FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 22

Mandated COVID Vaccination May Temporarily Affected Rights, But Statistics Offer Justification

by bcurry

After more than a year and a half of the pandemic, one has to question the rationale of anti-vaxxers and libertarian spokespeople over their stance on COVID vaccination and other government-imposed restrictions.  When it comes to protecting public health and our communities, the amassed data from legitimate sources appears to me to objectively justify most of these preventive measures.  There is no attempt to cherry pick the data in order to defend one’s position in support of these measures, no matter how draconian one thinks they are.  Take the data coming out of the U.S.

According to data by Johns Hopkins University, COVID-19 has killed over 750,000 Americans, including about 50,000 announced since the start of October, and infected about 46.5 million in the U.S. since last January.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that as many as 1 in 3 people in the U.S. have been infected, more than three times the official count.  For the month of June, the coronavirus was responsible for 337 deaths a day.  For comparison, the historic average deaths from gunshots, car crashes and complications from the flu add up to 306 a day.  According to data from a CDC study released in October, men overall were 1.6 times likelier to die of the disease caused by the coronavirus than women.  The study further indicated that men aged between 45 and 64 were more than 1.8 times likelier to die of a disease caused by COVID-19.  In addition, the study concluded that for the most vulnerable groups, Blacks and Hispanics or Latinos, death rates are six times higher than those for white people.

Since the start of November, recorded coronavirus case levels have remained stable, with around 70,000 new infections reported daily.  Thanks to the vaccine, hospitalizations and deaths have continued to decline.  It is estimated that seventy percent of American adults are now fully vaccinated.  In July of this year, the CDC reported on preliminary data from several states over the previous months which suggested that 99.5 percent of deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. were among unvaccinated people.  According to a recent analysis published by researchers at Yale University and the Commonwealth Fund, COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. have already prevented roughly 279,000 deaths and 1.25 million hospitalizations.  The same report goes on to suggest that without vaccines, COVID-19 would still be topping cancer and heart disease as the leading cause of death in the U.S. today.

All of the above are not just statistics, for each number unfortunately represents individuals affected directly by COVID-19.  One can argue about measures taken to prevent further new cases, hospitalizations and associated deaths, but one cannot dispute the facts.  As a former analyst, data and information gathered from reputable and verifiable sources is one’s bread and butter.  By analyzing the data, one begins to build an inventory of knowledge about the issues being researched.  This analysis provides the basis for understanding the key facts surrounding those issues, and in turn helps decision makers to develop the appropriate policies.  Being a mostly objective process, one always attempts to limit the impact of any subjective values and prevent “confirmation bias”.  Moreover, verifiable and objective data doesn’t lie.

There will always be those who will attack public health policies for a variety of reasons, including arguments based on libertarian values.  However, they cannot dispute the continuing realities of the real human impact caused by the pandemic.  We can only measure whether the negative impacts are being reduced or increased by our policies.  This is why decision makers need reliable, valid and consistent data as soon as it becomes available in order to justify their policies.  In the case of COVID-19, such data now exists.

Coronavirus US

Leave a comment »
Nov 20

U.S. and Canada Unlikely to Boycott 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing

by bcurry

The unknown whereabouts of Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai once again has raised the spectre of multiple human rights issues in China.  Peng, one of the country’s most recognizable tennis stars, has not been seen publicly since November 2nd, when she accused a top government official of sexual assault.  Back in 2020, the Australians exposed the fact that a network of nearly 40 internment camps had been constructed or were under construction in China’s far west, used to detain Uighurs and people from other Muslim minorities.  Chinese authorities said that the camps were part of their “re-education” system, which they claimed was about to be phased out.  Then of course, there was the forced closure of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy newspaper the Apple Daily in June 2021, just eight months after the Communist Party of China (CPC) leadership imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong.  The new law was aimed at quelling pro-democracy rallies that started in the summer of 2020 in response to China’s proposed extradition law.  Then there was the arrest of two Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig who were imprisoned in China on trumped up charges for nearly three years, as part of China’s retaliation for the arrest in Canada of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou for possible extradition to the U.S.  Of course, in each and every case the Chinese authorities have denied accusations of human rights abuses.

