rich from it), and the people who paid the price for Wall Street's greed--and footed the bill to bail the banks out.

Unfortunately, the banksters letting loose in the Sheraton's lavish ballroom couldn't be convinced to leave their posh party to attend our rally....but 40+ policemen and numerous onlookers turned out and I even saw several cops taking pictures of us. Around 60 taxpayers went into the hotel to invite the bankers to join us one last time, as well as deliver a letter to ABA CEO Ed Yingling. Access to the 2nd floor reception area was completely blocked off, so the taxpayers asked ABA's security to deliver the letter for them instead....and were refused.

Photo © 2009 Heather Stone Photography

Since we weren't allowed to deliver the letter to ABA CEO Ed Yingling, the taxpayers inside the Sheraton decided to speak out demands to the ABA from down in the lobby, loudly but respectfully. We're pretty sure Mr. Yingling he heard us...along with all the other partygoers. Onlookers who gathered to watch seemed surprised at what was going on--but not why we were there to demand an end to Wall Street greed.

I've been to my fair share of great protests, but I was particularly wowed by tonight's energetic chants and stand-out visuals. The hundreds of people chanting "ABA, you're the worst, time to put the people first" and "Enough is enough" rang out pretty powerfully. I think the police's personal favorite though, was our chant "Police need a raise!" The rally featured huge "Wanted" posters showing the poster children of greed, including cutouts of Bank of American CEO Ken Lewis, Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and JP Morgan CEO Jamie Diamon. A rendition of soulful classic "Shame Shame Shame" by Shirley & Company was also belted out by the rallyers (and some of the audience too, I suspect).

"They said the banks were too big to fail," said rallygoer Keya Alvarez from the Alliance to Develop Power. "Well, I got news for them--the people are too big to fail!" We're gathered here in Chicago because we're sick and tired of being sick and tired. We're also here because we have hope--and we know Wall Street and America can do better. Stay tuned tomorrow for more coverage of our Chicago banks showdown, and be sure to follow our live updates on SEIU's Twitter feed.

It was a sad day for corporations in the financial, insurance, and real estate sector--like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce & the Financial Services Roundtable--who spent a combined total of $321 million lobbying against federal reforms such as limits on bonuses and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). These groups were concerned that oversight legislation to help rein in greed on Wall Street might actually....rein in greed on Wall Street. "We remain concerned that this legislation will have significant and harmful unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and the overall economy," the groups wrote in a letter to House members last week.

Thankfully, the House Financial Services Committee didn't feel nearly as sympathetic towards the creators of unfair financial products that scam consumers and taxpayers as they feel for themselves. A recent poll found that nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis--and our lawmakers agree. Yesterday, the House voted 39 to 29 to move forward with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to help put a stop to the dangerous and deceptive products and practices that got us into this mess. The House Financial Services Committee also approved legislation that would impose new rules for credit cards by Dec. 1, moving up the date from mid-February. Democratic supporters said moving up the date was necessary because lenders were using the grace period to hike interest rates.

The American Bankers Association joined the Chamber of Commerce in expressing their disapproval for the legislation, saying it would continue to try to make its case against the agency as the legislation moves to the House floor in coming weeks and, eventually, to the Senate. "We still have major concerns with some principal areas" including "the very broad, ill-defined authority that is granted to this new agency that could be used to justify essentially any regulatory action," said Floyd Stoner, ABA vice president for congressional relations.

Creating the CFPA as part of Obama's broader plan to clamp down on Wall Street is an important step towards preventing much of the reckless lending that contributed to last year's near-collapse of the market. "It's been a year since the financial world collapsed and it is now clear that the greed and excess of big banks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies could have and should have been prevented," said SEIU's Anna Burger. "Chairman Frank and the Financial Services Committee stood up on behalf of American families by passing legislation to create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency--and to prevent business as usual to continue."

According to a recent poll, nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis.And there's much more to be done. We believe that to be successful, the CFPA must be strengthened to include:

• oversight of auto dealers who receive lucrative compensation in financing auto loans;
• the authority to examine the books of all financial institutions, no matter what size, without cumbersome barriers;
• fixes to the current compensation system which pressures and incentivizes workers to push and sell bad and unneeded products to consumers as a condition of employment; and
• the full authority to stop the sale of credit-related insurance policies that are virtually worthless.

That's why when the American Bankers Association meets in Chicago next week, more than 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states will be there to demand an end to Wall Street's appetite for greed.

This past week, while much of D.C. has been focused on the healthcare mark-up (us included), we've also been tracking a few other stories that we wanted to bring to your attention. First--the encouraging news that Massachusetts will return to full representation and the Democrats in Congress to a cloture-proof majority. Also, don't miss two stories on SEIU's calls for financial reform and a questionable award choice from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Keep reading for all of this week's stories...

60 Senators. SEIU and our allies welcome the newly appointed Senator Paul Kirk to represent Massachusetts in the interim before the January special election. In a statement released today, Andy Stern applauded the choice of Senator Kirk and the leadership of Governor Patrick: "The Governor and the Legislature showed real leadership to move swiftly and ensure that one of Senator Kennedy's last requests is fulfilled and the Bay State has a full say in helping move America forward. Paul Kirk will be a strong voice for the hard working families and communities of the Commonwealth. Massachusetts needed more than a placeholder in the U.S. Senate and the Governor has given his citizens a leader who will get to work fighting for the change working families need on healthcare reform, rebuilding our economy, and providing new financial protections for consumers." More here.

