DRESS CODES ARE RULING CLASS HEGEMONY
Americans have increasingly embraced Black Lives Matter. Will employers let them do so at work?
Starbucks now allows employees to show support for Black Lives Matter PROVIDING STAFF WITH READY MADE T-SHIRTS, BUTTONS ETC. — but some companies say it violates their dress codes

Published: June 17, 2020 By Meera Jagannathan

Surveys show a dramatic increase in Americans’ support for the Black Lives Matter movement over time. JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES

As support for the Black Lives Matter movement grows, companies with a public commitment to racial justice are grappling with how to address the matter internally — and some employees are speaking out.

Starbucks SBUX, -0.18% on Friday reversed an earlier decision to prohibit workers from wearing Black Lives Matter apparel on the job, announcing that the company would be designing a new T-shirt for employees emblazoned with a dozen-plus protest signs, including “Black Lives Matter” and “No justice, no peace.”

“Until these arrive, we’ve heard you want to show your support, so just be you,” company executives wrote in a blog post. “Wear your BLM pin or t-shirt. We are so proud of your passionate support of our common humanity.” The employee-led Starbucks Black Partner Network and allies created the shirt “to recognize the historic significance of this time,” they added. “Together, we’re saying: Black Lives Matter and it’s going to take ALL of us, working together, to affect change.”

Y-Vonne Hutchinson, the CEO and founder of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm ReadySet, told MarketWatch it was “great news” that Starbucks had listened to its employees and customers — but added that she thought “this stumble demonstrates the need for deeper change within Starbucks.”

“It does signal a fundamental lack of understanding around the Black Lives Matter movement, the issues of systemic racism, and Starbucks’ role as a popular brand and employer,” she said. “I hope they learn from this situation and use it as a catalyst to begin that process of transformation.”

Employment lawyer Paula Brantner, the principal and president of PB Work Solutions, said Starbucks’ move was “very responsive to both the moment and what their partners want their company to stand for.” “The statement is consistent with the Starbucks brand and what I understand of their culture, which shows that companies should be prepared to listen to what their employees want and not just impose the views of corporate management or restrictive rules that will cause employees to chafe or speak out publicly in opposition,” she said.

The policy change came after backlash to a BuzzFeed News report about an internal company memo that advised Black Lives Matter clothing and accessories did not adhere to Starbucks’ dress code policy — and explained that “agitators who misconstrue the fundamental principles of Black Lives Matter movement” might “intentionally repurpose them to amplify divisiveness.” The company’s dress code prohibits any button or pin that “interferes with safety or threatens to harm customer relations or otherwise unreasonably interferes with Starbucks public image,” as well as pins or buttons “that advocate a political, religious or personal issue,” the memo said.

Some Starbucks workers who spoke with BuzzFeed called the company’s initial decision “surprising and disappointing” — particularly given Starbucks’ public support for racial-equity causes — and said it made their voices feel “muted,” pointing out that the company had allowed accessories and shirts that celebrate LGBTQ rights. The ban spawned a #BoycottStarbucks hashtag that went viral.

A Starbucks spokesperson told MarketWatch on Thursday that the company was “committed to doing our part in ending systemic racism.”
Companies can have dress codes, but they can’t be discriminatory

There’s no federal law, and there are only a handful of state laws, “that potentially protect an employee’s right to speak out at work about an important social issue,” Brantner said. And while companies are allowed to have dress codes, they’re not allowed to enforce them in racially discriminatory ways, she added. “Of course, that would be against the law if a black employee was fired for wearing [a Black Lives Matter shirt] but a non-black employee was not terminated for wearing something similar,” such as an “All Lives Matter” shirt, she said.

The nonprofit employee-rights organization Workplace Fairness, which Brantner previously advised and led, notes that “dress code policies must target all employees, not just you.” “While employers have a fair amount of latitude in enforcing dress code provisions, if you feel that your privacy rights have been violated by your employer or believe the enforcement of the dress code is discriminatory, contact your state department of labor, or a private attorney for more information,” the organization says.

There might not be a legal remedy in cases that don’t show clear-cut discrimination, Brantner said. But companies are fairly susceptible in the court of public opinion to being called out for this kind of behavior, she added, “so that’s probably the way to go at the moment.”

‘This country is going through a major change’

Starbucks baristas aren’t the only public-facing employees who have struggled to express support for the Black Lives Matter movement at work. Quinton Desamours, an 18-year-old from Lehigh Acres, Fla., says he resigned from his Publix supermarket job this month after an assistant manager asked him at the beginning of his shift June 6 to remove a face mask bearing the acronym “BLM.”

The manager said that he didn’t personally have a problem with the mask, Desamours told MarketWatch, but added that he wasn’t yet sure where the company stood on the issue — a statement Desamours said he found “disturbing.” The teen said the manager also told him he was endangering himself and others who worked there, and said Desamours couldn’t go back to work with the mask on. “But that was my mask, so I decided to leave,” he said.

‘I know how people try to twist [Black Lives Matter] into a political statement, but the basis of the movement is equality.’— Quinton Desamours, a former Publix employee

While the supermarket chain does prohibit masks with “non-Publix messaging,” Desamours claims that rule wasn’t strictly enforced at his store, citing coworkers’ masks displaying a floral design and a comic strip.

He later called to resign from his employer of a month and a half. A district manager called a few days later to apologize and offer his position back, he said, saying that his resignation hadn’t gone through yet. But Desamours said he no longer wanted to work there.

“This country is going through a major change, and I didn’t want to be a part of a company that doesn’t want to be a part of the change,” he said. “I know how people try to twist [Black Lives Matter] into a political statement, but the basis of the movement is equality, and that’s how I saw it — and that’s what I told them.”

Publix did not return a MarketWatch request for comment on Desamours’ account. But in response to an inquiry about a similar incident, a message posted on Publix’s customer-service Twitter TWTR, -0.46% account Friday said: “We have ordered a substantial number of face coverings to provide to our associates as part of our mandatory facial covering policy. Given the impact demand has had on availability, we have allowed associates to wear medical/surgical masks, dust masks and cloth face coverings until their uniform face coverings arrive in the coming days. Our uniform policy does not permit non-Publix messaging.”

“Our focus remains on ensuring a welcoming work and shopping environment for all associates and customers,” the company added, linking to a page that noted Publix’s $1 million donation to National Urban League affiliates alongside CEO Todd Jones’s note to associates about racial injustice and diversity.


Quinton Desamours, 18, says he resigned from his supermarket job this month after being asked to remove a face mask bearing the acronym ‘BLM.’ COURTESY OF QUINTON DESAMOURS

In a similar incident on June 5, a Martin’s Super Market employee in Granger, Ind., said he quit his job after allegedly being told he couldn’t wear the “Black Lives Matter” mask he had worn during two of his shifts.

