October 11, 2012

Testimony of Sally Greenberg, Executive Director, National Consumers League, regarding the Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 2011 Bill 19-0581 (2011).
Committee on Public Services & Consumer Affairs
Chairperson Yvette Alexander
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 6
Washington, DC  20004

Dear Chairperson Alexander:

The National Consumers League submits the following statement in support of the Act.

Statement of Interest

The National Consumers League (“NCL”), founded in 1899, is the nation’s oldest consumer organization.  The mission of the NCL is to promote fairness and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad.    The NCL is a non-profit advocacy group which provides government, businesses, and other organizations with the individual’s perspective on concerns including, inter alia, child labor, workers rights, and other work place issues.  The NCL appears before legislatures, administrative agencies, and the courts across the country, advocating the enactment and vigorous enforcement of laws that effectively protect consumers and employees.  The NCL also educates the public in ways to avoid fraud in the marketplace through its National Fraud Center and seeks to increase awareness of and mobilize public resistance to unsavory, anti-consumer behavior.  For more than 100 years the NCL has worked to promote a fair marketplace for workers and consumers.  This was the reason for the NCL’s founding in 1899 and still guides it into its second century.

The Existing Enforcement Structure

Under the existing enforcement structure, consumer protection is provided by three types of entities:

1)         the Office of the Attorney General, 

2)         the private bar, and

3)         public interest organizations.

Note, the consumer protection enforcement authority and budget of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) has been suspended since 1994 as a cost-saving measure.

Shortfalls in the Existing System

The NCL believes the following are shortcomings in the existing system for consumer protection enforcement which supports the passage The Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 2011:

• Suspension of DCRA’s authority removed an important mechanism for halting unlawful trade practices,
• The Consumer Fund §28-3911 (Act 19-98, § 9003(a)) in 2011 which received monies from private and public enforcement actions for future enforcement actions by the OAG, was eliminated.
• The D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Grayson v. AT&T Corp.[1] prevents nonprofit organizations without traditional Article III standing from bringing suit on behalf of the general public to halt the continued use of unlawful trade practices, leaving a gap in enforcement which previously existed from the 2000 Amendments.
• There is no regulation governing unit pricing in retail stores, leaving consumers without sufficient information to make informed purchases

Introduction

The Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 2011[2] is designed to strengthen protections given to consumers through the creation of additional illegal trade practices, the granting of standing to nonprofit organizations (without traditional Article III standing) to act on behalf of the general public, and the introduction of unit pricing.

Brief History of Consumer Enforcement in the District of Columbia

The DCRA Office of Compliance was established by statute in 1976 as the District’s “principal consumer protection agency.”[3]

The D.C. Council suspended DCRA enforcement of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act in 1994.[4] This was renewed in 1998[5] and 2000.[6] As of 2010, the DCRA’s Office of Consumer Protection has been discontinued due to these budgetary shortfalls.  The NCL believes that the long-term deprivation of enforcement resources from the DCRA, coupled with the elimination of the Consumer Fund, has financially impacted public enforcement of consumer protection laws.  As a result of this budgetary suspension, the CPPA is mainly enforced through private actions once a consumer has already suffered some type of injury.  This has left consumers with private remedial actions as their only recourse.  Without any significant proactive enforcement, consumers are largely left without protections from illegal trade practices until it is too late.

The private enforcement mechanism currently in place has many shortfalls that do not adequately protect consumers and is not a substitute for DCRA or OAG enforcement.  The current system does not allow consumers to pursue injunctive relief from practices that are ongoing but have not resulted in injury yet or from practices that have harmed others but not the plaintiff.  The Court of Appeals’ decision in Grayson established that the only persons that can bring suit to halt illegal trade practices are those who have already suffered an injury-in-fact.

Standing for Nonprofit Organizations

The D.C. Council passed the Consumer Protection Act of 2000, which included an amendment to the CPPA to allow public interest organizations and the private bar to bring suit for injunctive relief and disgorgement of illegal proceeds in the public interest.  Despite the clear language of the statute, and its legislative history, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Grayson held that the amendment did not reveal an explicit intent of the D.C. Council to eliminate the requirement that the plaintiff suffer an injury-in-fact to enjoy standing to bring a claim.  The court examined the legislative and drafting history of the amendments and determined that the D.C. Council did not clearly signal its intent to overturn the prudential standing requirements the Court had previously adopted.  This bill clearly seeks to provide such clarity.