Make no doubt about it, all powerful President Xi Jinping and the CPC desperately want the winter Olympics to go ahead, putting China once again on the world’s stage.  Now we hear that President Biden is considering a U.S. diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic games in Beijing to protest China’s treatment of its Uyghur Muslim minority and other human rights violations.  Some experts suggest that Canada would most likely follow his lead.  Nevertheless, the games would no doubt proceed with the full participation of American and Canadian Olympians.

Six times in the past, countries officially boycotted the Olympic Games, with as few as three countries refusing to compete in 1964 and as many as 65 nations in 1980, led by the U.S., staying away from Moscow, Russia, as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Just as Adolf Hitler tried to use the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin to raise the stature of Nazi Germany and Aryan race, President Xi Jinping and the CPC are anxious to use these Olympic Games to highlight China’s achievements.  Politically, Xi’s expected to break precedent and secure a third term to extend his indefinite rule and certainly doesn’t want to be embarrassed by any boycott.

In light of the current situation involving Peng Shuai, there is increasing political pressure on both the U.S. and Canada to at least promote a diplomatic boycott of the winter games.  However, Canadian lawyer and International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Dick Pound notes that implementing such a boycott won’t make any difference to China if only one or two countries are involved.  Certainly, no one wants to penalize the athletes who have trained and competed for years to participate in the Olympics.  Given China’s international initiatives, especially those in developing countries, it would be next to impossible to obtain widespread political support for any full-blown boycott.  As the world’s second most powerful economic entity, China has a tremendous amount of clout.

For this reason, Xi Jinping will have his day in the Chinese winter.  Once again, concerns about human rights will take second place to economic and political matters.  For what it’s worth, this past week, the Washington Post reported that the White House is expected to announce that neither President Biden nor any other U.S. government officials will attend the Beijing Games.  I this is the cases, one can expect that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would shortly follow the President’s lead.  However, China will proceed with the games and its athletes will prevail in many sports.  Americans and Canadians can be expected to watch in awe as China displays its culture, technologies and athleticism.   As an avid China watcher, I’ll be looking forward to the show!

Canada China China's Relations US

Leave a comment »
Nov 17

COP26 on Climate Change Resulted in just a Lot More Hot Air

by bcurry

Nearly 200 nations gathered at a conference in the Scottish city of Glasgow, known as COP26, and struck a deal intended to propel the world towardmore urgent climate action.  Proposals aimed at reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming, and to end deforestation in the coming decade were considered big achievements of COP26.  However, climate change experts noted that such promises have been made and broken before.

The hard-fought agreement doesn’t go nearly far enough.  The agreement does not achieve the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris accord — to limit Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.  Instead, delegations left Glasgow with the Earth still on track to blow past that threshold, pushing toward a future of escalating weather crises and irreversible damage to the natural world.

In the streets of Glasgow, over an estimated 100,000 protesters marched to get the conference’s delegates to walk the talk and come to an agreement that included more concrete targets and specific funds to combat climate change.  Due to the objections of countries such as India, Australia and China, the agreement could not even target a phasing out of coal burning and fossil fuel subsidies.  Instead, the agreement only proposed to “phase down unabated coal”, most likely over the next fifty years.  Too little, too late.

Yes, the industrialized countries, such as the U.S., Britain and Germany, pledged funds to help the poorer, lesser developed countries cope with the environmental and economic consequences of climate change given that natural disasters are expected to escalate.  For example, President Biden has pledged to boost U.S. climate aid to poor nations to more than $11 billion a year — a promise that will require help from Congress.  However, the proposed funding amounts are nowhere near enough to effectively reduce the real impact on these developing countries, particularly from severe droughts and crop-destroying floods which could put millions of people at risk of starvation.  Then there are the environmental migrants, people who are forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment.  For example, there is the devastating drought that has gripped Syria since 2006 and reportedly has driven more than 1.5 million people from the countryside to cities in search for food and economic normality.  The International Organisation for Migration estimates that there are now several million “environmental migrants”, and that this “number will rise to tens of millions within the next 20 years, or hundreds of millions within the next 50 years”.