Banks Leave Taxpayers on the Hook for $17.8 Trillion. On Wednesday during a call with reporters, SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burger and Assistant to the President Stephen Lerner released a new report that details the impact that the economic crisis has had on working families. According to the report, once all crisis-related programs are factored in, taxpayers could be on the hook for up to $17.8 trillion to rescue the big banks. You can view the report here. The rest of the rest of the blog post on the report here.

New Round of Protests Target Banks. SEIU and a growing chorus of voices once again spoke out against banks for trying to block financial reforms after receiving billions of taxpayer dollars. As Secretary Treasurer Anna Burger put it, "They're back to their old tricks and the same practices that caused this crisis in the first place...They're getting bailed out and normal people are losing."

Dozens of SEIU members and activists rallied outside a secret meeting of the Financial Services Roundtable, a group of 90 companies in the finance and insurance industry who received hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts and then used that money to lobby against needed corporate reforms. "We need to demand that banks use their resources and power to fix the economy and not make it worse," said Stephen Lerner, Special Assistant to SEIU President Andy Stern.

A series of protests around the county will lead up to the largest demonstration in Chicago between Oct. 25 and Oct. 27 at a meeting of the American Bankers Association. Read the full story from The Hill here. Click here to learn about upcoming actions to hold corporate barons and banks accountable.

The U.S. Chamber's Puzzling Definition of "Corporate Citizenship." Each fall, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce honors member organizations with its "Corporate Citizenship Award" as a way of recognizing contributions to communities. Unfortunately for the U.S. Chamber, the award is blind to a multitude of misdeeds committed by honorees. Indeed, for two years running, the U.S. Chamber has selected companies rife with problems. This year, the US Chamber chose to give this award to Aramark, a firm notorious for refusing to recognize its employees' voices. Read more about Aramark's bad record on employee relations and more on their relationship with the US Chamber here.

On the eve of the first G-20 summit since the global financial collapse, SEIU has a new report measuring the severe impact the economic crisis has had on working families. The report breaks down not just the cost of the bailouts, but also the (much, much bigger) associated costs that came along with them.

Here are some of the astounding highlights:

• Taxpayers have committed $4.7 trillion to the financial sector over the last year--only $700 billion of that $4.7 trillion was through TARP.
• The bank-induced economic crisis has cost American families $11 trillion in wealth in 2008, nearly 18% of their net worth.
• Americans have lost $6.1 trillion in homeowner wealth since June 2006.

Even banks like Goldman Sachs that returned their TARP funds earlier this year continue to benefit from other bailout programs, such as the $12.9 billion that Goldman received as an AIG counterparty that it will never have to pay back.

Meanwhile, banks continue to...

• Pay themselves millions in bonuses: the nation's top six banks paid out $31.2 billion in bonuses this past winter.
  
• Set aside $$ for future bonuses. In the first half of 2009 alone, banks set aside another $74.4 billion for bonuses and compensation--an amount alone that would solve the budget shortfalls in 15 states, including California.
  
• Make excessive profits on the backs of consumers: banks continue behaviors such as refusing to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures and reducing their small business lending--they actually now give out less money than they did before their TARP infusion.
  
• Gouge us on overdraft fees. Americans will pay more than $38 billion in overdraft fees alone in 2009, more than $125 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

The worst part? Big banks and other financial institutions aren't merely back to their old tricks and the same practices that caused the crisis in the first place--they're actually standing in the way of real reform that would protect consumers and prevent a future crisis.

Companies in the financial, insurance, and real estate sector spent $321 million lobbying against federal reforms such as:

• The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency
  
• Limits on bonuses
  
• Loan modification proposals that could help keep millions of Americans in their homes,
  
• And the Employee Free Choice Act--which would provide a much-needed check on corporate power by giving workers a real voice in the workplace.

Read and download the report here:

Trillion Dollar Bank Job -

"We now understand that the actions of a small group of greedy CEOs and Wall Street investors can wreak havoc on the global economy, yet we still haven't taken the necessary steps to prevent a future crisis," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger at a briefing to release the report. At noon tomorrow, outside a secret meeting of the Financial Services Roundtable at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C., workers and community groups will kick off a month of actions in more than two dozen cities across the country.

Download the report here: The Trillion Dollar Bank Job: How Wall Street and the Big Banks Are Holding Up America's Economic Recovery.

No. (That answer came pretty easily to us!)

On Thursday, bailed out banks like Bank of America--which have not paid back their billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts--had to submit proposals for executive pay and bonuses to Obama's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Feinberg said yesterday that he has broad and "binding" authority over executive compensation, including the ability to "claw back" money already paid...."I have the discretion, conferred upon by Congress, to attempt to recover compensation that has already been paid to executives not only in these companies, but in any company that received federal assistance," said Feinberg.

As Obama's pay czar is weighing how and whether to use that power, we're hoping he takes into account the laundry list of reasons why Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis and other top banking executives don't deserve bonuses this year. We've laid out our "Top Ten" here.

#1: Bank of America has received nearly $200 billion in taxpayer bailouts and backstops.
As long as Bank of America is reliant on billions of taxpayer bailout funds, they should not be allowed to pay out bonuses to top executives while millions of Americans continue to lose their homes, jobs, and retirement savings.

Read all ten (after the jump).

On Monday, the SEC slapped Bank of America with a $33 million fine for misleading investors on plans to award multi-billion dollar bonuses to Merrill Lynch executives during BofA's purchase of the failed bank. In case people are keeping track...this fine is less than one percent of the $3.6 billion in bonuses paid out. SEC officials say this is the largest penalty ever imposed for a failure to disclose relevant information in connection with shareholder votes.

