AFL & AFR Meeting re: Wells Fargo Attendees: Heather Slavkin (AFL), Sarah Jones (AAJ), Mina (Jobs with Justice), Sandy (CWA), Theresa (CWA), Molly, Julie & Ed (Center for Strategic Research), Bart (PC), Amanda Werner (AFR & PC), Kurt (Rootstrikers), Steven (Committee for Better Banks), Lisa Donner & Brian Marshall (AFR), Chuck Lovelace (Consultant with MBG & AAJ), Ed (PIRG), Lisa Gilbert (PC), Damon Silvers (AFL), Phil (Good Jobs First) Theresa: Bank worker organizing campaign with Committee for Better Banks to build base of workers who can fight alongside advocacy groups Working on this since 2013. Three transformative demands from bank workers: end to abusive sales goals, increase wages of bank workers, stable, full-time jobs Sales goals created toxic environment where they were always under threat of being fired 2013/2014 decided they would go all in on sales goals, start organizing in local communities and raise the profile Did shareholders meetings where workers would deliver letters on this issue Did survey in 2015 of all workers in the committee and others about sales goals with National Employment Law Project --> report called Banking on the Hard Sell Bart: I thought Wells Fargo was the worst actor. Others do this? Theresa: Yes, most banks (including big five) use these kinds of sales goals Sandy: Though we did first start focusing on Wells with our petitions and sending letter to Stumpf requesting a meeting and telling him he had a problem Steven: Bank of America workers told Elizabeth Warren a few years ago about being told to go to McDonalds with food stamps, etc. Theresa: Did Congressional briefing with Rep. Ellison with workers from four different banks that spoke about sales quotas, elevated the issue on the Hill Then went to CFPB and OCC to raise the issue again. It was just a month later that the first enforcement action against Santander came out, and part of that enforcement action included ending abusive sales goals. That was the first, and now Wells Fargo. Throughout all of that, we have been able to put workers forward as the voices that brought this to light. One of our leaders was on the front page of the NYT and WaPo weekend after first hearing and in American Banker, where they quoted from NELP report that having a union could help stem consumer harm. We have had to add more digital organizers to deal with huge influx of bank workers coming to us. Sandy: Yesterday, with Ellison op-ed in Daily Beast, it really kicked off the union conversation. Theresa: With all of that, we had many people calling us to work with them on many issues. Narrowed down to five areas to focus on: 1) organizing: digital, field, network of Wells Fargo workers led by more experienced leaders, 2) seat at the table at upcoming listening sessions at WF with workers, 3) press - have whole team of WF workers now trained and prepped to do this, also trying to expand this beyond WF to include other banks 4) legislative - originally planned to get one city ordinance in LA expanded to say city would not bank with banks that have sales goals - now, we think it could actually pass - working with Local Progress to get 10 cities to do something similar - now also have huge engagement with Ellison, Waters, Cummings 5) legal - several class actions out there, trying to ID ones that are friendly law firms to have our workers join those or ID what states we could work with a firm to do our own Sandy: DOJ now looking for workers retaliated against for whistleblowing. Also looking for three good stories on that, each from different bank Ed of Strategic Research: focused on foreign banks in our research right now. It would be great to have this resonate into Santander and think about which bank is next that we will really dig in on. Santander has auto finance company deep into regulatory issues and financing, which could lead to debt collection issues as well Damon: This situation resembles robosigning scandals, with both civil and criminal implications. Talked to Warren somewhat about this. Depending on who knew what when, there are oceans of liability here. Some of which can be purused by private parties, others by DOJ, SEC, attorneys general, etc. Lots of powerful folks who won't want to work on this, but we need to get the heat on them to take action here. Should think about doing this on House side as well as Senate side. On policy side, this set of questions moves immediately to Glass-Steagal and breaking up banks. This is exactly what we have been warning would happen. All of this leads someplace, and that is important in terms of organizing agenda. We have some links to WF board room. WF has lead independnt director, who did not expect to do this. Independent directors are terrified about what to do. Personal liability, criminal liability, worried about political/career ambitions So there is good chance that Stumpf will be ousted and someone will be put in with mandate to clean this up. This is an opportunity to try to bring these issues of labor relations to the fore. Many powerful people engaged here who understand this for the first time ever. Warren needs full briefing on this. We may have organizing opportunity here of epic proportions if we move smart. Amanda: Focusing on CFPB arbitration rule, media narrative around Sarah: Also working on this. With our network of attorneys, we are working very hard to shift focus from CFPB to employees being subjected to this. Stumpf said yesterday he would not stop using arbitration. Chuck: Attorney in LA has brought a claim on behalf of workers, need focus on these people. Judiciary committee: Grassley concerned about whistle blowers, need to think through moving this from banking committee Kurt: Focus on online activism