The protesters, many of them representing today’s youth, shouted: “Hurry up please. It’s time.”  Unfortunately, all one what got was more “blah, blah, blah”.  Cautious optimism about the potential outcome of the talks gradually turned into overt pessimism.  Clearly, many participants, including delegates, left Glasgow with feelings of dismay and regret.  Once again, it’s now up to each individual country to sort out its “climate change” policies and the allocation of its resources.  No doubt, President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau will be discussing their plans at a joint meeting today in Washington.  It will be interesting to see if anything concrete comes out of the discussions given their shared mutual political and economic concerns about the impacts associated with climate change and fossil fuels.  We’ll just have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t hold my breath!  I’m expecting a lot more “hot air”.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Nov 13

Hyperinflation Could be the Death Knell of Current Federal Administrations

by bcurry

According to just released U.S. Labor Department data, the consumer price index (CPI) increased 6.2 percent from October 2020.  The CPI in Canada was not far behind, rising almost 4.5 percent on a year-over-year basis in September, the fastest pace since February 2003.  In general, monetary authorities like to keep the annual inflation rate at somewhere between 2 to 3 percent.  What one is seeing now could certainly be described as ‘hyperinflation’, which causes all kinds of major issues for governments.  Experts also predict that this current belt of inflation is not going to go away any time soon because of a number of underlying factors, many attributed to economic consequences related to the pandemic.

You don’t have to be an economist or a political scientist to figure out the daily concerns caused by the current inflation rates throughout both economies.  The average American or Canadian sees these concerns on a daily basis when they purchase a house or pay rent, go shopping for food, put gas in their vehicles, buy new vehicles, pay their electricity and heating bills, etc., etc. 

While wage rates have been climbing in recent months, higher consumer prices are eroding peoples’ buying power.  In the U.S., inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings fell 1.2 percent in October from a year earlier.  The longer high inflation continues, the more pressure will be put on Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada officials to end near-zero interest rates sooner than expected.  With the increase in interest rates, people with mortgages and outstanding debt will be faced with the greater cost of borrowing and additional debt-related issues.

One must remember that when George H.W. Bush was president, one of the major reasons that he was unable to win a second term in 1992 was because of the early 1990s economic recession during his administration.  Some suggest that he forgot about the most important political maxim that: “It’s all about the economy stupid!”  The impacts of the recession also included the resignation of then Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.  Administrations cannot ignore a situation of hyperinflation for very long.  Both President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau are caught in between a hard place and a rock.  With the end to financial assistance related to the pandemic and the economy’s lockdown, people are going to suffer.  Tough choices are going to have to be made, whether to put nutritional food on the table or cut back on medications and basic entertainment. 

Yes, the economy does appear to be opening up.  However, new COVID cases are on the rise once again in certain regions in North America.  Indeed, in these regions one has what is being referred to as “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Consequently, should governments choose to renew or introduce new financial assistance measures, this will only exacerbate the current economic situation by further increasing the ratio of government debt to revenues.  If interest rates increase as expected in light of inflation, the future interest on government debt will also increase accordingly.  Under these extraordinary circumstances, governments can only do so much.  If the current frustrating situation continues, we would most likely see a change in federal administrations in future elections, as was the case in the early 1990s.

Canada Economy Economy US

Leave a comment »
Nov 8

Irrationality Drives Unvaccinated Beliefs About COVID-19

by bcurry

Every day one sees articles or hears about unvaccinated men, women and children who are tragically and needlessly dying from COVID-19.  Some of the stories even involve people who have spoken out against COVID vaccines.  According to data by Johns Hopkins University, the sad part is that COVID-19 has now killed over 750,000 Americans and infected about 46.5 million since last January.  However, those numbers fail to paint a complete picture, since testing scarcity and delays likely left many COVID-19 cases and deaths undiagnosed, especially during the outbreak’s early stages.  In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that as many as 1 in 3 people in the U.S. have been infected, more than three times the official count.

Recently, we’ve seen articles about well-known athletes, entertainment celebrities, politicians, etc., etc. who have spoken out against vaccines for a whole number of irrational reasons.  Unfortunately, they have ignored the expert advice of scientists and physicians in favour of becoming “Facebook doctors” and relying instead of the associated reams of misinformation about COVID vaccines.  In general, ‘fear’ is a powerful emotion.  Then there are those who have simply ‘politicized’ the anti-vaccine movement for their own reasons, often stressing libertarian values over the health concerns of the community.  Simply put, being vaccinated and following certain protective measures will help prevent the spread of COVID and the emergence of new more dangerous variants.