“Today I was informed by my store manager that there had been so many customer complaints filed against me for wearing it that the corporate office was instructing me not to wear it. Meanwhile, Martins has made no statement in solidarity of its black workers or customers,” Avery Worrell wrote in a Facebook FB, 0.45% post.

“Some may say I was violating company policy for using them as a ‘platform,’” he added, “but I believe Martin’s should speak out and actively combat racism especially because they serve a largely white consumer base and these tend to be the people who need to hear it the most.”

Martin’s did not return a MarketWatch request for comment. A spokeswoman told the South Bend Tribune that the company stood in support of racial equality, and that “respect is one of our core values, and as such, all of our associates have the responsibility to create a supportive and welcoming environment that values every individual.”

Dennis Eidson, the interim president and CEO of Martin’s parent SpartanNash, recently called on Americans to “step up and do more to eradicate racism,” and said the company would continue providing workers with opportunities to complete “dignity and respect training and unconscious bias training.”
Support for Black Lives Matter has grown in recent weeks

Surveys show a dramatic increase in Americans’ support for the Black Lives Matter movement over time. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll this month, for example, found that 57% of U.S. adults had a “very or somewhat favorable” view of the movement. In contrast, just 27% of U.S. adults in a 2016 YouGov poll said they “strongly or somewhat” approved of the movement.

The recent protests stemming from George Floyd’s killing appear to have galvanized considerable support for Black Lives Matter: A June 10 New York Times article, citing data from the survey-research firm Civiqs, reported that support for the movement had grown in the previous two weeks by almost as much as it had in the last two years.

“It seems that more people in the public are endorsing and making the statement that black lives matter rather than saying, ‘I’m part of a movement or part of an organization’ or any kind of connotation that goes with that,” Quinetta Roberson, a Villanova University professor of management who specializes in diversity and inclusion, told MarketWatch.

“It’s an absolute statement — black lives matter — so I think that is what’s being said,” Roberson added. “Once it starts getting into interpretation and more relative and more evaluative, that’s where we start to see the controversy.”

‘Are businesses hiring, promoting, supporting their black employees? Are they respecting their black customers? That’s the kind of systemic change that seems to be happening, but I think it’s going to take time to see how real it is.’— Y-Vonne Hutchinson, the CEO and founder of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm ReadySet

Those three words have become “more mainstream,” Brantner said. “People are pushing back on the perception of Black Lives Matter as a radical or violent movement, and not letting its identity be smeared by those who are uncomfortable with what it represents,” she said.

Brands, meanwhile, are cognizant of “the power of social-justice messaging,” Hutchinson said. She pointed to Nike’s NKE, 0.99% soaring sales after the company backed ex-NFL player Colin Kaepernick in his protest against racial injustice and police brutality.

“Marketers and brand managers are paying attention to that, so the messaging has on the corporate side changed,” she said. “I still don’t know what that means for real corporate practices in terms of where the rubber meets the road: Are businesses hiring, promoting, supporting their black employees? Are they respecting their black customers? That’s the kind of systemic change that seems to be happening, but I think it’s going to take time to see how real it is.”

That change, she added, includes supporting employees who choose to publicly support Black Lives Matter at work.

“They’ve made their statements, they’ve contributed money or tried to put in support systems,” Roberson agreed. “But what’s the next thing? How do they start to actually change the culture or the structure of their organizations so that these things get addressed in a sustainable way?”

Companies will have to answer for when their treatment of employees is at odds with the public image they’ve cultivated, Brantner said. “When a company comes out and talks about the tragic events and how they support their black employees and they’re investing in communities … if there are incidents within the company that don’t match that, I think that’s where companies are going to be the most vulnerable right now.”
‘They just have to put some muscle behind that decision’

Hutchinson doesn’t buy arguments that policies governing employees’ Black Lives Matter attire are meant to keep workers safe. Store managers and employees should be comfortable calling the authorities or booting customers who harass their coworkers, she said.

“They’re not obligated to serve the person who doesn’t align with their values or who doesn’t treat their employees well — they just have to put some muscle behind that decision,” she said. “If you have someone who’s [wearing a Black Lives Matter pin] and who doesn’t have that kind of support, that’s when it gets dangerous.”

Hutchinson said it wasn’t on black employees — “who in many cases are bearing the brunt of this systemic, institutional racism,” and often have less power at work — to lead the charge for changing the rules. That’s a job for workers with privilege, she said, who can leverage their power as allies.

Desamours, who is headed to ASA College in Miami to play basketball in the fall, said he was in a financially stable place that made his resignation possible. But he acknowledged that many others are not in the same position.

“I know a lot of people may put up with discrimination or racism or inequality at work, but they have to stay — they need to do what they have to do to pay their bills,” he said. “I’m glad I was able to take a stand and be a voice for people who can’t always do that.”

How activist investors***  risk triggering even more automation, job losses and wealth inequality

 ESG (environmental, social and governance) investors’ blanket demands may have unintended consequences

*** THINK CARL ICHAN TRUMP'S PAL NOT RALPH  NADER

Published: June 16, 2020 By Derek Horstmeyer and Lisa Gring-Pemble

A robot cleans the floors at a supermarket. ASSOCIATED PRESS



As COVID-19 has shut down much of the U.S. economy, socially conscious investors are making a new wave of ESG (environmental, social and governance) demands. Companies are now being asked by their shareholders to both provide greater disclosure regarding their pandemic response and to improve worker safety generally.

While it is heartening to see investors place their attention and emphasis behind enhancing working conditions, if their ambitions are narrowly defined then such demands may have the unintended consequence of creating additional unemployment through increased automation.

Economists already predict that upwards of 42% of the jobs lost in the coronavirus pandemic may be gone for good. In the retail space particularly, companies are looking for any and all excuses to cut costs. In this, and other industries where the risk of automation is high, ESG investors must do more than make demands related to improving worker safety.

The drawback to the current ESG investor approach is that when they require more protection of workers’ health in isolation, CEOs may turn to the least costly option to address it. Economists often observe that in life, or business, there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs in the face of scarcity. This yields a difficult situation for well-intentioned investors. While their desire is for companies to provide safe working conditions for employees, the reality may be increased unemployment and widening inequality. Because employee safety and health are added costs that eat into a firm’s bottom line, a CEO who is pressed on the issue of worker health may be more inclined — on the margin — to trade a human employee for one that can never get sick (i.e. a robot).



For example, while the pandemic may have forced Gap Inc. US:GPS to temporarily shutter its brick and mortar operations, it created a dramatic spike in online purchases that, given social distance guidelines, could not be met safely by humans. What to do? Gap’s response has been to speed the acquisition and implementation of robots that assemble orders in warehouses. So far the company is treating this as positive step towards ensuring employee safety as opposed to a replacement mechanism. Yet given that one robot can do the work of four people, along with the endless search for efficiency present in the industry, automated replacement seems inevitable.