The amendment to section 3905(k)(1)(B) and (C) here expresses the clear intent of the Council to grant nonprofit organizations standing under the CPPA without the need to suffer an injury-in-fact to itself or its members and to legislatively and partially overrule Grayson.  This is a necessary step because budget cuts have left the CPPA with diminished funding for government enforcement.  This amendment seeks to fill that void by authorizing nonprofits groups to pursue cases that normally would be prosecuted by the DCRA or OAG.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the National Consumers League (NCL) bringing suit as a private attorney general on behalf of the general public did not have Article III standing when it could not allege an individualized injury to itself or when it lacked organizational standing.[7] While the case was remanded back to D.C. Superior Court where standing was initially found, Grayson later mandated the suit’s dismissal prior to a resolution on the merits.

This stands in sharp contrast to a matter NCL prosecuted and resolved prior to the Court of Appeals’ issuance of Grayson. The NCL, brought suit on behalf of the general public against Kellogg Company for false advertising in relation to allegedly false health claims made on its cereal boxes.[8] This litigation resulted in a settlement agreement whereby Kellogg donated $200,000 to food based charities and programs and 8,000 cases of cereal (or approximately 100,000 boxes) to local D.C. food banks and charities.[9] In Ward 7 alone, this settlement benefited the following charities with food initiatives: Nehemiah’s Food Pantry, First National Baptist Church, Incarnation Church St. Vincent; Pennsylvania Baptist Church and Food & Clothing Center of Ward 7.  Actions like this demonstrate the beneficial nature of permitting private attorney general claims to be prosecuted by nonprofit organizations.

This amendment explicitly allows suits brought by nonprofit organizations, when acting as private attorneys general, to proceed in D.C. Superior Court and provide necessary protections to the District’s consumers.  Section 3901(a)(14) defines nonprofit organizations in relation to federal nonprofit law under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c).  Other D.C. law regarding nonprofits reference federal law and there is no definition of nonprofits under the D.C. Code.[10] This ensures that the organizations allowed to bring suit without an injury-in-fact are doing so for the public benefit.

Clarifying the Definition of Consumer and Consumer Goods or Services

The amendment clarifies the definition of consumer when used as an adjective and brings it in line with the definition of consumer under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.[11] That act similarly defines a consumer product as “any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes.”[12] Thus, the change seeks to include property that is not used exclusively for personal, family, or household purposes.  This eliminates the unintended consequence that consumer goods or services, which are typically used for consumer purposes, could fail to qualify for protections under the CPPA because of use for commercial purposes.

Additions to Unlawful Trade Practices

There are several proposed additions to section 3904 that are designed to provide improved protections for consumers against unscrupulous business practices:

“(f-1) Use innuendo or ambiguity as to a materials fact, which has a tendency to mislead”

Section 3904(f-1) prohibits the willful use in written representations of falsehood, innuendo, or ambiguity as to a material fact.  This language is borrowed from the Kansas Consumer Protection Act[13] and is similar to the Hawai’i Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.[14] This prevents businesses from mischaracterizing their goods or services and preying on consumers who are expecting to receive something different.  Kansas courts clarify that the intent needed is intent to engage in the act, not intent to violate the statute.[15]

Representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law”

Section 3904(r)(6) adds an additional factor for courts to consider in determining whether a term or provision is unconscionable.  This language is similar to language found in the consumer protection statutes of Alaska,[16] California,[17] Tennessee,[18] Texas,[19] and Guam.[20] This strengthens consumers’ ability to receive the benefit of the bargain and disincentivizes merchants from attempting to trick consumers into believing they are going to receive something different than they are providing.  It also prevents merchants from including terms that cannot come into effect because they are prohibited by law.  Taken together, this subsection allows courts to police transactions to determine whether the merchant represented that the deal contained terms that will not take effect.

“(ii) Engage in any unfair business act or practice, which occurs when the practice:

(1) Offends established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, and the practice is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers; or (2) Threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.”