The fact is that where more and more people have been vaccinated, coronavirus case levels have remained stable in recent weeks, and hospitalizations and deaths have generally continued to decline in some parts of the country, notably across the South and Northeast.  Still, we are looking at around 70,000 new infections reported daily in the U.S.  Infection levels continue to climb steadily in such states as California, Colorado and New Mexico.  Despite the optimism of some people, this pandemic is far from over.  Fortunately, as of this November, seventy percent of American adults are now fully vaccinated, and COVID vaccines for children have been or will most likely be approved by the CDC.  We are slowly on a road to potential recovery and so-called ‘normalcy’.

‘Vaccine hesitancy’ is now confronting the recent introduction of mandatory vaccine requirements in the U.S.  Interestingly enough, nearing President Biden’s coronavirus vaccine deadline, thousands of federal workers are apparently seeking religious exemptions to avoid the shots.  Moreover, the federal government will have to balance the right to religious freedom against the goal of creating safe workplaces for 2.1 million civilian employees.  However, it’s bizarre how one is determined to qualify for an exemption base on one’s religious beliefs.  Apparently, employees do not need to provide proof of a religious conviction to justify a claim, but must only attest that are “sincerely held.”  Some managers are even asking whether employees, despite their religious beliefs, received vaccines for other illnesses such as the flu, measles, shingles, tetanus or invasive pneumococcal disease.  Managers will soon assume the thorny role of having to decide whether someone is sincere or requesting such an exemption for political reasons.  In a directive issued in January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the employee’s objections do not have to stem from an organized religion and can be beliefs that are new, uncommon or “seem illogical or unreasonable to others.”  Talk about muddying the waters!

A viewpoint or position is deemed irrational if it’s based on evidence judged not to be logical or reasonable.  I have yet to find any arguments that would convince me that opposing COVID vaccinations can be validated, even those supposedly based on one’s religious beliefs.  Most of those in opposition are basing their beliefs on information they’ve obtained in support of their position.  This is referred to by psychologists as a clear sign of ‘confirmation bias’.  They simply ignore information and data which clearly supports the urgent need for as many people as possible in a community to be immunized against this dreadful disease.

Coronavirus US

Leave a comment »
Nov 5

Two Trials in U.S. May Be Putting the American Justice System Itself on Trial

by bcurry

There are currently two trials of particular interest in the U.S. which reflect notable elements of American society.  One involves the killing by three white suspects of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, in a South Georgia community in February 2020.  The other involves the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, who is charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020.  In both cases, the accused are arguing that the shootings were in ‘self-defence’.  Both events were video recorded and covered by American media outlets, including several national television news networks.  Both were tragic events and appeared to be partly racially motivated, at least according to the prosecution.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, you have a 17-year-old who travelled from his home in Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, in neighbouring Wisconsin.  He then picked up an AR-style semiautomatic rifle illegally from a friend and set out to act in response to mass protests and street unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man.  He is consequently charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder.  All three victims were white.  Mr. Rittenhouse’s defenders say he was exercising his right to bear arms, in defence of liberty, and have claimed self-defence against perceived threats by the three victims.  However, there are a number of questions.  Why did Mr. Rittenhouse believe that it was necessary to carry out what is described as a ‘vigilante action’, especially since he was not protecting his own property and was outdoors long after an 8pm curfew imposed by Kenosha officials?  How will jurors decide whether or not the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances?  The law generally does not recognise your right to use deadly force to defend property, only your person.  Will the jurors condone such ‘vigilante’ action?  Some people see him as a hero and not as a villain.  As this highly politicised case unfolds, answering these questions will be a major challenge ahead for the jurors.

Then we have the case of three white men involved in the shooting of a black jogger, Ahmaud Arbery.  One of the defendants actually video recorded the incident which then went viral.  The two shooters claim to have shot the unarmed Mr. Arbery in self-defence.  Apparently, they chased him down believing that the jogger resembled the suspect in a series of alleged break-ins.  They have accused Mr Arbery of attacking them while they attempted to make a “citizen’s arrest”, resulting in his being shot and killed.  What’s really interesting in this high profile trial is the fact that a nearly all-white jury, with just one black member, has been selected.  The prosecution accused the defence of eliminating potential jurors based on race, noting that defence attorneys used 11 of their allotted 24 strikes to reject black jurors.  This in a town which is majority African American and a county where more than a quarter of people are black.  Kind of reminds one of a time when no black persons were allowed to serve on jury duty in Georgia, often related to the trials of white men involving the killing or injuring of black people.  Interestingly, studies have pointed out that Americans from ethnic minorities tend to be under-represented on most juries.  Should be also interesting to see the results of this highly politicised case!