Demands by investors for greater worker protections need to be tailored for the particular situation an employee faces.

Examples like this from the retail sector should give pause to the ESG crowd and illustrate why blanket calls for employee safety are not sufficiently nuanced. Demands by investors for greater worker protections need to be tailored for the particular situation an employee faces in terms of the risk of automation of their position. The same goes for those in the airline industry and any other industry where automation is a possible substitute for human labor if the price of labor increases (in this case due to safety costs).


More broadly, investors interested in a more optimal outcome for employees must be ready and willing to engage management on a much wider set of issues. These include unionization, severance, extension of health insurance, unemployment benefits. To do otherwise could result in a situation where companies automate at a quickened clip, and kick employees to the curb with no protections, resources, or means of recourse.

Lest anyone think ESG investing is little more than a passing fad, or their potential to influence overblown, pay close to the actions of BlackRock US:BLK and its Chairman Larry Fink. BlackRock has almost $7 billion in assets under management, so when Fink speaks the business community listens. Early this year, Fink penned a letter advising CEOs that his company has placed sustainability at the center of its investment approach. While this particular action was heavily motivated by climate change risks, it is clear that the firm’s thinking extends more broadly.

In closing his message, Fink stated that “companies must be deliberate and committed to embracing purpose and serving all stakeholders.” It is the same belief we hold at the George Mason University Business for a Better World Center, and the mindset we try to instill in our students. In the wake of this crisis, it is also the same value system that is motivating investors.

The most high-profile instance, though, may be Amazon.com US:AMZN and its Whole Foods Market subsidiary. While Amazon is no stranger to pressure from government officials and unions on workplace safety, some of the most stinging criticism has been from its own shareholders. Prior to its annual shareholder meeting, an activist group of Amazon shareholders, including pension fund managers, took the company to task for its apparent lax approach to managing worker health in light of COVID-19. Some even went as far as to hold their own shareholder meeting, designed specifically to air grievances around workplace safety and precautions not taken to ensure employee health. While no concrete steps have been taken in response, it’s clear the reaction from shareholders has not gone unnoticed.

In recent weeks we have seen much greater attention being paid to solutions that may aid workplace safety. Robots are cleaning surfaces using UV and scanning employees and patrons for fevers, and checkout counters are self-sterilizing. These advances are all being implemented with both employee and customer health in mind. They aim to stop the spread of the virus while reducing the risk of exposure to employees by removing them from the cleaning process — a laudable development in and of itself. Our concern is that the removal isn’t temporary, and ultimately the robot will serve as a permanent substitute for the labor of an employee.

Derek Horstmeyer is an associate professor of finance at the George Mason University School of Business. Lisa Gring-Pemble is an associate professor at the George Mason University School of Business and the founder of Business for a Better World Center at George Mason.

More:As boomers hand over the keys to the stock market, sustainability-minded younger investors let their consciences lead

Plus: These 4 groups of funders are uniquely positioned to help close the racial wealth gap

Special delivery: activists urge France to rein in Amazon

Reuters June 17, 2020

Climate activists attend a demonstration against Amazon near the Bercy Finance Ministry in Paris

PARIS (Reuters) - Environmental campaigners delivered a 12-foot (3.6-metre) tall mock-up of an Amazon parcel to the French finance ministry on Wednesday to demand that the government rein in the e-commerce giant's expansion in France.

The campaigners - who did not have official permission for their protest - parked a rental van outside the ministry, and unloaded panels which they then assembled into a box, as security guards looked on.

The box was decorated with the Amazon logo and the slogan: "#StopAmazon". The campaigners also used spray paint and stencils to write the phrase: "Amazon: the state must say stop" on the pavement in front of the ministry.

"We put this parcel in front of the ministry to challenge the government about the dangers of the expansion of e-commerce in France," said Alma Dufour, a campaigner with the French chapter of green group Friends of the Earth.

The activists behind the protest say Amazon promotes a culture of consumption which hurts the environment, and that it squeezes out small businesses.

Amazon said in a statement it believed e-commerce was less harmful for the environment than traditional retail and that it was committed to reaching the threshold of net zero carbon for all its businesses by 2040.

It said it had created over 30,000 direct and indirect jobs in France in the past 20 years, including at small businesses which trade on the Amazon platform.

(Reporting by Christian Lowe; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

As war and disease ravage Yemen, $1.35 billion in aid isn't enough

Amjad Tadros,CBS News•June 17, 2020

FILE PHOTO: Women watch as a nurse attends to their relative who is being treated at an intensive care unit of a hospital for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Sanaa

Women watch as a nurse attends to their relative who is being treated at an intensive care unit of a hospital for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Sanaa, Yemen, June 11, 2020. REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

Amman, Jordan — United Nations' humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock promised during a virtual donors conference this month that the U.N. would "not abandon the people of Yemen." But the ever-expanding need for help in Yemen, as the war-torn country grapples with a spiralling coronavirus outbreak, cholera and widespread malnutrition, is quickly out-pacing the charity from abroad.

The conference saw international donors pledge $1.35 billion, far short of the $2.41 billion target and only half of what was raised last year, as donor nations struggle to keep their own economies afloat amid pandemic shutdowns.

Why 48,000 Yemeni women are at risk of death in child birth

Aid agencies say the funding shortfall, combined with the country's virtually immeasurable COVID-19 epidemic, will make a grim situation even more dire, and they're sounding the alarm.

"Failing to keep up"

"Donors' pledges to Yemen are failing to keep up with the growing need in the country," Jose Maria Vera, Executive Director of the international aid group Oxfam, said in a statement, noting that Yemen was "already the world's biggest humanitarian crisis after more than five years of conflict."

Vera warned that Yemen is facing a coronavirus outbreak with "barely half" of the health facilities in the country even functioning.

Oxfam noted also that the COVID-19 pandemic's economic impact in Yemen — already one of the poorest countries in the world — has been multiplied because Yemenis rely so heavily on cash transfers from friends and relatives abroad.

The global health crisis has ushered an "unprecedented decline in the flow of remittances to Yemen – a vital source of money for millions." The World Bank estimates that one in ten people in Yemen rely entirely on such money transfers to meet their basic needs.

Saudi Arabia co-hosted the U.N. donors conference and pledged $500 million itself. But $300 million of that donation was to be delivered to the kingdom's own government-run relief agency, rather than NGOs that work on the ground in Yemen.

The United States pledged $225 million during the conference, and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker said Washington would be, "working to provide additional funding in the coming weeks."

But more than two dozen international aid agencies have now joined together to warn the U.S. that "the window of opportunity to help mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is closing." A joint open letter, sent to Acting Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) John Barsa, warned that delays in funding aid projects in Yemen would be "devastating."

The U.N.'s World Food Program (WFP) is the biggest aid organization providing support to the Yemeni people. It provides general food assistance to more than 12 million people at an estimated cost of $837 million for six months (March 2020-August 2020). Faced with funding shortages, in April the WFP began providing families with food every other month instead of monthly.