Section 3904(ff) prohibits merchants from engaging in unfair acts or practices, which are defined as occurring in two circumstances.  Subsection (1) prohibits acts that offend established public policy, or are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.  This language originates with an FTC rule prohibiting certain advertisements that neither violate laws nor are deceptive but nonetheless are unfair.[21] The language has been adopted by courts in analyzing consumer statutes in Hawaii,[22] Louisiana,[23] Massachusetts,[24] and North Carolina[25] as a way to define an unfair trade practices.  Oklahoma uses the phrase to statutorily define an unfair trade practice.[26] The proposed bill also contains a provision that these prohibited practices must not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers.  This produces a balancing effect in which only those practices that have an ultimate negative impact on consumers are prohibited.[27]

Subsection (2) polices unfair competition amongst merchants because of the negative impact they have on consumers.  This subsection also applies to practices that otherwise significantly harm or threaten to harm competition.  Taken together, these practices harm consumers by undermining competitive markets.  This language originated in California case law that interpreted the state’s Unfair Competition Law.[28]

Unit Pricing

Unit pricing provides the price of goods based on cost per unit of measure.  It is calculated by dividing the price of the product by an accepted unit of measurement depending on the type of product (e.g., grams, liters) and provides an intensive price.  The proposed language is based off a model act created by the National Conference of Weights and Measures and is supported by the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.[29] Three quarters of all grocery shoppers rely on unit pricing to make comparisons, according to the Food Marketing Institute, an industry trade association. It should be noted that many industry trade associations worked with NIST to create the model act.

As of August 2011, there are nineteen states and two territories that have adopted unit pricing.[30] This includes D.C.’s sister jurisdiction Maryland.[31] We have spoken with a member of the Division of Consumer Protection of Maryland’s Office of the Attorney General and found that there have been no enforcement actions within the state since its introduction of a similar law.  This demonstrates that unit pricing laws are easily implemented and compliance is easy to maintain.

Unit pricing allows customers to compare value between different brands, different sized packages, different package types, and different products.[32] It allows consumers to identify the best value and use one consistent measure to sort through various package sizes, brands, and substitute products.  It also provides an indicator of relative quality among different brands.  Unit pricing places the focus on the pricing of the product rather than the brand name.  It also reduces the need for excessive packaging that can prove deceptive.

Unit pricing also benefits retailers by promoting sales and private label products, which are often less costly than a brand name product, and helps reduce pricing errors.  With a uniform unit pricing system consumers can also compare prices of the same product between stores.  This will benefit businesses by providing a way to showcase that they have the lowest prices and best value.  Unit pricing is consistent with the goals of the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act that informed consumers are a crucial component of the market.[33] Unit pricing provides information to consumers that allow them to make a more educated purchase decision and promotes healthy competition among businesses.

Creating a uniform system for unit pricing eliminates inconsistencies that arise through voluntary use.  Many stores voluntarily provide unit pricing, but this is done in an inconsistent manner, including using different units of measurement for similar products or only selectively providing unit pricing for only certain brands in product category.  A survey done by NCL found that unit pricing is not done uniformly in D.C.[34] Among the seven stores surveyed that had voluntarily provide unit pricing, NCL found that each store had a different labeling system, there was wide variation in the units used, and many pricing calculations were incorrect.  This can mislead consumers when comparing products or if they compare prices between stores.  Instituting a uniform unit pricing system will eliminate this confusion by mandating consistent and accurate labels for all products and stores.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the NCL supports The Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 2011 and urges its passage.

________________

Sally Greenberg
Executive Director
National Consumers League 

---

[1] 15 A.3d 319 (D.C. 2011) (en banc).

[2] B19-581 (2011).

[3] D.C. Code § 28-3902(a) (2012).

[4] Multiyear Budget Spending Reduction and Support Emergency Act of 1994, Act 10-389, § 808, 42 D.C. Reg. 229-30 (Jan. 13, 1995).

[5] Consumer Protection Amendment Act of 1998, Act 12-399, § 1403 (suspending enforcement through 2000).

[6] Consumer Protection Act of 2000, Act 13-375, § 1402 (suspending enforcement through 2002).

[7] The Nat’l Consumers League v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 132, 134-36 (D.D.C. 2010).

[8] The Nat’l Consumers League v. Kellogg Company, No. 2009 CA005211 B (D.C. Super. Ct.)

[9] The allegedly false statements were also halted by other litigation.

[10] See, e.g., D.C. Code §§ 2-1210.01(7), 42-2801(8), 42-3601(1), 47-3505(a), 47-857.11(1), § 51-103(h).  The sections on incorporated nonprofits and unincorporated nonprofits associations do not contain a definition of a nonprofit.  See D.C. Code §§ 29-101.02, 29-1102(5).

[11] 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1) (2006).

[12] Id. The language also mirrors the U.C.C. definition of consumer goods, defined as “goods that are used or bought for use primarily for personal, household, or family purposes.”  D.C. Code § 28:9-102(a)(23).

