SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
workers
'Vought Should Resign,' CFPB Workers Say of 'Pledge' to Be Nice to Wall Street Fraudsters
"What's next, 'Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons'?"
Nov 25, 2025
“Why is Russell Vought showing the world his weird, creepy pledge of allegiance to big corporations? Have some dignity, Russell."
That's what Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Union member Alexis Goldstein said on Monday about the CFPB acting director's new "humility pledge" that examiners with the agency's Supervision Division will be forced to read to financial institutions before conducting reviews next year.
Several other CFPB Union members joined Goldstein in blasting Vought's pledge, including treasurer Gabe Hopkins, who said that "whoever wrote this has never even spoken to an examiner before, only been wined and dined by industry lobbyists."
The lengthy pledge states in part that the CFPB's "goal is to work collaboratively with the entities to review entities' processes
for compliance and/or remedy existing problems," and the agency "is doing so by encouraging self-reporting and resolving issues in Supervision, where feasible, instead of via Enforcement."
CFPB Union president Cat Farman inquired: "Is this fan fiction I'm reading? What's next, 'Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons'?"
"Instead of traumatizing CFPB workers with his roleplay fantasies," Farman argued, "Vought should resign so we can finally do our jobs protecting Americans from Wall Street fraud again."
CFPB Workers don’t consent to Vought’s creepy “Humility Pledge” fantasy. nteu335.org/2025/11/24/c...
[image or embed]
— CFPB Union (@nteu335.bsky.social) November 24, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Vought—also the Senate-confirmed director of the Office of Management and Budget, a role he previously held during President Donald Trump's first term—has unsuccessfully tried to shutter the CFPB completely this year.
As the New York Times reported Monday:
The new pledge is, for now, mostly symbolic. Mr. Vought halted nearly all work at the bureau shortly after his arrival in February, and bank examinations have not resumed. The agency's hundreds of examiners have been told to spend their time closing out all open matters; they are currently barred from initiating new ones.
And Mr. Vought has refused to request money for the consumer bureau from the Federal Reserve, which funds its operations. The bureau warned in court filings that it would run out of operating cash early next year.
In a Friday statement announcing the pledge, the Vought-led agency claimed that under the Biden administration, the Supervision Division "was the weaponized arm of the CFPB."
The agency added that "where these exams were previously done with unnecessary personnel, outrageous travel expenses, and with the thuggery pervasive in prior leadership, they will now be done respectfully, promptly, professionally, and under budget."
Given that Vought "stopped all supervision exams in 2025, refuses to fund CFPB, and says he's shutting us down by 2026," CFPB Union member Doug Wilson asked: "So how will we supervise banks in 2026 if CFPB is closed? How can bank exams be 'under budget' if there is no budget?"
Ripping Vought's pledge and press release as "incredibly disrespectful to Supervision's dedicated workers," fellow CFPB Union member Tyler Creighton said that the pair of documents also "misunderstands or misconstrues Supervision's prior work."
"Supervision's workers have always conducted examinations professionally, efficiently, conscientiously, and with a focus on remedying consumer harm," Creighton said. "We will continue to do so as soon as Donald Trump and Vought end their 10-month suspension of examinations and let us get back to work for the American people."
Another CFPB Union member, Steve Wheeler, highlighted that "they're trying to make it sound like it’s groundbreaking to send notifications of exams ahead of time and keep data pulls relevant to the examined area, when those are things we already do."
Originally proposed by now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the CFPB was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis via the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama.
Warren joined the CFPB Union members in calling out the new pledge, declaring that "Donald Trump is Wall Street first."
Union member Ravisha "Avi" Kumar pointed out that "under previous administrations, CFPB examiners protected consumers from banks, like Wells Fargo, that incentivized their employees to cut corners and overlook consumer harm. CFPB forced the banks to return that stolen money to consumers."
"Ironically, under this administration, Vought says he will incentivize examiners to rush jobs (cut corners) and stick to the surface (overlook consumer harm)," Kumar added. "How is that still consumer financial protection?"
The pledge announcement came a day after CFPB officials told staff that much of the agency workforce will be furloughed at the end of the year and that remaining consumer litigation will be sent to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
"This is Russ Vought's latest illegal power grab in his ongoing plan to shut down the CFPB and protect CEOs instead of consumers," said Farman. "CFPB attorneys are afraid DOJ will dismiss these cases."