Bank of America has agreed to settle, without admitting to the charges. The bank also has yet to pay back $45 billion in bailout funds of taxpayer money. "This is further proof that bank executives will do anything to pay themselves bonuses and stick it to taxpayers, shareholders and workers," said SEIU's Stephen Lerner in USA Today .

Wouldn't it be nice if all of us could solve our problems the BofA-way?

As part of their "Morris on Campus,™ Life According to an Upperclassman™" campaign to "educate and empower students to take control of their finances," Bank of America sponsored a survey last summer that found 38 percent of surveyed college-aged students reporting they could use help in managing their money. Four in ten (42 percent) students reported to overdrawing their checking account.

The irony here is almost too much to bear...Bank of America knows a thing or two about spending money they don't have. It's suffice to say that these students (like BofA's promotions poster child Morris) would probably be thrilled to be granted the same pardons as BofA. Imagine what that scenario would look like if we all lived under the same skewed logic BofA decision makers seem to be adhering to..."I owed thousands and thousands in student loans but walked away after earning my college diploma owing just 1 percent!" The same goes for the millions of people who owe money to their credit card companies. Or their health insurance companies.

Christmas come early? News reports today suggest that this latest failure by Bank of America could be setting the stage for CEO Ken Lewis's departure. In spite of all the hurt they've heaped onto our economy, there's really been no holding banks accountable for their shortsighted practices and failing to live up to their responsibilities to taxpayers who bailed them out in the first place. Kicking Ken Lewis to the curb would be a good start.

A new report released by SEIU today shows that Bank of America has cut small business loans made through the Small Business Administration (SBA) 7(a) program - despite taking billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts meant to stimulate the economy.

At a time when the failure rate of small businesses has been on the rise, Bank of America has - and continues - to reduce the amount it lends in SBA loans while increasing higher-interest credit card lending to small businesses. The result is less capital to support struggling small businesses and boost the economy.

Here's a quick look at the facts about Small Business Loans at the Bank of America.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Lending to Small Businesses AFTER Taking Billions in Bailout Money to Stimulate the Economy - Latest Cuts Came on Top of Years of Decreased Lending

• Not only did Bank of America cut small business lending after taking billions in bailout funds, but the bank lent out significantly less money to small businesses than many of its top competitors - under the SBA 7(a) program the Small Business Administration's main loan program.
• The average loan amount was comparatively small. In FY 2008, the average loan amount for all SBA 7(a) lenders was $182,492. At Bank of America, the average loan amount was only $31,032.

FACT: Bank of America Cut SBA 7(a) Loans by 90 percent -- Twice the National Average

• Over the past two years, Bank of America's small business lending has decreased from more than 10,000 SBA 7(a) loans to fewer than 500. The greatest decline occurred after the bank received bailout funds last October -- money intended to jump start lending.
• In the first seven months of FY 2009 (October-April), the bank made only 241 loans through the SBA 7(a) program, worth a total of $10 million. In the same time period last year, the bank made 3,053 SBA 7(a) loans, worth $92 million.

FACT: Bank of America Cut Small Business Lending in States

• In FY 2007, Bank of America lent more than $335 million to small businesses in 44 states through the SBA 7(a) program. In the first seven months of FY 2009, the bank cut SBA 7(a) lending completely in 14 states.
• Cuts were most severe in states like Arkansas, where the bank made 49 SBA 7(a) loans worth $1.4 million in FY 2007, and made zero in the first seven months of FY 2009, and in three New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), where the bank went from making 109 loans worth $2.8 million in FY 2007 to zero to date in FY 2009.

FACT: Bank of America Pulled a Bait and Switch, Shifting Small Business Portfolio from Traditional Loans to Higher-Interest Credits Cards

• Instead of lending money to small businesses through SBA loans (with typical interest rates of 7-9%), Bank of America appears to be moving its small business clients to higher-interest credit card loans. (Credit cards typically charge small businesses 16-23%.)
• In 2007 (the most recent year for which this data is currently available), more than 75% of Bank of America's small business loans were made through FIA Card Services, its credit card division. Bank of America acquired FIA (previously called MBNA) in January 2006. FIA's small business loan volume increased nearly 400% between 2006 and 2007. The $6.3 billion increase in the bank's total small business lending between 2006 and 2007 came almost entirely from the bank's credit card division.

FACT: Bank of America Hurt Small Businesses and Shareholders with Risky Lending Practices

• Bank of America shifted its loan portfolio - favoring "Express Loans" with lower underwriting standards - despite the fact that these loans are guaranteed by the SBA at a lower rate and have been found more likely to default. From FY 2006 through FY 2008, more than 95% of Bank of America's SBA 7(a) lending was through the SBA Express program, saddling shareholders and communities with unnecessary risk.
• Reminiscent of the mortgage crisis, small business defaults have risen. In fall 2008, Bank of America announced that its small business default rate had doubled to match the national rate and possibly exceed it, going from 6% in 2007 to 12% (annualized) in 2008. Bank of America's Chief Financial Officer Joe Price described the bank's small business lending as performing more like consumer debt than commercial lending. CEO Ken Lewis more bluntly called Bank of America's SBA loan portfolio "a damn disaster."

Read and download the full report "Small Business Lending at Bank of America" here.