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Workers carry food aid distributed by the World Food Program at a warehouse in Sanaa, Yemen, April 21, 2020. WFP/Mohammed Awadh

"This allows us to stretch resources and to maintain a safety net for as long as possible for the vulnerable Yemeni families who rely on WFP food assistance," Abeer Etefa, the WFP's senior spokeswoman for the Middle East and North Africa, told CBS News. "We hope that more contributions will be coming through the year, because the needs are growing in Yemen."

Etefa said that while the international community has provided an unprecedented level of support for Yemen over the last five years, it's still not enough, and its work has been complicated by the "problematic operating environment in areas controlled by the Sanaa-based authorities."

"Complicated place to operate"

Like all aid organizations in Yemen, WFP must navigate between the warring factions that control different parts of the country to keep its work going.

"Yemen is an incredibly complicated place to operate," Etefa said, noting constantly "shifting frontlines, poor infrastructure — now a pandemic," and on top of all that, "an environment of bureaucratic interference."

YEMEN-CONFLICT

Smoke billows following an airstrike by Saudi-led coalition in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, June 16, 2020. MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty

In the country's south, the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) seized a cash consignment estimated at around $250 million intended for the central bank in Aden on Saturday.

The rebels claimed the seizure was "part of several measures to end sources of corruption and to prevent the use of public money in supporting terrorism."

Meanwhile, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who control much of the north of Yemen, where 70% of the WFP's work is done, are demanding direct access to international donor money.

"We asked the U.N. to pay us in cash instead of the expired and corrupt assistance that they give to the Yemeni people," Houthi leader Mohammed Ali al-Houthi told the BBC on Sunday.

While there's broad consensus among aid organizations and the leaders of the various political factions in Yemen that the only lasting solution is a ceasefire, few are able — or willing — to name those responsible for the country's suffering.

Yemen's civil war is also a proxy war: The Iranian-backed Houthis who control the northern, most populous part of the country, including the capital Sanaa, are pitted against the government recognized by the U.S. and the United Nations. That government, which still controls a significant swath in the south, is being defended with devastating military power by a Saudi-led coalition.

"The Saudis are constantly demanding praise from the aid agencies for providing money for food and plastic sheeting so displaced Yemenis can build tents," one international aid official told CBS News on the condition of anonymity, "yet they get upset if we dare to discuss why the Yemeni homes were destroyed in the first place."

4-Day Work Week: Guysborough, Nova Scotia Municipality Office Tries It Out

The COVID-19 pandemic is bringing about a serious change to work culture.

By Premila D'Sa

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Canada, Barry Carroll’s small office, like many others across the country, had to adapt.

Carroll is the chief administrative officer of the municipal office of Guysborough, Nova Scotia, where he runs the day-to-day operations of a 60-person staff. While many in Carroll’s situation were stressing over the logistics of running an operation without a physical office, he realized the pandemic presented an opportunity to do something he’s always wanted to — rejig the entire set up.


That’s when Carroll decided he would introduce a pilot program to test out a four-day work week.

“Several years ago we started to focus a great deal on the mental health of our employees,” Carroll told HuffPost Canada. “We’re always looking for something to have a big impact, we thought we could make a real difference here with this particular opportunity.”
CENTRALITALLIANCE VIA GETTY IMAGESA N.S. municipal office is running a pilot 4-day work week program.


A four-day work week, he said, involved his staff still coming in and doing their regular jobs, but the extra day off meant additional time to rest, and one less day they’d have to commute in for work.

“It seems to be something that would be great for young families, or daycare parents,” he said.

Before starting the pilot, which officially began June 16, Carroll had already tested some of the logistics out. During the pandemic, his staff were allowed to split their week — two days at the office, and two days working from home. Carroll figured he could split his staff into two groups, and let them divide up the week.

Under the pilot, Carroll has half of his staffers work from Monday to Thursday. The second group works from Tuesday to Friday. Which means on Mondays and Fridays, the Guysborough office only has half its staff — but they still manage to keep all their services running.

“Honestly, during COVID-19, we found all kinds of efficiencies,” said Carroll. “People were in the workplace taking on jobs that they don’t traditionally do.”
‘I think everyone’s got a bounce in their step’

On the first day of their 4-day week, Carroll already saw the impact of working toward a longer weekend had on his employees.

“I think everyone’s got a bounce in their step,” said Carroll. “From the day we brought the idea to the full staff, everybody was really excited about it.”

Carroll doesn’t think it’s a radical idea, he just thought about what would work best for his staff. And his staff seemed to agree with him — they were given the choice to opt out of the program and continue their five-day week instead, but not a single person picked that option. Carroll said if there’s something good that’s come out of the pandemic, it’s this.

“A five-day work week and other models have been in place since the industrial ages,” he said. “And you know, we’ve changed, our workplaces have changed.”

Watch: What Would A 4-Day Work Week Mean For Canada? Story continues below.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/4-day-work-week-canada_ca_5ee94a75c5b6dfbb038654b7?ncid=other_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending

Clare Kumar, a work and productivity expert who’s made it her mission to make corporate workplaces have “a more compassionate view of their working employees,” could not agree more.

Kumar said the current five-day model was created to suit the needs of the industrial revolution, where workers were mostly doing repetitive tasks. The five-day work week was first implemented in the U.S. in 1908, so that Jewish communities could celebrate Sabbath and workers could take a break from their previous seven-day work week.

Factory employers during the industrial age started to run into problems when workers started showing up inebriated because they didn’t have enough time off for recreational activities, and more importantly, recovering from recreational activities. And so they changed the system, giving workers two days off with the expectation that they would show up, in a proper state, for the start of their work week.

Kumar said the five-day model doesn’t account for the fact that as jobs have changed — not just because they require more skills, but also that employees commuting times are getting increasingly longer. 

COURTESY OF CLARE KUMARWork and productivity expert Clare Kumar says the pandemic has given people time to reflect on their work culture.

The pandemic, which has forced many to work from home, also meant that people, much like Carroll, had more time to reflect on why they were working the way they were.

“We haven’t been for a long time, we’ve evolved into a society that’s not very reflective and the more reflective we can be, the more we can say, ‘huh, is this working for me when I really think about it?’ said Kumar. “We do need an evolution and some people are further along that curve than others.”

As countries around the world make their way through the COVID-19 infection curve, government officials are starting to address ways to restore their economies. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern suggested a four-day week as a way of doing just that, giving people more time to travel and spend money into the country’s tourism industry, which has absorbed the financial brunt of the pandemic.

