FROLITICKS

There has been no other time in history, except perhaps during the World War II, that the general public has had to rely so heavily on government services in both Canada and the U.S.  Yet, there are still people who will complain about public servants who are either working or off work due to COVID-19 and are continuing to receive their pay cheques.  However, reports are now coming out concerning the coronavirus risks associated with public sector employees providing front line services.  One recent Washington Post article noted that to date about 4,000 federal employees reported that they contracted the coronavirus at work — and 60 have died. The article refers to the work in particular of the Homeland Security, Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, the Bureau of Prisons, the Defence Department and Veterans Affairs. It also specified that Customs and Border Protection had a total of 1,590 cases among its 60,000 employees and eight deaths, while the 64,000-employee Transportation Security Administration recorded 1,315 cases and six deaths.

In Canada, with naturally a much smaller federal government work force (about 380,000), there were 455 reported cases of coronavirus disease as of July 22, 2020. Many of the reported cases can be attributed to front-line work in federal agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency, the Correctional Service of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Transportation Agency. The numbers do not include the activities of Canada Post which is a separate crown corporation.  It appears that no deaths were attributed as a result of these reported cases.  With the gradual reopening of Service Canada Centres which provide the public with access to specific federal programs, the number of coronavirus-related cases could very well increase among federal workers, even with the additional precautions put in place.

In both countries, some federal employees were in a position to work from home following the closure of various federal offices and outlet services. In Canada, this is particularly true for certain key agencies such as the Revenue Canada Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada which provide pandemic-related assistance to the unemployed and businesses affected by the pandemic lockdown. In some cases, federal employees — roughly about one in four workers —were unable for various justifiable reasons to do their work from home or had family circumstances preventing them from doing their normal jobs. For this reason, the federal government offered them ‘extended paid leave’ which amounted to $439 million in the first eleven weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. As usual, there has been some public outcry from bodies such as right-wing Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

What those complaining forget is that in Canada, for example, seventy-five percent of federal public servants are still working in front-line operations or at home to provide much needed services to Canadians. As in the U.S., many government workers are actually placing themselves in situations where exposure to COVID-19 is a real risk. They are found in law enforcement, in food inspection, the postal service, at the borders, at airports and ports, in veterans’ hospitals/care facilities, and in the provision of consulate services to citizens abroad.  Interestingly, in both countries, concerns have been raised over the growing recalls of government employees from telework or leave even as infections and deaths are spiking in some regions.

It’s time that federal government workers be recognized for the many essential front-line services that they are providing during this pandemic, often at personal risks to their safety and health.

As many parts of the world, including Canada and the United States, explore ways to ease restrictions aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19, some countries that had already opened up are closing down again after renewed spikes in infections. According to recent reports, countries such as Germany, Lebanon, Iran and South Korea are reimposing certain restrictions such as shutdowns because of new outbreaks of the coronavirus in some areas.  Once people are allowed to frequent shopping and recreation areas, there is always the danger of increased exposure to virus contamination resulting in community outbreaks.

It has even been reported that in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the pandemic first emerged, authorities ordered the testing of its 11 million inhabitants after a cluster of six new infections emerged, five weeks after the city had apparently rid itself of the disease. Although it is understandable that certain Canadian provinces and American states are anxious to reopen parts of their economies, experts increasingly believe that the coronavirus will be around for months if not years.  With increased human activity, second and third waves are bound to occur.  Even an eventual vaccine or the growing emergence of temporary immunity may not be sufficient to prevent such outcomes.

This is why the original shutdowns were essential to prevent the immediate impact on the health care system in terms of treating those with COVID-19 health issues and reducing the number of related deaths. Our slow reopening of the economy and continuation of containment measures is designed to allow health care workers and front-line authorities to deal with outbreaks over the longer-term.  Wherever future hot spots do occur in communities, there is little doubt that restrictions, including lockdowns and social distancing rules, will most likely have to be reimposed. That is if common sense prevails!