[13] Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-626(b)(2).

[14] HRS § 481A–3(a)(12) (catchall clause stating that “any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” is a deceptive trade practice).

[15] York v. InTrust Bank, N.A., 962 P.2d 405, 421 (Kan. 1998).

[16] Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(14).

[17] Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(14)

[18] Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(12).

[19] Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.46(b)(12).

[20] 5 Guam Code Ann. § 32201(b)(12).

[21] 29 Fed. Reg. 8324, 8355 (July 2, 1964); see FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 244 n.5 (U.S. 1972).

[22] Balthazar v. Verizon Haw., Inc., 123 P.3d 194, 202 (Haw. 2005).

[23] Monroe Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 622 So.2d 760, 781 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

[24] Mass. Farm Bureau Fed’n, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Mass., Inc., 532 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Mass. 1989).

[25] John v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 266 S.E.2d 610, 621 (N.C. 1980).

[26] Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 752(14).

[27] Camacho v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770, 779 (Ct. App. 2006).

[28] Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A.Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 544 (Cal. 1999).

[29] National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Handbook 130:  Uniform Law and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality as Adopted by the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2011, at 135-40 (2012), available at https://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/2012-h130-final2.pdf.

[30] National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Handbook 130:  Uniform Law and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Engine Fuel Quality as Adopted by the 96th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2011, at 10-13 (2012), available at https://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/2012-h130-final2.pdf.

[31] Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-101 to -107.

[32] See Hans R. Isakson & Alex R. Maurizi, The Consumer Economics of Unit Pricing, 10 J. Marketing Res. 277 (1973); Vincent-Wayne Mitchell et al., Consumer Awareness, Understanding and Usage of Unit Pricing, 14 Brit. J. Mgmt. 173 (2003); Kent B. Monroe & Peter J. LaPlace, What Are the Benefits of Unit Pricing?, J. Marketing, July 1972, at 16.

[33] 15 U.S.C. § 1451 (2006).

[34] National Consumers League, The Case for Unit Pricing:  Benefits of Reliable, Standard Food Labeling.

October 5, 2012

I am very honored and humbled to accept the Florence Kelley Award tonight, an award that bears the name of such an important social justice advocate in the history of our country. What an incredible legacy she left for advocates like me to try to emulate.

I am also proud to be here on UMW evening. For all of you out there who are not familiar with what UMW stands for, it stands for United Methodist Women. I find it rather ironic that I am in this room with so many members of another UMW, the United Mine Workers of America.

My roots go deep into mining history in the state of West Virginia, where my father was born and raised in the company-owned coal camp of Hutchison.  Since the end of the Civil War my forefathers have worked for companies like Westmorland and lived in places like Winding Gulf, Brush Fork and Sand Lick.

As has been mentioned, Florence Kelley was the first General Secretary of National Consumers League and an amazing leader and organizer. Many people rallied around her to make her work a success.

Although this year’s Florence Kelley Award bears my name, this award is also for the diverse, intelligent, dedicated team of volunteers behind me in Utah that has made achieving my goals possible.  Without them I would not be standing here tonight.

Teamwork among staff and volunteers at National Consumers League today contributes to the ongoing success of their work toward fair wages and against wage theft, food safety, consumer finance issues, and their recent spotlight on the plight of restaurant workers around the country.

Let us acknowledge all of the work that National Consumers League has done on behalf of everyone here.

Utah, where my coalition takes on the political establishment, is purported to be a family-friendly state, one where we value everyone, especially the children.

It should be a state where children get proper nutrition, where taxes are fair, where struggling families can count on reasonable interest rates when borrowing money and where a living wage is the norm, not the exception.

This would be the Utopian Utah. This is not the real Utah. The state where I live and work is hostile towards working families, the poor and homeless. For years Utah was in the top five states for childhood hunger. And we spend less per child for education than any other state in the union.

When the Coalition of Religious Communities was formed in 1995 as an advocacy project of Crossroads Urban Center one of our three founding issues was to remove the sales tax from all grocery purchases. Crossroads operated and continues to operate the busiest emergency food pantry in Utah.

We provided emergency services including food, baby formula, winter coats and bus passes to almost 90,000 people last year alone.

During the early years we did this work we came to realize that handing out food and clothing, while a quick fix to immediate problems did not address the root causes of poverty. Thus we were not fully helping to move our clients to self-sufficiency.