On every major initiative to help restore our economy, from healthcare to financial reform to the Employee Free Choice Act, banks and corporations have the same unproductive mantra--"we need to wait"..."now's not the time"...and "action now will hurt the economy." Today, another repeat performance, as reports hit the news that Congress is delaying action on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency after a series of lobbying efforts and a letter from the U.S. Chamber and big banks. SEIU's Anna Burger had this to say:

"Big banks and CEOs didn't mind quick action from Congress when they were begging for billion dollar bailouts. Now that they're flush with cash they want to stifle recovery for the rest of us and hang on to the same reckless business practices that toppled our economy in the first place.

"It's past time for the U.S. Chamber and big banks to stop thinking about their next bonus or the latest and greatest way to scam consumers and taxpayers and really commit to being a partner in our country's economic recovery."

Unfair financial products--like "exploding" mortgages with skyrocketing interest rates, and credit cards with incomprehensible and unfair terms and fees--are a large part of what caused the economic meltdown that resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings. Which is why President Obama's plan to create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency is the next step toward stopping the dangerous and deceptive products and practices that got us into this mess.

Yet once more, Wall Street and big banks are doing their best to stand in the way of the financial reform this country needs to get back on its feet by trying to block the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposed by President Obama. And (surprise!), they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do it.

It's starting to feel as though it's never going to be a "good time" for corporate America's army of of corporations and the lobbyists they hire to push their agendas to take a hit and do what's best for working people in this country. So we'd just like to remind them one more time why it is they're still in business: taxpayer bailouts.

We have to make sure our representatives hear from us, and not just the big banks' lobbyists. Please call your member of Congress right now and ask them to support the new consumer financial protection agency.

A new blog, www.examinebarnabas.org, was launched last week to help the Bronx community get the full story about St. Barnabas Hospital, a 461-bed acute care hospital and Level I Trauma Center that thousands of patients depend on for critical care.

Given St. Barnabas's declining revenue, the resident physicians at the hospital are concerned certain members of the staff are being paid excessively high salaries--for example, the top 5 executives at St. Barnabas Hospital received aggregate pay increases of 35% between 2002 and 2007. So if St. Barnabas executives got raises, it must mean they deserved it because they improved the hospital's financial performance, right? Not quite.

A quick look at the hospital's financial statements over the past four years suggests that financial performance is getting worse, not better. In 2008 alone, St. Barnabas posted a loss of $10 million on hospital operations and additional $30 million loss on investments.

Between 2005 and 2007, St. Barnabas ex-CEO Ronald Gade's post-retirement yearly salary of $1.2 million per year would have made him one of the highest-paid hospital employees in New York City. Yet this was the salary Gade received when he was no longer even employed with the hospital--rather, this was the yearly payment he received as a consultant in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

So who pays the price for executive raises? While St. Barnabas executives have been receiving increases, they have used the hospital's declining financial performance as a reason to cut back on benefits and health coverage offered to hard-working health care professionals at St. Barnabas. (Here are copies of memos to employees announcing benefits cuts.)

In a letter sent last week to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, CIR President Dr. Nailah Thompson asked for an investigation of executive pay at the struggling Bronx hospital. Hospitals like St. Barnabas are essential to the health of the communities they serve--and the hospital's revenue is largely thanks to the public, as this is the type of funding most of the hospital's revenue is derived from. The question is, how much of American taxpayers' dollars are executives keeping for themselves? "With so much of our economy in flux, now more than ever, the people of New York need to be reassured that the institutions we rely on are worthy of the trust that we put into them," said Dr. L. Toni Lewis, president of the Committee of Interns and Residents.

"Examining St. Barnabas" will provide information and commentary about the hospital's fiscal health, executive salaries and patient satisfaction. The blog will also follow the hospital's efforts to expand to new areas of the Bronx, as well as seek input from site visitors. What do you think about millionaire "non-profit" CEOs in the Bronx? Visit www.examinebarnabas.org and share your thoughts.

Bonuses, bailouts, and a broken system: Is this the America in which big banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce believe in?

The Washington Post reports today that Chamber and the banking industry are intensifying their lobbying efforts against financial reform. Recognizing their parallel efforts to fund campaigns against working families, the unappetizing alliance of big bank executives, credit card and financial services companies is joining forces to intensify their lobbying efforts against financial reform. "It's no surprise that the U.S. Chamber and the big banks that drove our economy into the ground are joining forces to defend a failed financial model that enriches CEOs at the expense of shareholders, workers, and our economy," commented SEIU's Anna Burger, on efforts to block the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposed by President Obama.

Obama's proposed agency would oversee a range of financial products, from mortgages to credit cards and checking and savings accounts to guard against anti-consumer sales practices and fight for needed reforms to protect front-line bank workers and consumers. The coalition fighting the Obama consumer agency plan views their efforts to protect those on the receiving end of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts as simply "allowing the financial services industry to serve its customers in the best way possible." Um, U.S. taxpayers who've been forced to subsidize banks' bad behavior with billions of their hard-earned money might not agree. The coalition's prescription for financial reform to make their case so far include rebranding the same reckless policies that will drive families deeper into debt and launching a massive PR campaign to scare Americans with 'Harry and Louise' style TV ads.

BofA "encourages" its employees to help consumers rack up debt

This comes a week after current and former Bank of America workers stepped forward to expose harmful anti-consumer practices by the bank that encourage customers to sign up for high-interest-rate credit and cash advance services to max out customer credit, as well as structuring a variety of check and debit card services resulting in overdraft fees and other charges. A former BofA employee from Landover Hills, MD, Gabby Inaleis, said that although initially she thought she was taking financial services job, it didn't take very long to realize BofA had no interest in helping customers reach their financial goals. Under constant pressure from her manager to meet unrealistic sales goals (example: sell at least 40 checking accounts every Friday), Gabby reported she would often sell multiple checking accounts to clients that didn't need them by offering to waive the account fees for a couple of months. "It became standard practice to make a customer who wasn't planning on opening an account wait for up to an hour to speak with a personal banker," she says.