Everyone wants to avoid future massive outbreaks like those that happened in New York City, Los Angeles County, Montreal (Quebec) and Washington State. Unfortunately, in some cases the situation has become increasingly politicized instead of remaining one viewed in a health and safety terms.  Leaders need to base their decisions on reliable data and science-based projections.  By failing to do so, we will be right back to square one and will have lost all of the valuable gains that were won by the initial measures aimed at limiting coronavirus transmission within the community.

The U.S. provides no paid leave for mothers.  Any kind of leave is regulated by federal labour laws.  The U.S. ranks right up there with Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea which are the only other countries found to not guarantee leave with income to new mothers.  Not something to brag about!  For the majority of American workers at companies with fewer than 50 employees, there is no legal right to paid or unpaid leave to care for a new child or recover from childbirth.  Furthermore, recent studies show that the current laws disproportionately impact women of color and low-income women, who are less likely to take unpaid leave.

On the other hand, the Canadian government mandates both a leave and a benefits component, the latter being administered by employment insurance (EI) plans. Depending on the length of employment history and the hours worked, eligible new mothers can take between 17 and 52 weeks of leave from their jobs. Their employers are required to accept the employees back into their jobs, or the equivalent, at the end of the mandated leave at the same rate of pay with the same employment benefits. On top of mandating maternity leave, the government offers paid leave for one or both parents through Canada’s EI plan. A pregnant employee or new mother can take a paid maternity leave of up to 15 weeks. Subsequently, paid EI parental benefits are also offered to parents who are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child or children, most often up to one year. In addition, in Canada, many companies and public services top up their employee allocated EI amounts for maternity and parental leave.

The reality of new working motherhood in America is both hidden and horrible: millions of women, every year, are forced back to work within just days or weeks after giving birth. Isn’t it about time that U.S. governments recognize the importance of allowing new mothers to nurture their babies at least for an appropriate length of time after giving birth or following an adoption. Surely, such a rich country can afford to ensure that mothers are provided with some form of mandatory financial assistance and “return-to-work” assurances found in all industrialized countries.  Maybe it’s about time that Congress act quickly on reforming its labour laws.  The time for more debate is over!

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just created a new cabinet for his minority government. His new cabinet will have a substantial number of members with its 36 ministers.  Since the turn of this century, PMs have significantly increased cabinet sizes, as evidenced by former Prime Minister Harper who had 38 ministers in 2011.  This number was far from the 20-odd ministers of previous federal governments in the past.  Once again,  Trudeau has created a whole new contingent of weird cabinet positions such as ministers for Middle Class Prosperity; Families, Children and Social Development; Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development; and Digital Government. Fortunately, PMs are no longer creating Ministry of States as was done by previous governments which often caused more confusion and bureaucracy.

The creation of new portfolios not only satisfies the need to accommodate new and aspiring Members of Parliament, but also appears to reinforce the policy direction of a ruling party’s election campaigns and political slogans. Let’s take the new position of Minister for Middle Class Prosperity.  The difficulty is how one defines the so-called ‘middle class’ and what one means by prosperity.  Based on most studies and current statistics, all researchers can conclude is that the middle class is declining in numbers, especially with many higher paying blue-collar jobs disappearing and the introduction of new technologies.

There already exists a Minister of National Revenue who can consider changes to income taxes to help out targeted groupings of tax payers. The Minister of Finance can look at economic policies aimed at benefiting everyone, including the middle class.  The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion can develop employment programs to help out those who require retraining or mobility assistance.  Departments already exist to help implement the policies developed by these ministers.  So what does a Minister for Middle Class Prosperity do exactly?

Years ago, the Canadian government undertook to consolidate several departments to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. The attempt was somewhat successful at the time, but governments have since reverted back to more political manoeuvrings.  You now need a game program to know who’s who in the federal cabinet and what their titles are.  One thing that I admire about the American federal cabinet is that it tends to remain fairly constant in its make-up with 15 cabinet members, although those appointed to cabinet are not elected as is the case in Canada. Never-the-less, one knows what the responsibility of each cabinet member is and the department or agency for which he or she is responsible.  Unlike with the more unwieldy Canadian federal cabinet where one is often guessing as to what matters certain members are responsible for.