With so many Americans armed today, these two incidents once again raise the ultimate question about whether one can legally act forcibly in ‘self-defence’ or pursue ‘vigilante’ actions with impunity?  Where does one draw the line?  Significant cases such as those described above may provide more answers or may result in even more questions being asked.  These trials are being closely watched by people around the world, including here in Canada.  Just as in the case of past police shootings, the performance of the American judicial system is also on trial.

Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Oct 30

Student-led Movements Urging Canadian Universities to Divest from Fossil Fuels an Inspiration

by bcurry

In the late sixties, I can remember as a student a number of protest movements on university campuses, one being a campaign by students to increase their voice on university boards and policy bodies.  Marches on campus and sit-downs outside administrators’ offices occurred, until eventually student bodies were granted more access to administrative boards.  The student initiatives were in line with several active movements which attacked the absolute power of the authorities during this period and expressed a desire for greater decision-making powers and representation by citizens in general.  Since then, universities have conceded greater input by student unions and representatives in the operation and administrative policies on campuses across the country.

Frustrated by the slow pace of halting dangerous climate change, in the last few years we have the student divestment effort, demanding that post-secondary institutions across the country fully divest all investment funds from the fossil fuel industry.  This movement in Canada has been around for almost a decade.  Several major Canadian universities, including the University of Victoria, Carleton University, the University of British Columbia, Laval University, the University of Waterloo and Canada’s largest university, the University of Toronto, have been significantly influenced by the students’ divestment movement.  In September 2020, a movement called the Divestment Canada Coalition (DCC) was launched.  DCC is made up of 30 groups from institutions across the country, making it Canada’s largest group of students calling for divestment from fossil fuels.

The students’ movement has met with some noteworthy success.  In just over a year, at least five schools in Canada pledged to at least partially divest from capital funds primarily comprised of fossil fuels.  There have also been pledges to reinvest funds supporting sustainable alternatives and renewable energy.  Consideration of environmental, social and governance factors have increasingly become integral to their investment processes.  The DCC emphasizes the importance of giving people of colour, low-income people, Indigenous communities and others a seat at the table, given how the fossil fuel industry disproportionately affects these particular groups.

It is encouraging that the students’ divestment effort has generally been met so far with a positive reception by most university administrators, who understand that the issue of climate change is one which has a great deal of potential impact on future generations.  Hopefully, as institutions responsible for developing Canada’s future political and business leaders, they will continue to be receptive to this important cause.  In order to sustain the effort’s current momentum, they should help to encourage future students who are passionate about divestment to run for their student union board.  These institutions owe it to their students, staff and alumni to support this important and inspirational student driven initiative.  After all, their futures are in the balance.

Canada Climate Change

Leave a comment »
Oct 28

U.S. Intention to Increase Use of Electrical Vehicles Appears to be Unrealistic

by bcurry

Not long ago, President Biden declared his administration’s proposal to have electric vehicles (EV) making up half of new cars sold in the country by 2030.  While his intentions are good, the reality is that the sources of current electricity production and transmission will most likely make this proposal unrealistic.  Experts have already argued that the aging country’s electricity grid would need to have hundreds of billions of dollars invested to upgrade the grid in order to accommodate the increased electricity demands required for EVs and other domestic electricity needs.  Today, electrical grids barely function in times of ordinary stress, and fail altogether too often for comfort, as recent widespread blackouts in California, Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere have shown.  Apparently, fast chargers can replenish an EV in as little as 20 minutes but gulp huge amounts of electricity.