No employee bonuses until grandmothers everywhere are penniless (and cold): Among the former bank workers who spoke out was Chris Feener, an ex-employee with 15 years' experience in the industry who worked in BofA's collections department. The department's #1 priority, said Chris, was to collect payment from customers who hadn't made a payment on their credit card for 180 days--no matter the cost. "There was a time I was encouraged to tell an elderly woman to sell her stove and cook on a Bunsen burner to pay off her credit card debt that [the bank] had inflated over time," said Chris.

The questionable practices BofA employees were made to engage in to ensure their jobs were safe didn't stop there, for Chris and his coworkers. "In 2007 when BofA's numbers were particularly low, we were given scripts to read on our customers' answering machines, threatening to sue them or collect any assets they had if they didn't," he said. "It was called the Maxwell message, and for three months straight we used that method, forcing customers needlessly to file for bankruptcy."

And that's not all! Enter more violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Chris says he and his team members were pushed to do if a customer had a delinquent account: publicly humiliate the customer to shame them into paying. "We were required to call every customers neighbor on every account--the sole purpose was to embarrass the customer and encourage the neighbor to personally bring a phone note to the neighbor to deliver the messages for us."

The BofA bank workers who shared their stories all acknowledged they felt as though the practices like the ones described above were unethical. But one should not underestimate how powerful the pressure to "sell, sell, sell" can be when it comes from a person of authority, like one's manager--or an entire institution (like Bank of America). Without any real whistleblower protections, most workers are too afraid to speak up for fearing of losing their job--something no one supporting themselves in this dismal economy can afford to chance.

SEIU, U.S. PIRG and the National Association of Consumer Advocates have outlined new protections to ensure front-line bank workers can speak out and create a financial industry that puts consumers and the health of our overall economy ahead of quick profits for bank executives. Read them here. "It's clear that big bank executives and the U.S. Chamber will stop at nothing to stand in the way of real solutions for our economy," says Anna Burger. "That's why it's more important than ever that bank workers be a part of any financial reform package."

There are two storylines that Bank of America has been pushing about its decision to go through with the Merrill Lynch acquisition, even after it became clear that Merrill was facing billions in losses. The first paints Bank of America as a martyr that decided to bite the bullet and go through with the deal in order to save the broader economy from collapse. The second is that BofA was forced into a shotgun wedding by federal regulators. But recently released emails from Federal Reserve officials raise questions about both of these stories.

As for the notion that BofA returned to the taxpayer trough for a second serving of bailout funds in order to save Merrill and prevent a larger financial catastrophe... According to the Washington Post, the Fed's internal emails show that "the government did not just move to rescue the Merrill Lynch acquisition -- officials also needed to rescue Bank of America," whose "own health still was in a downward spiral. Regulators calculated more than half the decline in Bank of America's capital reserves was the result of internal problems..."

Far from being Merrill's heroic savior, these events raise the question: Did BofA use Merrill as a crutch to garner public sympathy for another taxpayer handout? Or perhaps something even more cynical. The Washington Post reports that when BofA CEO Ken Lewis testified before a Congressional committee on June 11th, "Democrats pressed Lewis to acknowledge he had threatened to leave a major investment bank to a grim fate as a gambit to get public money" (more on that below).

Which brings us back to that second storyline -- the shotgun wedding.

Ahead of Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis' testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we put together the top ten questions that employees, consumers, taxpayers and shareholders would like reporters and legislators to ask Ken Lewis.

"SEIU hopes members of the Committee are as tough on Ken Lewis as we would be if we could get him under oath and the bright lights," said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.

Here are the top 10 questions to ask Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis:

1. How can you commit to pay for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo's legal defense--"a million a month" according to Bloomberg--while Bank of America announced layoffs for 35,000 employees and refuses cost-of-living raises for its lowest-wage workers?


2. Why do you nickel and dime your lowest paid workers (tellers earn $10.50/hour without access to affordable health insurance) at the same time you shower lavish perks and deals for executives and traders?


3. As Bank of America employees speak out about unpaid overtime and a predatory sales culture, what do you plan to do to improve employment practices?


4. 4. Given dismal economic performance, low-staff morale, and a core business model of pushing debt on consumers, what has Bank of America done to meet its stated goal of being "the world's most admired company?"


5. After reportedly receiving tax breaks, and more than $195 billion in bailouts, government guarantees, and taxpayer-funded healthcare for its workers, what is Bank of America's plan to reduce its dependence on the U.S. taxpayer?


6. After being bailed out by hard-working taxpayers facing the toughest economic times since the Great Depression, do you think it's right for Bank of America to lobby against laws that would helps working families--like the Employee Free Choice Act, healthcare reform, and credit card reform?


7. As you argue against any laws that would create greater transparency in the industry, could you tell us what other calamities on your books you are hiding? First it was the Merrill Lynch deal--what's the next shoe to drop?


8. During your time as CEO, at what point did cutting costs and gouging customers with unnecessary products and skyrocketing fees become more important than customer satisfaction?


9. At a time when people are struggling, have you considered lowering banking and overdraft fees that are already higher than many other non-bailed-out banks?


10. Why do you create incentives for Bank of America employees to push further debt on customers?

"Ken Lewis was at the center of Bank of America's disastrous 'bigger at any cost' model of banking," said SEIU Secretary Treasurer Anna Burger. "Today, as Bank of America stock prices have dropped by more 90 percent and after the bank received access for up to $195 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, workers, consumers and taxpayers are footing the bill for Ken Lewis' failed gamble."

"Now, Bank of America workers have started speaking out and demanding change. Enough is enough. It's time for Bank of America and Ken Lewis to do what's right and spell out steps to become a partner for America's families instead of a toxic asset."

Tomorrow, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis will face tough questioning in his testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at 10:00 a.m.

He'll be asked about his role in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, the excessive bonuses paid to Merrill executives and the billions that taxpayers have provided to bail out the country from the deep losses and economic damage Bank of America's decisions caused. This will be Lewis' first trip to Capitol Hill since Bank of America failed the federal government's stress tests and a coalition led by SEIU delivered nearly 100,000 "Taxpayer Proxies" demanding that the Bank fire Ken Lewis.

Tomorrow, will Ken Lewis....

a) Apologize for his bank's role in bringing down the economy?
b) Commit to transparency and real financial reform?
c) Commit to ending consumer abuses like exorbitant overdraft fees, predatory financial practices, and the bank's irresponsible lending and acquisitions?
d) Commit to providing affordable healthcare for all employees?
e) Stop lobbying against solutions--such as banking reform and pro-worker legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act--that would give bank workers a voice on the job, protect consumers, end corporate excess, and finally build an economy that works for everyone?

We'll hopefully find out the answers to these questions after tomorrow's testimony. In the meantime, let us know your thoughts---do you think Ken Lewis will do the right thing in in his testimony and commit himself/Bank of America to being a partner (instead of a toxic asset) in rebuilding our economy?

Yesterday SEIU launched an online campaign asking senators to stand with working people, not greedy CEOs, on the Employee Free Choice Act.  The Huffington Post wrote of our campaign:

One of the nation's largest unions is making a significant ad purchase targeting four Democrats and one Republican Senator on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Targeting Democratic Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Jim Webb of Virginia, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, as well as Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, the message is at once effective and sharp: To oppose the labor-backed legislation would be to side with the institutions that create the current economic malaise.

In addition to putting out the four web videos, the SEIU is also launching email campaigns targeting the five senators, with much the same message and aim.
The email campaign mirrored the below message sent to our Arkansas activists; you can see all the ads below.

Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, stand with Arkansas' working people, not greedy CEOs

Arkansas

Louisiana

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Yesterday's federal government stress test results confirmed what concerned shareholders, taxpayers and bank employees have been saying all along--that Bank of America is failing taxpayers and our economy. In a statement, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger said this:

Bank of America is a sinking ship that needs more than just a change in captain to address fundamentally unsustainable and irresponsible business practices that are bad for consumers, bad for employees and dangerous for our larger economy.

Bank of America has already received $45 billion in TARP funds and now taxpayers could be on the hook for $33.9 billion, plus another $150 billion in guarantees to bailout the bank for its own bad behavior. Instead of cleaning house and finding substantive means to reform a business model that was already in the red, Bank of America gobbled up other financial institutions and continued to payout $5.2 million in bonuses. This is not smart economics.

The decision by the House yesterday (which the White House announced support for today) to vote for an independent commission to investigate the causes of the financial crisis is a significant win for the cause of accountability and reform on Wall Street and in the banking industry. However, as an institution at the frontlines of the financial structure that is about to bailed out by American taxpayers for a second time, it is time for Bank of America to do what's right and take responsibility for the damage it has caused.

We've already sent a letter to new Bank of America CEO Dr. Walter Massey, outlining the key principles of reform the bank needs to tackle, while engaging with taxpayers and Bank of America employees in solutions that will restore public confidence in the bank, ensure workers have a voice to protect consumers, and create an economy that works for everyone again. "After failing our economy, it is time taxpayers have a greater say in banking reform and for Bank of America to be a partner instead of a toxic asset as we work to create real solutions to the banking crisis," says Burger.

Next steps for Bank of America: http://action.seiu.org/page/s/masseyletter

2:05: Ken Lewis adjourned the meeting. Four hours long. Wow, one hell of a meeting!

2:02: A shareholder pointed out that many shareholders were not able to get into the hall where the meeting is being held because of the large number of associates that were in there. He asked Ken Lewis or "any future CEO" to make sure there is ample room for anyone so that shareholders don't miss out on the meeting.

2:00: A shareholder asked if the bank had any idea when the vote results would be released. BofA responded that it would be as soon as possible, and likely some time today.

1:49: The bank has mentioned the rebranding of Countrywide a few times now. Countrywide is now "Bank of America Home Loans". I look forward to seeing if they change more than just the name. Countrywide, after all, was investigated by the FBI, the U.S. Justice Department, and multiple state attorney general offices in 2008 for predatory lending and securities fraud, and has become the poster child for the subprime crisis.

1:36: Amy from Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is slamming BofA for recently having financed five companies that participate in mountaintop coal removal. She also points out that while the bank recently adopted a policy on mountaintop coal removal last year, RAN is concerned with the way the bank is interpreting the policy.

1:30: Several shareholders have commented on BofA's environmental policies. A North Carolina woman just asked the bank to reconsider financing a coal-fired bank that is slated to open in her county. Rainforest Action Network has taken the bank on for its environmental policies and was part of the coalition around yesterday's national taxpayer day of action.