"Vought's already helped Wall Street swindle $18 billion from Americans this year," the union leader continued. "If Vought is going to keep refusing to fund CFPB in order to illegally dismantle the agency, while he wastes over $5 million of CFPB's dwindling budget on personal bodyguards, then it's time for Congress to impeach and remove Russell Vought from power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tyson to Close Major Beef Facility, Shafting 3,000 Workers After Boosting Stock Buybacks
"It’s no secret that just a few years ago, packers like Tyson were making windfall profits while the rest of the industry was continuously in the red," said a Republican US senator from Nebraska.
Nov 24, 2025
Tyson Foods, the largest meat supplier in the United States, is shutting down a Nebraska beef-processing plant that employs more than 3,000 people just months after the company rewarded shareholders by boosting its dividend and ramping up stock buybacks.
The company said late last week that its decision to shutter the Lexington, Nebraska plant and scale back shifts at its Amarillo, Texas facility is "designed to right size its beef business and position it for long-term success" even as beef prices are close to record highs. The Wall Street Journal reported that Tyson and other meatpackers, which are facing federal scrutiny for allegedly colluding to drive up prices, "have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars processing beef because of the lowest amount of cattle on U.S. pastures since the 1950s."
Tyson, the latest company to cut thousands of jobs after prioritizing stock-boosting share buybacks, said it intends to provide "relocation benefits" to impacted workers, but provided no details.
"Tyson Foods recognizes the impact these decisions have on team members and the communities where we operate," the company said in a statement.
The plant in Lexington, which has a population of 11,000, is one of the largest beef-processing facilities in the United States. US Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she was "extremely disappointed" by Tyson's decision to close the Lexington plant, warning it would "have a devastating impact on a truly wonderful community, the region, and our state."
"It’s no secret that just a few years ago, packers like Tyson were making windfall profits while the rest of the industry was continuously in the red," Fischer added. "As we head into the holiday season, I call on Tyson to do everything in its power to take care of the families affected by this short-sighted decision."
Tyson's announcement came days after the company said its adjusted operating income increased by 26% this fiscal year compared to 2024. The company also said it repurchased 3.5 million of its own shares for $196 million.
In early August, Tyson announced that its board "approved an increase of 43 million shares authorized for repurchase under the company’s share repurchase program."
Stock buybacks have long been associated with mass layoffs, wage stagnation, and other harms to workers.
"Tens of thousands of workers are losing their jobs in thousands of companies only because CEOs and their major stockholders want to make a quick killing by artificially jacking up the price of their stock," Les Leopold, executive director of the Labor Institute, told Common Dreams last year after mass layoffs at John Deere.
"We must always call stock buybacks for what they really are: blatant stock manipulation," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Cause' Is a Worthy Cause
Activists in Ithaca, New York are mobilizing for the first city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the US. Other cities should take note.
Nov 22, 2025
Activists in Ithaca, New York are trying something unique: They’re mobilizing support for an ordinance that would prohibit employers in that small city from firing their employees without just cause. If they succeed, they’ll have enacted the first such city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the country.
Success in this effort will be a big deal, because in the United States, employment—unless otherwise restricted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or individual employment contract—is considered to be “at will.” This means that in the vast majority of cases, employers are entitled to fire workers at their whim, without warning or explanation.
A 2021 report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) tells us that about half of US workers have been affected by unfair or arbitrary firings at some point in their lives, with devastating consequences for them and their families. Not surprisingly, then, a nationwide survey cited in the report found wide public support for just cause protections, including from 71% of voters in battleground states, with both Democratic and Republican majorities weighing in favorably.
Existing Restrictions on Employers' Right to Fire
Even without new federal, state, or local legislation, employers today face some limits to the at-will doctrine: federal and state laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bar various sorts of discrimination in the workplace; anti-retaliation statutes, like those included in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and many other whistleblower-protection statutes; and section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, that prohibits firing for union or other "concerted" activity. All these laws fall short of robustly protecting workers from retaliatory or discriminatory firings, however, largely because the burden is on the employee to prove the employer's illegal motivation—no simple feat—when under the general at-will rule the employer can fire the worker for no reason at all.
In addition to these limited statutory constraints on the at-will doctrine, over the past 50 or so years a number of state common law exceptions to the rule have developed. The most prevalent is the "public policy" exception, under which, in theory at least, employers can't fire workers for reasons that are contrary to public policy. Courts generally interpret the exception narrowly, applying it only to employees who exercise a clear legal right, perform a clear legal duty, or refuse to violate the law, or when the employer engaged in an “outrageous violation of a well-established public policy.”
Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes.