“Ultimately, that really sits between employers and employees,” Arden said in a Facebook live. “But as I’ve said, there’s lots of things we’ve learned about COVID and just that flexibility of people working from home, the productivity that can be driven out of that.”
We do need an evolution and some people are further along that curve than others.Clare Kumar, productivity expert

In Japan, Microsoft implemented a four-day work week, giving employees Fridays off, and found that workers productivity went up by 40 per cent. The move even cut Microsoft Japan some slack — they saved 23 per cent in electricity costs and found that even one day less of work saved a significant amount of paper.

A 2018 Angus Reid poll found that half of Canadians would prefer a four-day work week, even if it meant longer work days.

“Investing in humanity and respecting humanity will generate greater productivity, greater results, greater retention, less attrition, all of those things,” said Kumar. Shealso noted that one less day of commuting to work could even mean an improvement in the condition of roadways, transit and other infrastructure.

“By changing the hours to some degree you can change the pressure on rush hour, a little bit,” she said. “And also hopefully people would actually get some time to relax, play, restore, build relationships.”

IM NATURE VIA GETTY IMAGES 

A four-day work week could possibly reduce the strain on transit services caused by rush hour.

Meanwhile in Guysborough, Carroll didn’t expect a pilot program for his small Nova Scotia municipal office would garner so much attention. He informed taxpayers about the new system, he said, and local news picked it up. Then all the major outlets followed.

“Since then it’s taken a life of its own,” said Carroll. While he said his staff didn’t go into it to become a national case study, he hopes their initiative might help bring about a change in work culture. -

“You want people to produce for you these days, they have to want to produce.”

At the end of January 2021, Carroll said his office will evaluate the success of the pilot. But he’s sure that while some problems might pop up, the overall outcome will be positive.

“People are so dedicated,” he said. “That’s one of the basis as to why I knew this would work — the dedication of our staff. That’s the reason this would be successful.”

RELATED
Canada's Economy Shrank More Than U.S. At Start Of Crisis: StatCan

Gen Z, Women, Quebecers: The People Hardest Hit In Canada’s Job Crisis

What Would A 4-Day Work Week Mean For Canada?

Judge Orders Trump Administration To Give Tribes Their COVID-19 Relief Funds

The Treasury Department was planning to sit on $679 million in emergency aid that was due to go to tribal governments months ago.


By Jennifer Bendery, HuffPost US

WASHINGTON ― A federal judge on Monday ordered Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to distribute $679 million in emergency COVID-19 relief funds to Native American tribes that should have gotten it months ago, and he chided the agency for causing “irreparable harm” with its delays.


“Continued delay in the face of an exceptional public health crisis is no longer acceptable,” said U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who gave Mnuchin until Wednesday to disburse the funds.

Here’s a copy of Mehta’s opinion:

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Tribal-Allocation-Methodology-for-Second-

The judge’s order comes after the Treasury Department has blown past deadlines, for months, for distributing coronavirus aid to tribal governments, who have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. Congress set aside $8 billion for tribes when it passed the CARES Act stimulus package in late March, and directed the Treasury Department to get the money out the door by April 26. That didn’t happen. The agency distributed about $4.8 billion in late May, and most of the remaining $3.2 billion wasn’t distributed until last Friday.

The delays have stemmed largely from the Treasury Department’s incompetence in working with tribes, but a lawsuit over Alaska Native Corporations’ eligibility for funds also complicated matters. The latest problem is that Mnuchin has been withholding $679 million of tribes’ money while a separate court challenge plays out over the agency’s methodology for calculating how much money tribes get.

Mnuchin had argued that he needs to hold on to the $679 million in the event the Treasury Department loses the case and needs to pay out more money to the tribe claiming it was underpaid. But Mehta said Monday that $679 million is “grossly disproportionate” to the amount of money that Treasury could have to pay out ― the tribe in the case claims it was underpaid by $7.65 million ― and there is no court order preventing the agency from releasing that money to tribes.

So, Mehta concluded, Mnuchin needs to release the funds to tribes ― now.

“That amount is being withheld of the Secretary’s own accord,” Mehta said. “The Secretary’s withholding of $679 million ‘to resolve any potentially adverse decision in litigation’ … simply cannot be justified.”

A Treasury Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
ALEX EDELMAN VIA GETTY IMAGESSen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) called it "a shameful scandal" that the Trump administration has delayed the distribution of COVID-19 relief funds to tribes.


Lawmakers on Capitol Hill praised the court’s decision and fumed that tribes have had to wait this long to get their emergency COVID-19 relief.

“The Court is absolutely correct: this administration has and continues to do ‘irreparable harm’ to Indian Country as it inexplicably holds back funds that Congress intended to get to Tribal governments urgently,” Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, told HuffPost in a statement. “It continues to be a shameful scandal that the Trump administration has dawdled with this funding while people in Native communities are getting sick and dying, and while businesses and essential services are shuttering.”

“It is unconscionable that it has taken court action to force this administration to distribute relief to Tribal governments as Congress intended and the law requires,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), chairman of the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States on the House Natural Resources Committee.

Rep. Deb Haaland (D-N.M.), one of two Native American women in Congress, said it is outrageous that a court had to intervene in order for tribes to get their federal funds.

“Sovereign Nations shouldn’t have to fight for money that Congress approves, ever,” Haaland tweeted. “It’s shameful that a judge has to force the Treasury to do their job.”

Mehta did allow Mnuchin to withhold a bit of the tribal funding: $7.65 million, in the event the tribe claiming it was underpaid wins its case, and an undisclosed amount that is reserved for the case involving Alaska Native Corporations.

GRANDRIVER VIA GETTY IMAGESA Navajo family wears masks to protect against the spread of COVID-19 in Monument Valley, Arizona.

Guest Workers Describe Coronavirus Nightmare On Louisiana Crawfish Farm

Two women on H-2B visas say they and others fell ill with COVID-19 but were told not to leave company housing for the hospital.

By Dave Jamieson, HuffPost US 06/17/2020 

Two guest workers from Mexico say they were stricken with COVID-19 as they processed crawfish in a crowded Louisiana plant ― and that their bosses forbid them from going to the hospital and threatened to report them to immigration authorities when they finally did. Ultimately, they got fired.

The women, Reyna Isabel Alvarez Navarro and Maribel Hernandez Villadares, detailed their disturbing allegations this month in filings with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Labor Relations Board. The documents (here, here and here) offer a chilling depiction of the challenges confronting essential workers amid the pandemic, similar to the widely reported stories from meatpacking plants.

In this case, both women were foreign-born guest workers who came to the U.S. on temporary H-2B visas to work at Acadia Processors, a crawfish wholesaler in Crowley, Louisiana.

Seafood processors along the Gulf Coast use the H-2B workers, and claims about poor working conditions and substandard housing are not uncommon. The program ties a worker’s employment to a particular company for the duration of the visa, an arrangement that can prevent workers from seeking other jobs or speaking up about working and living conditions.