1:27: A shareholder commented about being hit by BofA's high fees. Seems like shareholders are feeling the pain just like the millions of working families who are customers of the bank.

1:15: A shareholder asks Lewis to quantify, on a scale of one through ten, the likelihood of additional shareholder dilution this year. Lewis says he cannot do so and points to the government's stress tests for guidance. Well, the Wall Street Journal yesterday reported that preliminary stress test results indicate a multi-billion dollar capital shortfall at the bank. Analysts say the shortfall could be up to $70 billion.

1:05: And as for vote results... because of the large volume of the votes cast, the company is unable to announce final vote results. Results will be announced in a press release once they become available. The floor is now open for questions.

1:04: Lewis thanks everyone and tries to wrap things up on a warm and fuzzy note.

12:57: Lewis says that as the nation's largest bank, there is "little difference" between BofA shareholders' interests and the country's interests. True, given that the country's taxpayers are the bank's largest shareholders. But what if the stress tests show that it is in the country's interest to give the government a controlling stake in the bank? Will Lewis and the bank's other private shareholders still happily go along with the country's best interest?

12:50: Ken Lewis assures us that the decision to go through with the Merrill deal even as the company revealed losses that wiped out the last ten years' profits at the firm "was not about a selfish desire to keep our jobs."

12:45: Joe Price financial presentation is over. Ken Lewis is up now.

12:44: BofA's projection of the bank's "potential net income" relies on Countrywide profits from 2003, Merrill Lynch profits from 2004, and the bank's own profits from 2005. Is it realistic to say that profits from four to six years ago, before the economic bust, can tell us anything useful about the taxpayer-dependent company going forward in a recession?

12:31: Joe Price talks about the bank's three franchise strengths: earnings, liquidity, & capital. Earnings, which were propped up this quarter by accounting tricks; liquidity, which is elusive in the current environment; and capital, of which the bank is facing a multi-billion dollar shortfall. These are your core strengths?

12:25: Polls are closed, concluding the official business of the meeting. CFO Joe Price is now presenting on the company's financials.

12:23: Lewis clarifies that he only made $1.5 million last year, no bonus. One shareholder suggests that he donate his $1.5 million to local schools in Charlotte.

12:18: Evelyn Davis is back up making the argument that if we don't pay executives enough, then they will pick up and go somewhere else. Well, would that really be the worst thing in the world? These guys have crashed the economy. Frankly, I'd be happy to see the likes of Ken Lewis go.

12:13: The Indiana Laborers Pension Fund also has a proposal on executive compensation. Another shareholder is asking Lewis detailed questions about his own 2008 bonus. Lewis cuts her off and testily says, "the board recommends a vote against this proposal."

12:08: The AFL-CIO Reserve Fund had a resolution asking BofA to sign onto principles endorsing healthcare reform. She pointed out that even though BofA argues that this is beyond the company's purview, other major companies like American Express and Goldman Sachs have already endorsed similar principles. True to form, "the board recommends a vote against this proposal."

12:03: Moving onto a shareholder proposal around predatory credit card lending practices. A representative from the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina (CRA-NC) presenting the proposal. He pointed to a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial saying that the current business model is to try to trap customers into a cycle of debt where they can't pay it back. He said this is by definition predatory, and it is also bad for the bank. Makes sense to me--after all, aren't unsustainable debt levels a key culprit in the current economic crisis? And, of course, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:58: A shareholder asks that Lewis explain himself in saying why the board recommends voting against all of these proposals, instead of just decreeing it from above. She also asks if the board's recommendation was unanimous on all of these issues.

11:54: Presenting on a proposal that requires BofA board to appoint an independent Chairman of the Board of Directors. "Mr. Lewis, Mr. Sloan, and our entire board of directors betrayed the trust and the confidence placed in you by the owenrs of the company...The board needs to make some changes that will bring true independence back into the board room." Lewis' response: "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:52: Michael Garland from CtW Investment Group, presenting on a proposal giving major shareholders the right to call special shareholder meetings: "The vote against you may be the highest vote ever against a sitting CEO" at one of the nation's top companies. Ouch. Again, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:48: Bill Patterson from CtW Investment Group presented on an advisory proposal on executive compensation. He pointed out that the significant vote at this meeting against the current board has been fueled by the $3.6 billion Merrill Lynch bonuses, and BofA management's "significant role" in structuring those bonuses, despite initial denials. Lewis responded, "The board recommends a vote against the proposal."

11:40: A shareholder says that if people aren't happy with their investments in BofA, they should move on and take their money out of the bank. Hello?! We can't. Taxpayers are the largest shareholder in the bank and we can't pull our money out until BofA turns this ship around.

11:30: Shareholder Mrs. Evelyn Davis: "Countrywide is our toxic asset and we have to get rid of them."

11:23: Shareholder Francis Murray, a banker who owns some 66,000 shares, suggests a novel idea of "cost control" for the board. Specifically, he asked why Director Gifford spent $1 million of BofA money using the corporate jet. Lewis responded that Gifford could not be here today. What, couldn't get the corporate jet to fly him out? Lewis went on to say that they try to keep board compensation on par with other major companies. Do other major companies have taxpayers on the hook for up to $200 billion?

11:12: A shareholder asks, "If we don't have Ken, who do we have?" Um, someone else--anyone else--who hasn't cost the bank 75% of its shareholder value over the last year? Someone who hasn't made disastrous decisions that have left taxpayers on the hook for up to $200 billion. Hell, I know many people who are in the hunt for a job these days!

11:05: After an hourlong grilling session, Lewis sounds like he finally might be getting ready cut the discussion so that they can move on to the business at hand. Yeah, because responding to your shareholders questions about your performance isn't business to big bank CEOs.

10:59: A shareholder probed Lewis about a December email to the BofA board suggesting that they did not want public disclosure around Merrill's losses and possible government assistance for the bank. Lewis shot back that he can't say more because of all the shareholder lawsuits against the company. His exact words: "If you'd like to know more, withdraw your lawsuit." The shareholder responded that he hadn't filed any lawsuits against the company.

10:52: Yet another shareholder (sorry for not being able to keep track of names, folks) asked Ken Lewis to shed light on the stress tests and the rumors that BofA may have to be nationalized. Ken Lewis' response to the appeal for more information? To ask for the next question.

10:49: Another shareholder is asking, "What happened to due diligence" when it came to Merrill Lynch? The response from the bank: they had not anticipated the credit meltdown that happened in the fourth quarter. Even as Lehman was collapsing and rumors were swirling around WaMu and Wachovia, BofA could not anticipate the credit meltdown? Even after the meltdown was already in full swing, they could not anticipate it? If BofA can't "anticipate" something that is already happening, then the problem goes way beyond due diligence.

10:47: A shareholder just told Ken Lewis, "Your decisions are responsible for our insolvency... Good sir, your system has failed and the time has to come to move on." He also suggests bringing back Glass-Steagall, which separated commercial and investment banking, that was gutted in 1999. A wise idea, to say the least.

10:41: A shareholder is asking the board how it can ask to keep its job if it doesn't have the guts to say no to the government. A director responded that they didn't make their decision based on the government's threat against their jobs, and that the shareholder had her facts wrong. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation suggests otherwise.

10:27: Bill Patterson from the CtW Investment Group asked if BofA would separate the votes actually cast by shareholders from those that brokers cast on shareholders' behalf without shareholder input (so-called "broker non-votes") in announcing a final tally, especially because the SEC may change rules on this questionable practice early next year. The Charlotte Observer had a great story on this earlier this week. A BofA director responded that they intended to count these votes anyway, which a corporate governance expert from Yale says is like "legalized ballot stuffing."

10:25: Ken Lewis said the bank intends to repay TARP funds and is working with regulators to do so. Really, Ken? Because the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that BofA faces a capital shortfall of billions of dollars. An analyst puts the shortfall at up to $70 billion, and a Financial Times story today notes that BofA is even considering converting the government's preferred stock to common stock, a move that could be seen as a first step towards receivership. So really, is it completely realistic to say that you can pay the funds back soon?

10:20: A shareholder of 26 years is giving a spiel about how Ken Lewis has her full confidence and his detractors need to give the mergers more time because all the mergers in the past have always worked themselves out. Well, have they? Of course experts say that it was CEO Ken Lewis' appetite for empire-building itself that got him into this mess, so all those mergers that 'worked out' have brought us where we are today. The bank is weighed down with LaSalle's commercial loans, Countrywide's mortgage loans, and Merrill's toxic assets.

I'll be liveblogging Bank of America's annual shareholder meeting starting at 10am EST. Stay tuned here for commentary and analysis on the meeting in which Ken Lewis' fate at Bank of America will be decided by shareholders. We are following on the live webcast on BofA's website.

How is Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis feeling a day before shareholders vote on whether or not he gets to keep his job? Stressed out, apparently. A Wall Street Journal story today reports that preliminary results of the Treasury's 'stress tests' of the major banks show that BofA may need to raise "billions of dollars." An analyst at FBR Group, a DC-area financial firm, projects that BofA's capital shortfall could be up to $70 billion.

The official stress test results don't come out until next week, but if BofA fails, the government may have to pour tens of billions more into the bank. Ken Lewis' mismanagement of the bank already has taxpayers on the hook for up to $199.2 billion.

It is time for CEO Ken Lewis to go. Click here to sign your taxpayer proxy card demanding that Lewis be fired and we will make sure it's delivered to Bank of America tomorrow.

Bank of America just won't stop.

The New York Post reports this morning that in just the first few months of 2009, Bank of America added 15,000 jobs to its workforce in India. This is after Bank of America cut 34,000 jobs in the US, and pledged to cut 35,000 more.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis just doesn't get it. It's time for taxpayers to call for him to go.

More than 20,000 people have already signed "taxpayer proxy cards" asking for CEO Ken Lewis to be fired and to reform Bank of America. Can you help us reach 30,000 in the next 48 hours?

Click here to sign your "taxpayer proxy card" - we'll deliver them to Bank of America during its annual meeting on Wednesday.

When CEO Ken Lewis was asked about the nearly 35,000 announced job cuts, he showed little care for his employees:

"I feel bad about firing people, but at least I have the courage to do it."

This is the same Ken Lewis who took home $35 million in compensation in the last two years, and the same Bank of America that may receive up to $199.2 billion in taxpayer dollars.

You'd think they'd have some semblance of responsibility to the American public. After all, it's our government's money that's helping keep Bank of America alive.

Think again.

Help us reach 30,000 "taxpayer proxy cards." Click here to sign yours we'll make sure it's delivered to Bank of America on Wednesday.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis is apparently only interested in his personal bottom line, and not that off his company, his employees, or his investors. It's time for him to go.

Thanks for all you do - and please pass this message on to your friends to help us reach our goal.

Visit http://takebacktheeconomy.org/ to join our April 28th actions across the country and find an event in your area.