As I mentioned, removing the sales tax from food purchases was our first issue. We were laughed at by state legislators. We were dissuaded by fellow advocacy groups.

The sales tax on food had been put in place in the early 1930’s by Governor Blood as a temporary solution to budget shortfalls as a result of the Great Depression. That tax, nicknamed Blood Money, would not, nor has it ever been removed.

We worked hard to make a case that taxing a basic necessity of life was unacceptable, an unnecessary burden on the poor, an immoral and unjust act.

We educated candidates about the tax and made it a campaign issue year after year, we met with sitting officials, put together information sheets, made charts and graphs, held press conferences, and ran around Utah’s Capitol Hill with neon stickers reading, “It’s Simple, It’s Fair.”

We did this for the better part of ten years, gathering proponents little by little, until finally in 2006 we reached critical mass and got our first bill passed all the way through the legislature to remove a portion of the sales tax on food.

When we began our fight Utah consumers were paying between 6 3/8% and 8.0% in sales tax on their groceries. Today we have managed to bring that number down to a flat 3% statewide.

Another big fight we have taken on is the fight against payday lenders, who prey upon the poor. Payday lenders are ubiquitous in states where their business is legal.

However, in most states there are laws against usury, or at the very least interest rate caps on consumer loans.

Not in Utah! We have no usury laws, no rate caps on most types of small consumer loans. In fact, before we started running legislation to curb their practices payday lenders had only to take out a business license and put up a sign in order to open their doors.

Today in Utah payday lenders are required to post interest rates in their stores, there is a law giving consumers a 24 hour right to rescind a payday loan with no penalty, lenders MUST be registered with the Utah Department of Financial Institutions, they MUST submit annual reports to the Governor and state legislature and they MUST submit to annual inspections.  And there is more, but that is for another night. 

As we worked to regulate payday loan companies, it came to our attention that state and nationally chartered credit unions were leading unsuspecting customers to payday loan sites for sub-prime loans with triple digit interest rates. We found that to be unacceptable.

Our first strike was to send letters to CEOs of all credit unions with branches and/or headquarters in Utah asking them to stop the practice.

After accelerating our work, which culminated in a press conference outside a branch of America First Credit Union, we scored a victory for ALL America First Credit Union customers nationwide when America First agreed to withdraw direct, supported links from their website to a national payday loan company.

A year later we got Mountain America Credit Union to stop the practice as well.

Our latest victory came this past June when credit unions in Utah purchased by Chartway the year before posted notice that they would no longer offer links to or endorsements of online payday lenders. We couldn’t be more proud of this victory!

In addition we tackle other issues that impact low income Utahns.

Right now we are trying to convince our Governor not to opt out of Medicaid expansion so that 138,000 people in our state can receive the medical assistance they so desperately need. 

Next year we plan to pass legislation giving a Utah-state tax credit to businesses that hire the homeless.

One law we helped pass a few years ago has made it illegal for any company in America to send a Utah resident a check that upon endorsement constituted signing a contract for another product or service.

We had seniors who by endorsing what looked like a $3.00 rebate check from a phone company entered into a contract to buy internet service from a national provider for 24 months.  And our victims at the time lived in subsidized housing and didn’t even own computers!

Although advocacy work is not sexy, not glamorous, not something that gets much attention, it is the core of social justice, something I believe in strongly and am passionate about. The fight isn’t fair.  Sometimes our adversaries will stop at nothing to discredit what we do.

In the past year someone has used my name to post comments in favor of payday lending on a local newspaper reader comment site.

And, the manager of a local payday loan company, using my name, bought lindahilton.com and started a website promoting the business of triple digit lenders.

Our coalition goals in coming years include stopping sub-prime small loan lenders in Utah from charging triple digit interest rates, that right now average 521% APR, removing the remaining sales tax on groceries and going after the Utah state law that prohibits, yes, PROHIBITS individual cities and towns from being able to set their own minimum wages that are higher than the current federal minimum wage.

Our budget is small, yet we go up against industries that have millions for advertising and campaign contributions.

If there is one lesson to be learned here, it is that David MUST continue to battle Goliath.

The key to our coalition’s success is that we stay focused and we keep showing up to educate, to question, to testify, and to shine the light on legislation that keeps Utah’s poor and working families living in poverty.

Some legislators call me a pain. Some call me a nightmare. A group of majority leaders call me the Witch on Capitol Hill.

Put any label on me that you want but as Winston Churchill once said, “Never, Never, NEVER give up”. I will not, and I hope that you won’t either.