At the same time, the big challenge for policymakers and the utility industry is figuring out how quickly to invest in the grid while keeping the energy affordable.  While the President’s intentions are worthy because of concerns over the impact of climate change on the environment and the need to reduce harmful greenhouse emissions, there is a real question as to whether the American public is able and willing to incur the associated costs.  If one just looks at EVs, there are a number of factors to consider.  Among these, the top three reasons consumers give for not buying EVs are the lack of charging stations, the time to charge, and the cost of the vehicles.  In addition to spending on accessible charging stations across a country as large as the U.S., there is also the need for significant additional spending on long-distance transmission lines and power generating equipment like solar and wind farms.  Given the current re-charging needs of EVs, charging stations will have to be available at most if not all existing gasoline stations, hotels and motels, apartment buildings and municipal facilities.  Who is to pay for the installation and use of such charging stations?  Plug-in electric cars accounted for just under 1% of all 146 million new light-duty vehicle sales between 2011 and 2019 in the U.S.

While climate change is an obvious greater concern among Americans in light of the deadly increase in severe weather patterns and natural disasters, is their concern enough to persuade the average person that the associated costs with converting to EVs and other electrical equipment (e.g. heating, appliances, etc.) are acceptable?  Yes, many things can happen in the next ten years.  However, having almost come out of a pandemic and its economic consequences and costs, will people be ready to seriously tackle the projected negative elements surrounding our current living standards?  The answer is probably “no” at this time.

We will need major technological breakthroughs to make EVs much more reliable, energy efficient and cheaper before the average person could seriously consider the switch to EVs from combustion-engine cars.  In addition, the current electricity grids will have to be seriously upgraded in the next few years.  We must be ready to incur the associated costs with such major infrastructure upgrades.  Overall, the country’s 20th-century point-to-point grid, delivering energy over long distances, will have to become adequate enough to serve this century’s needs.  Hopefully, future electricity needs will be increasingly provided by green technology, such as that provided by hydro power, solar energy, wind power, and even nuclear power.  None of these sources alone can provide enough electricity to meet the needs of American communities and to replace the current use of fossil fuels, including natural gas.  In conclusion, plug-in cars are the future, but realistically the current grid isn’t ready.

Cimate Change Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Oct 26

Attempts by Governments to Reduce Consumption of Soda Pop Drinks Deemed Unsuccessful

by bcurry

Just recently, Canada’s first soft drink tax came to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and already critics are arguing that it may do surprisingly little to combat obesity.  Instead, the tax is seen as imposing disproportionate costs on rural communities where soft drinks are one of the only reliable forms of hydration.  Data indicates that Newfoundland and Labrador has Canada’s highest rates of both adult and childhood obesity.  Sugary beverages have been linked directly to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, which is why public health agencies have gone to great lengths to discourage their consumption.  Governments around the globe, such as California, New York City, Mexico, and New Zealand, have attempted in one way or another to examine ways in which to reduce the consumption of sugary beverages. 

Some of us may remember one such attempt by Mike Bloomberg, as mayor of New York, who in 2012 proposed a ban that would have prevented food-service establishments in the city from selling sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces and sweetened drinks with more than 25 calories per eight ounces.  The ban was set to take place in 2013 and failure to follow the ban may have resulted in a $200 fine.  However, the ban was reversed because the courts declared that the city’s Board of Health had “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” by adopting the ban.  Few experts believed that such a ban would have worked anyway.

Then there are those American state laws that banned soda in schools — but not other sweetened beverages.  California, for example, became the first state to ban the sale of soft drinks in grade schools, in 2003.  However, a 2011 study showed that this ban had virtually no impact on the amount of sugary drinks middle school students buy and consume at school.  In states that banned only soda, students bought and consumed sugary drinks just as frequently at school as their peers in states where there were no bans at all.  Even in states with policies banning all sugary drinks in schools and where students had less access to them on campus, their overall consumption of the drinks did not fall — suggesting they were getting the drinks elsewhere.  In addition, there are a lot of misconceptions about which beverages are healthy.  For example, many kids think beverages like Gatorade are a healthy alternative to soda.

For years, the U.S. and Canadian dietary guidelines urged Americans and Canadians to drink fewer sugary beverages.  However, it would appear that the simple banning or increase in taxing sugary beverages may not be the answer based on past experiences.  Most health experts will argue that increased education and the availability of healthier alternatives is a better alternative, especially among people with lower levels of education and income.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that adults and children are both consuming roughly the same number of calories from soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages now as they did in 2009-2010.  While soda sales are down, Americans and Canadians may be turning in growing numbers to teas, flavored waters and other energy drinks with plenty of sugar added.  Among the reasons soda taxes might have such a mixed record is because margins for the drinks are so high that manufacturers, such as Coca-Cola, can easily absorb the cost of a tax and keep the price the same.