Alvarez Navarro and Hernandez Villadares say they slept at company-provided housing while working on the nearby crawfish farm, a common arrangement in H-2B relationships. According to their complaints, workers in the plant began to show symptoms of COVID-19 in late March, and their supervisors soon imposed a “strict quarantine” and told them not to leave their living quarters. 

I felt like I was in the hands of the bosses.

Reyna Isabel Alvarez Navarro

Alvarez Navarro and Hernandez Villadares said they became “extremely sick” in mid-May, but were told to transfer to quarantine housing instead of seeking medical treatment. “I told my coworkers that I did not trust the company to take care of us and I thought we would all be safer going to the hospital immediately,” Alvarez Navarro wrote in her charge with the NLRB.

The two said they went to Acadia General Hospital for treatment on May 15 and did not return to the company housing. They were fired, and supervisors told them that the company was going to report them to immigration because they no longer worked for the company that held their visa, the pair said in their filings.

Three days after the women say they went to the hospital, the Louisiana Department of Health publicly announced severe coronavirus outbreaks had occurred among the workforces at three crawfish plants in Acadia and Lafayette parishes.

Aly Neel, a spokesperson for the state health department, said the agency would not confirm whether Acadia Processors was one of the trio of plants with major outbreaks. She said a total of about 100 cases were reported at the three.

“We worked closely with the facilities to minimize infection, ensure access to testing and provide technical support, including assisting with temporary housing for those who were unable to isolate,” Neel said in an email. “Fortunately, in the past month there have been no new cases.”

Acadia did not respond to messages left seeking comment on the women’s allegations.

The New Orleans-based news site The Advocate reported on the outbreaks at unnamed plants last month, finding that the crowded living quarters for guest workers likely played a significant role. “If one person gets it, there’s a good chance everyone’s going to get sick,” one crawfish farmer told the outlet.

According to Labor Department records, Acadia Processors requested at least 100 guest workers for 2020, to be paid a base rate of $9.75 per hour, though workers can earn more depending on how fast they peel crawfish. The housing provided would be “voluntary” and “low cost,” the company said in its application, with the company deducting $50 per week from those who opted for it.

In an interview with HuffPost, Alvarez Navarro said she and others worked so close to one another in the plant that their shoulders touched, and they often slept six or seven to a room in the dorm-style company housing. “One kitchen for everyone, one dining area where we eat together,” she said in Spanish through an interpreter.

Alvarez Navarro said it seemed as if everyone was infected, with so much of the workforce showing flu-like symptoms. She said supervisors took her and other workers to a clinic to get tested for the coronavirus, but she never received the results. She said tests also were offered at the plant, but workers were being charged for them.

She said a friend who lived in town took her and Hernandez Villadares to the hospital, adding that she felt “like I was going to die.”

Company officials said “no one can leave the house nor could anyone come in,” she said. “I felt like I was in the hands of the bosses. When people were infected… I had no resources to get tested. I just wanted to know.”

She said she received positive test results from the hospital about four days later. 
CHRIS GRAYTHEN VIA GETTY IMAGES

Alvarez Navarro and Hernandez Villadares say they were processing crawfish at a Louisiana plant when they and other workers got sick with COVID-19.
Daniel Costa, an immigration law expert at the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, said that in general, the living and working conditions for H-2B workers are “tailor-made” for spreading the coronavirus.

The workers “are always easily fire-able if they speak up about wages or working conditions ― which leads to them losing their visa status and becoming deportable ― and most are terrified of losing their jobs because they’ve paid hefty recruitment fees,” Costa said in an email. “Now on top of that they have to worry about getting sick and the virus spreading in the workplace and in living quarters, and their employers not caring and not taking adequate precautions or implementing safety measures.”

Alvarez Navarro and Hernandez Villadares have received legal assistance from Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, a worker center for migrant workers from Mexico, which arranged the interview with Alvarez Navarro. In a letter to OSHA, the group argued that the women’s refusal to stay in company-ordered quarantine housing is protected under safety whistleblower law: They feared for their lives and had no reasonable alternative.

If their firings were found to be illegal, the two women would be entitled to back pay and job reinstatement.

The Seafood Workers Alliance, a New Orleans-based worker center, has been organizing guest workers in an attempt to improve the jobs inside seafood processing plants in the area. Sabina Hinz-Foley Trejo, an organizer for the group, said coronavirus outbreaks were “inevitable” considering the working standards and H-2B arrangements.

“The majority of crawfish peeler and harvesters are guest workers. That whole system just allows for very little enforcement, very little worker protections, and a lot of retaliation,” she said. “There are a lot of really horrible labor practices.”

Hinz-Foley Trejo also criticized the state for not disclosing the names of the plants where workers had high infection rates, saying it was a matter of public health to know where major outbreaks occurred.

“To keep this secret and to protect employers through this, essentially the state is complicit,” she said.

A picture and its story: Black personal trainer carries suspected far-right protester to safety

Reuters,NBC News•June 15, 2020

"That's not what we do!"

Reuters photographer Dylan Martinez heard the words ring out during chaotic scenes in London on Saturday, when mostly peaceful anti-racist demonstrations turned into violent scuffles with counter-protesters in the area.

Then he saw the man who had uttered them — a Black protester emerging from the melee carrying an injured white man in a "fireman's lift" over his shoulder.

The picture he took has gone viral on social media and featured in news bulletins, capturing a moment of high drama that jars with the broader narrative of anti-racist and far-right protesters fighting each other.

"I saw a skirmish and someone falling to the ground," Martinez recalled of the moment near Waterloo Bridge, in central London, as he covered anti-racism protests that have flared up in the city.

The two men then appeared through the crowd.

"The crowd parted right in front of me. I was in the right place at right time, and incredibly lucky from that point of view. He came towards me walking briskly."

Martinez said the man being carried had injuries to his face, and Reuters journalists at the scene said he had been beaten in a skirmish with anti-racism protesters.

Some people in the crowd shouted out that the assault victim was a member of the far-right.

Reuters was not able to identify the victim or his political leanings. Police said they were aware of the incident and the photograph, but made no further comment when Reuters asked for details of the men's identity and what happened.

Image: Patrick Hutchinson, a protester, carries a suspected far-right counter-protester who was injured, to safety, near Waterloo station during a Black Lives Matter protest (Dylan Martinez / Reuters)

Protests have erupted across British cities and around the world after a Black man, George Floyd, died in police custody in Minneapolis on May 25.

In some cases they have sparked counter-demonstrations by people who do not agree with all of their aims and methods, and these have included people from far-right groups.

British media identified the Black man as Patrick Hutchinson, a personal trainer. On his social media account, he wrote: "We saved a life today."

Reuters spoke to the partner of Hutchinson's best friend, who confirmed it was him. Hutchinson did not reply to calls to his mobile phone.

He told British Channel 4 News on Sunday it was a "scary" scene. "It was pretty hectic, it was almost like a stampede.

"...The guys went in there, they sort of put a little cordon around him to stop him receiving any more physical harm. His life was under threat.