 Thank you again for this most prestigious award. I am honored to have had this time with you tonight.

###

September 25, 2012

Contact: Carol McKay, NCL Communications, (412) 945-3242, carolm@nclnet.org

Washington, D.C.— The National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization, will honor United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil E. Roberts with its highest honor, the Trumpeter Award, on Thursday, October 4, in Washington DC. The event will bring together a diverse group of representatives from labor unions, consumer advocates, nonprofit organizations, and industry to celebrate the honoree’s career in service to worker rights.

“The Trumpeter Award is NCL’s highest honor, given to leaders who are not afraid to speak out for social justice and for the rights of consumers and workers. No one fits that description better than Cecil Roberts, a legend among working families and their advocates,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “Roberts’ lifelong dedication to improving the quality of life for workers in the United States has earned him this year’s Trumpeter Award.” 

Roberts’ long and fearless tenure as UMWA leader has led to a great many victories for North American mine workers, including reopening the UMWA’s National Agreement for the first time in the union’s history and winning significant improvements in wages; negotiating new National Agreements that included historic 20-year and out and 30-and-out pension provisions that have benefited thousands of UMWA members to date; and successfully leading the 1989 strike against the Pittston Co., which had cut off health benefits to its retirees and was backing out of obligations to the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds—a victory that earned Roberts the Rainbow Coalition’s Martin Luther King, Jr., award, as well as awards from Citizen Action and the Midwest Academy.

NCL will also honor Linda Hilton, Director of Coalition of Religious Communities at Crossroads Urban Center in Salt Lake City, with the Florence Kelley Consumer Leadership Award, named for NCL’s early leader and awarded to grassroots consumer advocates.

Hilton is being honored by NCL for her work on the funding of critical needs for low-income and homeless residents of Utah, the reduction of Utah’s grocery tax, and increased regulation of the payday loan industry, including scrutiny of short-term loan products offered through credit unions nationwide. She speaks frequently to community and religious groups about the struggles of low-income and homeless families; she trains students and members of faith communities to advocate for low-income citizens; and she conducts community workshops on the need for increased wages for the working poor and adequate benefits for those who are unable to work.

“Linda Hilton’s advocacy for low-income and underserved communities is remarkable, and she has personally had a measurable impact on the lives of people in her community—both those for whom she advocates, and the students and community members she trains to become their own advocates at the grassroots level,” said Greenberg.

The event will feature a reception, dinner, and speaking appearances by NCL leadership and the honorees, as well as:

 

• Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO
• Dan Kane, Secretary-Treasurer, United Mine Workers of America
• Susie Johnson, Director of Public Policy, Washington Office, United Methodist Women

 

Event details

What: National Consumers League’s 2012 Trumpeter Awards Dinner
When: Thursday, October 4, 2012 | 6 p.m. Reception | 7 p.m. Dinner and Presentation of Awards
Where: Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street NW, Washington, DC
Questions or to RSVP: Larry Bostian, National Consumers League (202) 835-3323 

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

September 12, 2012

Contact: Carol McKay, NCL Communications, (412) 945-3242, carolm@nclnet.org

Washington, DC–Today, the National Consumers League (NCL), the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization, will participate in the Farm Bill Now! rally being held in Washington, DC, joining farmer, conservation, and nutrition groups, as well as members of Congress, to call for the passage of the farm bill that provides stability and a fair marketplace to farmers and protects the social safety net programs like SNAP (food stamps) for families in need.

“We are pleased to join this rally to support a robust and dynamic farm bill,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director, who will speak at the rally. “NCL is pleased to provide a consumer perspective on this issue.”

The current farm bill, a large piece of legislation that forms the bedrock of farm policy in the United States, will expire on September 30. The farm bill includes 37 programs, including conservation measures and programs that promote the growth of local farmers markets.

“Eighty percent of the money from the farm bill goes to nutrition programs, most notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. This critical measure is an essential part of the American safety net and has been particularly helpful during the recession of the past few years,” said Greenberg. “Without this program, which currently serves about 46 million Americans, many parents would have been unable to feed themselves and their children.”

As a program that kicks in during tough economic times, SNAP has proven not only a crucial part of the safety net but also a tool to stimulate economic activity. “Funding SNAP is of paramount importance and is good for those who benefit from the program and for the economy in general,” added Greenberg.

The rally will take place at 11:00 a.m. at Union Square in front of the Capitol Reflecting Pond.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.