in defense of Dodd-Frank and financial regulations. We have been focused on Hensarling's bad timing on Choice Act. Would like to know where to focus things since we have so many angles here Bart: Filed two shareholder resolutions. Put out report yesterday showing they have had Madoff-level success with per-consumer account creation for 17 years. Pursuing three legal theories. Mrs. Mitch McConnell is on board of WF. Ed PIRG: Using this as opportunity primarily to develop longstanding defense of CFPB. Collected 9,000 petitions to SEC and FED, as well as WF board. If others have petitions, CalPIRG would be happy to coordinate San Francisco drop. Developing other tactics moving forward. What else can we do using consumer complaint database? We have been publishing reports pulling from the database. Lisa G: New PC report shows that WF cross-selling problem goes back at least 15 years. We put out graphics and other info yesterday Bart: Also calling for resignation of comp. board and risk board. Steven: Folks probably say CA Treasurer cut off business with Wells Fargo, so also looking for other opportunities to have people cut off business Also interested in possible RICO suit against bank. Damon: There is a shareholder mobilization going on, customer mobilization. We need to define some demands. This is something we need to coordinate very carefully. RICO can be difficult to bring, but here you have question of extortion. At some point in this process, WF knew that they were extorting illegal behavior from employees. Maybe didn't know at beginning, but at some point. Definitely on civil side, but also maybe DOJ or state AGs We need to ensure these issues are figured out and handed over to DOJ, AGs, CA legislature. We need to pull all this together. Brian: CFPB and OCC also have some authority here. WF needs to propose monitor and CFPB must accept. That is an opportunity for us to weigh in. We need to ensure monitor and regional director is fully informed on worker issues. Second part of this is as the organizing develops at the other banks, there is a huge amount of interest that can be generated through pitch meetings at CFPB and OCC for further enforcement. Public committments by both to increase supervisory focus on this. Phil: Updating our violation tracker. WF only second to B of A. Have subsidy tracker database showing WF's federal assistance, including bailout info. Violation tracker shows bad behavior at WF is not anomaly and contradict what Stumpf is saying. Lisa D: There is rule mid-writing on exec. compensation that involves clawbacks and other issues. This is opportunity to make that much stronger. Next steps: on legal liability, we should catalogue list of leverage folks need to pull, then go back and prioritize/decide where best places to push each piece of that based on where people have relationships. Steven: How do we have one big list to track and stay coordinated? Lisa D: AFR will create Google doc and work at finding parent to coordinate this project. Steven: Other people that aren't here that might be deep in the weeds that we should work with? Sandy: Would be helpful to have some way where we lead people to cases, and they help us lead people in the long run on the organizing side. Chuck: Congress is gone. How do we keep this front and center? Damon: Is there a relatively up to date compendium of what is known? Lisa D: We have a bit of a timeline. What else do folks have? Steven: CWA has two pager on question of if they knew. Damon: Would be useful to have a room and 4-5 hours with as much of the facts that can be accumulated in one piece of paper by folks who have legal skills who can go through press and hearings and get factual record clear. Then have lawyers put together compendium of possible claims. Then it would be possible for various people to go to regulatory actors, legislators, etc. and give them info to act from. I did this previously on robosigning issue. If someone can lead this exercise, I'd be happy to put staff time behind it. Maybe CWA? This would up our game dramatically. Lisa D: Figuring out relevant legal facts would encourage some initial conversations with regulators, legislators, in order to figure out what they need. My suggestion on proceeding is that this group should reassemble pretty soon to figure out who has what resources to throw at. Damon: Anyone have money to throw behind this? Would be helpful to hire Beth Young to lead this war room - solo practitioner securities lawyer in NY. She is very thorough and knows this landscape. Worked on WalMart bribery piece. If not her, someone. Steven: Need human being focused on this. Damon: Could hire Beth for something like 10K. Not a huge amount. Theresa: Who appoints monitor for WF. Brian: For CFPB, WF must propose monitor within 45 days. Monitor is to assist in determining compliance with consent order. Regional director at CFPB in SF must approve their selection. We could set up meetings and say whether we think their proposed monitor is good or not. One possible demand is asking CFPB to reject monitor, to give us more attention on this. Theresa: Is it appropriate to go to regional director before with WF workers to introduce ourselves and ask them to keep us informed? Brian: I started that process a little bit by getting commitment on call with consumer groups that they would communicate with us on the issue. Biggest problem with many of these conversations is that they don't want to be HR dept. I would monitor what is happening and work from there to influence that process. Steven: Institutional investors could also say to the board that the company is in danger of criminal indictment. Other big question for us how do we capture this momentum for Santander?