Millions of North American adults and kids still drink at least some sugar-sweetened beverage daily.  Obesity continues to be issue, especially since it leads to other significant health issues later in life.  More children today are found to have Type 2 diabetes then ever before.  For parents, that makes education and nutrition awareness all the more important, particularly in schools and community bodies.  Efforts to further reduce sugary drink consumption rely on reaching them, especially those in rural and lower income urban communities.  Subsidizing healthier alternatives to soda pop and other sugary drinks may be a better option, providing more affordable and healthier beverages to families.  Unfortunately, in communities under boil water advisories, such as those in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, soda is often seen as the cheapest option for hydration.  An additional soft drink tax really doesn’t help!

Canada US

Leave a comment »
Oct 20

Major Obstacles in Unionizing Private Sector Workers in the U.S.

by bcurry

No one denies that attempts at unionizing some of the biggest American employers in the private sector — Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks — can be hazardous to one’s job.  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the union membership rate of private-sector workers was just 6.3 percent in 2020, down from 6.6 percent last year and from 6.9 percent in 2011.  Labor specialists cited several reasons for the continuing steep decline in private sector union membership.  Among the factors were new laws that rolled back the power of unions in Wisconsin, Indiana and other states, the continued expansion by manufacturers like Boeing and Volkswagen in nonunion states and the growth of sectors like retail and restaurants, where unions still have little presence.  Among those larger employers noted above, there is also the fact that companies engage in numerous anti-union initiatives to persuade or obviously prevent their workers from organizing at the plant, warehouse or local outlet levels.

Earlier in the past two decades, it was at Walmart in the U.S. and Canada that clearly intimidated its so-called “associates” from organizing at the local level.  For example, in April 2005, Walmart simply closed it store in Jonquière, Quebec, when workers there attempted to organize.  Nine years later the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the move was improper, illegal and contrary to section 59 of Quebec’s Labour Code and turned the case back to an arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy.  Walmart at no time told anyone that the Jonquière store intended to go out of business or that it was experiencing financial difficulties.  On the contrary, from a perspective of five years, the store was performing very well and its objectives were being met.  Let’s face it, the closure was a clear warning to other communities and Walmart workers of the evident consequences of attempting to organize.

In another example, in April 2021, a vote on whether to form a union at the Amazon’s warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, became a major labour showdown.  Unfortunately, the workers voted down the union drive following pressure from Amazon management.  The company’s decisive victory dealt a crushing blow to organized labour, which had hoped the time was ripe to start making inroads at Amazon.  Amazon is a rich entity.  Propelled in part by surging demand during the pandemic, people spent more than $610 billion U.S. on Amazon over the 12 months ending in June 2021.  This is even more than that spent by people at Walmart during the same period.  Amazon also added hundreds of new warehouses and hired about 500,000 workers since the start of last year, none of which are unionized.

More recently, some Starbucks Buffalo-area locations filed for a union election in late August of this year.  None of the nearly 9,000 corporate-owned Starbucks locations in the country are unionized.  However, a Starbucks-owned store in Canada did manage to recently organize, a first for Starbucks.  Starbucks has faced union campaigns before, including an effort in 2019 in Philadelphia where the firing of two employees involved in union organizing was deemed unlawful by a labour board judge.  Starbucks of course has appealed the ruling.  According to union officials, Starbucks management has employed other intimidation and often subtle methods to discourage employees from organizing.  The measures include holding meetings with employees in which company officials question the need for a third party to represent them.

As an apparent shortage of workers in certain private sectors due to the pandemic, unions may see an opportunity to assist in organizing workers because of the competition among employers for workers.  If anything, the situation has forced many employers to improve their working conditions and raise the wages offered in order to retain workers and to recruit new workers.  This is particularly the case in the retail, services and restaurant sectors.  Nevertheless, the ability to organize workers in the private sector still obviously faces numerous hurtles in the U.S.  Hopefully, as economies improve, current labour shortages may benefit all workers, whether unionized or not.

Canada Unionization US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.