"So I just went under, scooped him up and put him on my shoulders and sort of started marching towards the police with him whilst all the guys were surrounding me and protecting me and the guy I had on my shoulder."

In a statement on Sunday police said 113 people had been arrested over the weekend and 23 officers were injured in the violence, none of them seriously.

Racist house deeds were ‘the most powerful tools to segregate American cities and determine who could own properties’

The way these deeds were written, blacks and Asians were barred from ever purchasing, renting, or otherwise living in houses in many parts of the U.S.

THREE MONTHS AGO THIS ARTICLE AT THIS SITE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON HOW GIVING CUT RATE MORTGAGES TO BLACKS CAUSED THE 2008 MARKET CRASH

Published: June 16, 2020 By  Clare Trapasso

Daniel Shiplacoff and his partner didn’t know that their Spanish-style home at the foot of Hollywood Hills had a dark secret until after they had purchased the four-bedroom house in late 2000.

The mixed-race couple were shocked to receive a copy of the original deed to the Los Angeles property, which dated to the 1920s. The document clearly stated that no one of African or Asiatic descent could remain on the property after 6 p.m., unless that individual was a caregiver to someone living in the home. In other words: Blacks and Asians were barred from ever purchasing, renting, or otherwise living in the house.


“It just became very real in that moment, the ugliness of racism and classism,” says Shiplacoff, now 43, who is half-Jewish and half-Filipino. His now-husband is white. “Being the son of a woman from the Philippines and considering myself brown, it was a little painful. At the same time, it felt gratifying that a brown, gay man was buying this home and giving it a new chapter in its history.”

In recent weeks, following several widely publicized killings of black Americans by police officers, frustration with and rage over centuries of racial injustice have erupted into passionate protests across the country that in turn have set off a round of apologies and a national reckoning.


“Systemic racism” has become a catchphrase—and historically, one of its most powerful and harmful tools has been housing segregation. The discrimination helped to widen the gulf between blacks and whites in wealth, quality of life, and economic opportunity that persists today.

Although they are now illegal to enforce, racial covenants like the one Shiplacoff discovered can be found even now on deeds in just about every corner of the country.


First appearing in the early part of the 20th century, these so-called deed restrictions legally prevented people of certain races from buying, renting, or living in individual homes in white communities well before the practice of redlining officially marked those areas as off-limits to minority buyers.

Racial covenants were finally outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. But as the document that legally transfers title of a home from one owner to the next, a deed is typically not easily changed without getting lawyers involved. So in many cases the language remains as an unpleasant—and, to a new owner, often wholly unexpected—reminder of the legacy of segregation.

The covenants were “the most powerful tools to segregate American cities and determine who could own properties,” says Kirsten Delegard, director of the Mapping Prejudice project based at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The project looks at historic housing inequality in the Minneapolis area, where George Floyd was killed. “Even though racial covenants have been officially illegal since 1968 ... the segregation they’ve established continues today.”

White families who bought homes during that time saw huge price appreciation, allowing them to build wealth and pass it down to future generations. Black Americans, however, were restricted to purchasing homes in less desirable neighborhoods, with fewer resources. Those homes were often sold at inflated prices to buyers given shadier, more expensive mortgages. Meanwhile, price appreciation in nongentrified minority communities has been significantly lower than in white communities.


These disparities may help to explain why nearly three-quarters of white Americans, 73.7%, owned their homes—compared with just 44% of blacks in the first quarter of 2020, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Meanwhile, the median net worth of a white family is almost 10 times that of a black family—$171,000 compared with $17,600, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances looked at 2016 data.

“It’s had a disastrous impact on African-Americans,” says Evan McKenzie, a political-science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “The symbolic statements that these covenants make is a national disgrace.

“It’s a legacy of shame.”



How racial covenants segregated America

Racial covenants began appearing in deeds around 1910. Their usage picked up during the great migration, which began shortly after and extended for decades, as black Americans left the Southeast for better opportunities and a better quality of life in the rest of the country. Cities and suburbs in the Northeast, Midwest, and West responded with racial covenants. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down discriminatory zoning laws in 1917, many communities turned to these covenants to ensure that segregation would continue.

“Black people were viewed as a threat to white people’s property values,” says McKenzie. “There was a widespread [belief] in the real-estate industry that white people do not want to live around African-Americans.”

The restrictions exploded in popularity in the 1930s and the 1940s, especially after World War II. New suburban communities were cropping up on the outskirts of cities and beyond. White families were abandoning urban areas for this new version of the American dream: a single-family house with backyard in the suburbs. But many developers couldn’t get loans to build new homes and communities during this time without including the exclusionary clauses.

The covenants, coupled with the federal policy of redlining implemented in the mid-1930s, worked. Racial segregation flourished—and even though the racist restrictions have been illegal for the past half-century, their impact remains. America’s suburbs remain predominantly white today—according to the Pew Research Center, 90% of suburban counties have a majority-white population.

“The racial covenants created the racial disparities you have today,” says Delegard. “Racial covenants, in some ways, reveal the origins of the structural racism that is so pronounced in Minneapolis.

“Racial covenants determined who had access to affordable, safe, stable housing over time,” she continues. “They determined who could become a property owner, which in the United States is central to who can accumulate wealth.”

Delegard’s group, Mapping Prejudice, has found about 30,000 deeds in Hennepin County. The county includes the city of Minneapolis, the epicenter of the most recent Black Lives Matter protests, which have since spread throughout the world.

Minneapolis has one of the largest homeownership gaps in the country, with whites about three times more likely to own their homes. Only about a quarter of black residents are homeowners, compared with roughly three-quarters of white residents.

“We are always dealing with the repercussions of the past,” says Delegard.

“In the life of a property, 50 years is not very long. Many houses stay in the same family for that amount of time,” says Delegard. “Once racial covenants lock in these patterns of where people live, that is very hard to change. Once a neighborhood becomes exclusively white, it’s very hard to be the first person of color to live there. There’s all kinds of signals people get about whether they’re welcome in a neighborhood.”

Racial covenants were declared illegal, but community racism persisted

Kim Wrench had a particularly ugly experience when he bought a Colonial-style home in the tree-lined neighborhood of Greenway Fields in Kansas City, MO, in 1989. The original owner of the 1920s home, who was white, hadn’t realized Wrench was black until he showed up at the property with an inspector.

“I overheard her say that ‘If I had known Mr. Wrench was black I would have never sold my house to him,’” says Wrench, now 64, who works in sales at Tiffany & Co. Her agent and his agent were “appalled,” and explained to her that it was too late to back out of the deal.

“I hope no one has to experience what I did,” Wrench says.



In line with the previous owner’s sentiments, the deed to the three-bedroom house stated blacks, Jews, and other minorities were prohibited from buying homes in the community. And while the language was no longer legally enforceable, Wrench felt that the racist sentiments it expressed were alive and well in his new community.

“It was very difficult living in that neighborhood because I always felt profiled,” says Wrench. Security patrol cars, paid for by the local homeowners, would slow down considerably and even follow him initially when he was walking down the street. Neighbors were concerned because a black homeowner had moved into their enclave.

“At first I was shocked, and then I was appalled,” he says. “Then I thought, ‘You know what? To hell with it. It’s their problem.’”

He earned the neighborhood’s respect by restoring the home to its former glory. In 2012, he sold it after he and his partner split up. He never told the new buyers about the deed.

The fight to remove racial covenants continues

About 1,000 miles away from Wrench, web developer Chris Fullman, 37, who is white, also found a racial covenant attached to the deed for his Henrico, VA, home. He was so disturbed that he started a grass-roots project, MakeBetterDeeds.org, to lobby the state to make it easier to have the discriminatory language struck from the documents. And he won.



On July 1, Virginia residents can file a certificate with their jurisdiction to have the restrictions removed without having to retain an attorney, go to court, and pay fees. In Minnesota, California, and Washington, homeowners can have a document attached to their deed saying the racist stipulations are illegal.

In much of the rest of the country, this stain of legalized discrimination is difficult—and costly—to remove. Homeowners in many cities and states must hire a lawyer and appear in court to have the covenants removed.

Fullman bought his three-bedroom, ranch house, built in 1952, in a quiet, blue-collar neighborhood near Richmond, VA, in 2016. After he’d completed all of the paperwork at the closing, his attorney told him there was just one last thing. Fullman was handed a document that stipulated only Caucasians could reside in the neighborhood, except for live-in servants.

Although his attorney explained it was unenforceable, Fullman was so appalled, he took action.

In April, Gov. Ralph Northam signed into law the bill simplifying the removal of such covenants.

“It’s just part of the healing and moving forward,” says Fullman, whose organization will offer information on how other states can move against legacy racial covenants. “It’s an important gesture. We’re officially saying this neighborhood is welcome to anyone, this house is welcome to anyone.”

This story originally ran on Realtor.com.

Clare Trapasso is the senior news editor of realtor.com and an adjunct journalism professor at the College of Mount Saint Vincent. She previously wrote for a Financial Times publication, the New York Daily News, and the Associated Press. She is also a licensed real-estate agent. Contact her at clare.trapasso@realtor.com.

SURPRISE
Administration officials back away from promise of vaccine by the New Year


Sean D. Naylor National Security Correspondent,Yahoo News•June 16, 2020

Trump declares, ‘Vaccine or no vaccine, we’re back’ at ceremony announcing coronavirus vaccine effort

A month after President Trump announced Operation Warp Speed, administration officials are offering no guarantees that the project will meet its goal of producing 300 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by January.

“There are no sure things in science,” said a senior Trump administration official, who asked not to be named, in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “We cannot promise a 100 percent chance of success. What we can tell Americans is that we’ve taken every possible step to maximize the probability of success.”

Under the joint control of the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, Operation Warp Speed is the administration’s effort to drastically accelerate the development, production and distribution of an effective vaccine for the coronavirus.

President Trump, flanked by Dr. Anthony Fauci, outside the White House on May 15. (Alex Brandon/AP)

Previously, Trump administration officials have sounded sure that they would have 300 million doses ready by January. “I’m confident that we will be able to deliver a vaccine at scale in time,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said May 28.

That claim met with skepticism from medical experts. “A lot of stuff needs to line up in the right way for it to happen,” a source familiar with the Defense Department’s vaccine efforts told Yahoo News at the time.

But the two officials who spoke with reporters Tuesday, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, were slightly more cautious than Esper in their predictions. “Given the vagaries of science … we cannot guarantee with a 100 percent probability that we’ll have a vaccine by the end of the year,” said the first official.

Rather than fixate on the Jan. 1 deadline, the Warp Speed “aspiration” is now that “by the height of flu season next year we have enough vaccines and we have vaccinated those who are vulnerable — and desire a vaccine — to protect as much life as possible,” the first official said. “We’re confident that we will hit that objective.”

The steps that Operation Warp Speed is taking largely involve the outlay of substantial amounts of money in a process that equates to the placing of bets on several horses in the same race. According to a fact sheet released in conjunction with the press call, the U.S. government has already invested a total of more than $2 billion in vaccine candidates being developed by AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. Those are among 14 of the most promising vaccine efforts chosen from more than 100 in development, the second official said, adding that they will soon narrow that field down to “approximately seven” candidates.

But what makes Operation Warp Speed unique is that rather than pursue the development, manufacture and distribution stages of a vaccine effort sequentially, “these elements are occurring simultaneously,” said the first senior administration official. “That will make the major difference and allow us to deliver safe and effective vaccines to Americans in record time.”

As an example, the first official said, “we expect to be producing large quantities of vaccines while the clinical trials are still underway, so that when safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, there isn’t a day’s delay due to manufacturing ramp-up timelines.” The reason drug companies typically don’t do this is that “it involves significant financial risk,” the official said. Under Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government is assuming that risk, he added.

“When one looks at the potential health, social and economic benefits of getting a safe and effective vaccine faster, placing big financial bets on checking all these boxes at once is an immensely positive deal,” the official said.

A man receives a shot in the first-stage safety study clinical trial of a potential vaccine for the coronavirus, March 16, at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. (Ted S. Warren/AP)

Asked how much patients will have to pay to get the vaccine once it becomes available, the officials sought to allay fears that it would be too expensive for some Americans. “For any American who is vulnerable, who cannot afford the vaccine and desires the vaccine, we will provide it for free,” said the first official.

Meanwhile, in discussions with Operation Warp Speed officials, insurers have expressed “an eagerness to cover this vaccine as most if not all of them have covered other COVID-related services — without copay,” he added.

The government will work with the insurers to distribute the vaccine to retail pharmacies and doctors’ offices, while making sure it is also available to those who cannot afford it, as well as essential workers and “those associated with national defense,” the first official said.

The government will use a “tiered approach” to deciding who gets the vaccine first, according to the second official. “The elderly, those with preexisting conditions [and] people performing essential services would be given higher tiers,” he said. However, final decisions on which populations would benefit most from a vaccine will depend on the outcomes of clinical trials and any new information about the virus, he added.

Not everyone will be getting the vaccine, according to the first senior administration official. “For many reasons, we don’t expect to have all Americans vaccinated,” he said.

Those reasons include the fact that because the “safety and efficacy” of a future vaccine is currently unknown, “it may be much more applicable to certain demographic categories than others,” he said.

In addition, he noted that many Americans will already have been exposed to the virus by the time a vaccine is available.

“We fully expect there will be … 20, 30, 40 million Americans that probably have strong antibodies to coronavirus by the end of the year, so they would be a significantly lower priority.”

There is as yet no proof that previous exposure prevents reinfection, however.