A second exception is the "implied contract of continuing employment" (at least theoretically available in 41 states and the District of Columbia). It's derived from employee handbooks, policies, and the like, that suggest protection from discharge except if the employee performs poorly, violates company policies, or has to be laid off because of the employer's economic necessity. Employers can generally get around this claim by expressly stating in their materials that the employee is working on an at-will basis, and that its various policies can be revised at any time, at the discretion of the employer.
Lastly, 11 states have read into the common law an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," imposed on employers and employees, to act fairly. While theoretically this should prohibit firings without cause altogether, in actuality courts rarely find it applies, and then only in the most abusive cases. In other words, none of these common law carve outs from at-will employment have been particularly helpful to workers.
The Ithaca Ordinance
Which brings us to Ithaca’s legislative proposal. As the core provision of its current draft version (embedded at the Ithaca Just Cause website), the ordinance would prohibit discharge of an employee who has completed their (maximum 90-day) probationary period, for any reason other than just cause or a bona fide economic reason. In considering whether the just cause standard has been satisfied, the fact finder is to consider, among other things, whether the employer trained the worker on its performance requirements and bases for discipline, and whether the employer’s policy, rule, practice, or performance standard, including its use of progressive discipline, was reasonable and applied consistently.
Also, except in cases of egregious misconduct, the employer has to specifically notify the worker of what rules they violated or requirements they fell short of, and must utilize progressive discipline prior to firing. Similar notice of reasons is required before discharging a worker on account of bona fide economic necessity. Significantly, if an employee termination is to be upheld, the burden is on the employer to satisfy these requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.
The proposed legislation also adds a "Worker Rights" section to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and establishes a commission that would adjudicate complaints of violation. Complaints of violation can also be filed in court.
Retaliation against workers who exercise any of the rights granted by the legislation is expressly prohibited, and use of electronic surveillance as a tool for determining employee performance is restricted. Remedies for employees vary depending on the violation, and include back pay and damages, rescission of discipline and reinstatement, penalties, severance pay, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Other Just Cause Efforts
The proposed ordinance echoes the recommendations laid out in these NELP and Roosevelt Institute reports. Published in 2021, both make the case for why this kind of municipal ordinance, or more potently, a comparable state law (or, as an even more radical aspiration, federal legislation, as promoted by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders) is justified and overdue for all workers—with NELP focusing particularly on the disproportionate impact of at-will employment on people of color and immigrant workers, who face higher rates of wage theft, discrimination, and retaliation for asserting their rights than the employee population at large.
It should come as no surprise, but it's still shameful, that this country lags far behind many other nations—Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and most of the European Union, to name a few—in providing just-cause protections against arbitrary and unfair firings. Which is why what the Ithaca coalition is doing is really worth noticing. But it's not the first city to take this on: Philadelphia led the (notably small) pack when, in 2019, its city council enacted a just cause termination ordinance for the city's approximately 1,000 parking lot attendants. New York City was next, enacting a comparable ordinance protecting its fast food workers in 2021. Also in New York City, a diverse coalition of unions, advocacy organizations, and high road employers are pressing for passage of a Secure Jobs Act covering all employees who work in the city. With its newly elected democratic socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani, it just might succeed.
The US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have just cause laws. In Illinois, a Secure Jobs Act, pressed by Raise the Floor Alliance and a broad array of allies, was introduced in the state legislature in 2021, but has yet to be enacted. In what might come as a surprise, Montana is the only state in the US to have enacted just cause legislation, and it's been on the books for decades. While not nearly as progressive as the Ithaca, New York City, and Illinois models, it is unique in prohibiting, state-wide, firings without good cause.
Will Just Cause Laws Hamper Unionization Efforts?
Some may be concerned that just cause legislation could undercut unions' ability to successfully organize, since that's a key benefit they can provide in collective bargaining agreements. But there are a number of arguments that cut the other way—including that if firing without good cause is made illegal and is readily enforceable, it creates a more effective impediment to employers' efforts to get rid of pro-union activists than the weak and slow remedies the National Labor Relations Act has to offer. And, just cause for all workers would provide a floor, not a ceiling, for union negotiations for even better protections against improper firings at unionized workplaces.
Parting Thoughts
Worker rights advocates should watch Ithaca Just Cause's initiative with keen interest. It also should give food for thought—and inspiration—for those of us who live in other cities and states. It’s clear that just cause protections are popular with workers across party lines. Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes. For those of us in locales where this might be possible, maybe it's time to give it a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular