Sunday, September 05, 2021

 

Liberal climate plan likely least costly, most effective, says economist assessing main parties' proposals

Reddit

  • LinkedIn

  • Simon Fraser academic Mark Jaccard says Conservative plan would meet party's emissions reduction target

    A flare stack lights the sky from the Imperial Oil refinery in Edmonton in December 2018. Economist Mark Jaccard's recently studied the main federal parties' climate change policies. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

    The Liberals have the most effective, least costly climate change policy of the four main federal parties, according to one economist, but the Conservatives are not far behind in second place. 

    According to analysis by Simon Fraser University's Mark Jaccard, the Liberals have the most effective and affordable plan, followed by the Conservatives, the Greens and, in a distant fourth, the NDP. 

    Jaccard, a professor at the B.C. university's school of resource and environmental management, looked at three criteria in conducting his analysis: the economic cost of implementing the plan; how effective that plan would be in reducing emissions; and he then gave them a rating out of 10 for how sincere he thought each plan was. 

    Based on those three criteria, Jaccard said the Liberal plan was "effective" and "affordable." He called the Conservative plan "possibly effective" and "affordable," the Green Party plan "somewhat effective" but "very costly" and the NDP's plan "largely ineffective" and "unnecessarily costly."

    Jaccard first looked at the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by each party and compared those to the policies they say will help reach those targets.

    If a party's policies aren't enough to meet the target, Jaccard uses the Navius Research Inc. gTech modelling method to tweak the policies, like raising the carbon tax or strengthening regulations, to see what would be required to get the job done.

    He then calculated the economic cost of each revised policy in terms of lost GDP in the year 2030 — when the targets must be met under the Paris climate agreement. His results were published in Friday's issue of the magazine Policy Options. 

    Jaccard graded the policies on their effectiveness and cost the economy, giving top marks to the Liberals, followed by the Conservatives. (CBC)

    When Canada first signed the Paris agreement, it committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Jaccard said the Liberals' carbon tax would come close to achieving that target at a hit of two per cent of GDP. 

    But earlier this year, the Liberals raised their target to between 40 and 45 per cent. Jaccard says he only looked at the 40 per cent target and whether the Liberals could hit it with the additional policies they have announced. 

    "While I haven't had time to precisely model these latest policies, my triangulation between our many simulations suggests they'll likely achieve the 40 [per cent] target, albeit with a larger GDP impact of about 2.5 per cent," Jaccard wrote in Policy Options.

    Tories stick with 30%

    For the Conservatives, who have stuck with the 30 per cent target, Jaccard says their lower carbon tax combined with other policies such as their clean fuel standard would likely hit that target at a two per cent cost to the economy — about the same as the Liberals' plan when their target was 30 per cent. 

    Jaccard gives the Greens, who have a target of 60 per cent below 2005 levels, some credit for introducing measures that would help industries hurt by such cuts but says the carbon price would have to reach $580 a tonne by 2030 compared to the Liberals' $170 or the Conservatives' $50.

    The Greens, he says, would also harm the economy the most by reducing GDP in 2030 by 7.5 per cent. 

    Green Party candidate and former party leader Elizabeth May says Jaccard's assessment was "not credible" and pushed back against the suggestion the party does not have a plan to meet its targets.

    "There's deep, deep detail in the Green Party approach that he has given short shrift," said May. 

    "We're looking at an absolute clear risk to humanity. We will not survive hitting the target that the Liberals have promised. So a realistic plan [that] can meet a target for failure shouldn't get you good points."

    The NDP's target of cutting emissions by 50 per cent, combined with their other policies, would be the worst of the lot, Jaccard says, costing the economy 6.5 per cent of GDP while being "largely ineffective."

    "An ambitious target combined with economically inefficient policies is devastating to the economy," he wrote. 

    NDP says Liberal plan is all 'talk'

    An NDP spokesperson told CBC News in an email that when it comes to fighting climate change, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is "all talk."

    "Justin Trudeau can make big promises but the reality is that, since he was elected, Canada's emissions have increased and the country has become the third biggest air polluter in the OECD," the statement said.

    According to the latest report from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the country's emissions have ticked up on Trudeau's watch.

    In 2019 — the first year of the federal carbon pricing system, commonly called the "carbon tax" — Canada produced 730 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, an increase of one megatonne — or 0.2 per cent — over 2018.

    Broadening the assessment

    Isabelle Turcotte, the Pembina Institute's director of federal policy, said that it is "valuable to have an analysis based on ... the economic and the greenhouse gas impact of the different plans" and that she was not taken aback by the results. 

    "At a very high level we're not surprised to see the Liberal plan would rank the highest because in my own analysis, looking at the Liberal platform, I do find that it has a lot of strong elements, a comprehensive approach to tackling climate change," she said. 

    Turcotte said she was still surprised by the low assessment given to the NDP but added that Jaccard's analysis uses its own focused criteria to look at cost and effectiveness without considering other factors.

    "If we truly want to have a full picture, let's take a look at the cost of inaction and this is a very high cost and it's difficult to capture," she said. 

    Turcotte said she doesn't want people to come away from reading Jaccard's report with the impression that hitting higher targets is impossible.

    We can get there, says environmental group

    Climate Action Network's national policy manager Caroline Brouillette also criticized Jaccard's research, saying it gives credit to a platform for having a plan to meet lower targets.

    "A plan that is really great but that gets to a non-1.5 degrees compliance target would only mean that either Canada is not pulling its weight internationally ... or that we're headed above that 1.5 degrees threshold and therefore towards catastrophic warming," she said. 

    The goal of the Paris agreement is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees — preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius — over pre-industrial levels.

    Climate Action Network says that the only way to do that is to cut emissions by 60 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which it says is achievable using different policy options.

    Brouillette said that Climate Action Network conducted its own modelling using the same gTech modelling method employed by Jaccard and found a path to cut emissions by 60 per cent with the economy growing at an average rate of 1.8 per cent.

    Points for sincerity

    Jaccard also gave each party a mark out of 10 for sincerity, giving the Liberals an eight, saying their policies would be effective and affordable. He gave the Conservatives a five, saying he's concerned by the their less-than enthusiastic history of tackling climate change and the complexity of some of their policies. 

    The NDP come away with a sincerity score of just two out of ten, with Jaccard saying that not only would their policies not work but implementing them would be "unnecessarily costly."

    "It's misleading to tell Canadians we can magically eliminate 50 per cent and more of our GHG emissions in just nine years, without enormous cost and disruption," Jaccard wrote.

    "The NDP score even lower than the Greens on climate sincerity because it is not credible that they would destroy Canadian industries as the means to achieve their target."

    "Social democratic governments in Scandinavia do not implement the policies the federal NDP are proposing. Nor have recent NDP governments in Alberta and B.C." he said.

    What the parties are proposing:

    Liberals

    The Liberals claim that with a national price on carbon (rising to $170 per tonne by 2030) and other measures, they can cut Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. 

    They pledged previously to cut emissions by 30 per cent by that date.

    The Liberals passed a climate plan, C-12, to set legally binding emissions targets to reach net-zero emissions in 2050. They have pledged to ensure the oil and gas sector cuts emissions at the pace required to hit net-zero in 2050, with five-year targets. The party says it will ban single-use plastics by 2030.

    Conservatives

    The Conservatives opposed the Liberals' net-zero emissions legislation and say their climate plan would meet Paris climate commitments of 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. 

    They would replace the Liberal carbon pricing system with one that includes a price on carbon for consumers that would rise to a maximum of $50 per tonne.

    Instead of the rebates offered under the Liberal system, however, the money collected through the Conservative carbon pricing scheme would be diverted to "personal low carbon savings accounts" to be used by individuals to buy "green" products.

    The party wants to keep in place the current output-based pricing system on larger industrial emitters. Conservatives plan to invest in carbon capture and tax products imported from countries with low climate standards.

    New Democrats

    New Democrats supported the Liberals' net-zero legislation and have set an emissions reduction target of 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

    They pledge to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and target net-zero electricity by 2030, with a goal of moving to 100 per cent non-emitting electricity by 2040.

    Bloc Québécois

    The Bloc Québécois says it wants to meet and exceed the Paris climate agreement targets, redirect unspent money on the Trans Mountain pipeline to renewable projects, and compel provinces that have emissions higher than the national average to pay into a "green equalization" fund to be distributed to provinces polluting less.

    The party's platform proposes subjecting all federal policies and public contracts to a "climate test."

    Greens

    While they criticized the government's net-zero bill, Green MPs ultimately voted for it. 

    The party wants to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 (using an annual carbon tax increase), cancel pipeline projects, ban fracking and slap tariffs on imports from countries with weak climate policies. 

    They promise a detailed carbon budget to keep GHG emissions within the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold and say they want to name an all-party climate cabinet.

    People's Party

    The People's Party platform claims that there is "no scientific consensus" that human activity is driving climate change and has said warnings of looming environmental catastrophe are exaggerated.

    The party would withdraw Canada from the Paris climate accord and abandon what it calls "unrealistic" targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    They would scrap the Liberal carbon pricing regime and leave it to provinces to adopt programs as they see fit. The party pledges to invest in adaptation strategies as a result of "any natural climate change."


    Jaccard has provided academic analysis of climate change policies to the federal and provincial Liberals, Conservatives, Green Party and NDP over the past two decades. The Conservative government led by former prime minister Stephen Harper appointed him to Canada's National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy from 2006 to 2009. He currently serves on the B.C. NDP government's Climate Solutions Council, where he provides strategic advice to the provincial government on climate action and clean economic growth.

    CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DISRUPTER

    Examining Potential Long-Term Adverse Health Effects Of Tear Gas

    A new study reveals that tear gas may be connected to potential long-term adverse health effects. 

    Sep 4, 2021  NBC News

    Two female CEOs were the first to speak out against Texas' abortion ban as big tech companies largely stay silent

    Hannah Towey Sep. 3, 2021,
    Bumble CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd and Tesla CEO Elon Musk
    Vivien Killilea/Getty Images for Bumble (left) and Britta Pedersen-Pool/Getty Image (right)

    Gov. Abbott said Texas' abortion ban "is not slowing down businesses" from coming to the state.

    But two-thirds of "top talent" said in a survey that the law would discourage them from working in Texas.

    Most tech companies have remained silent on the issue - the only 2 CEOs to immediately respond were women.
    .

    Two-thirds of "top talent" said Texas' abortion ban would discourage them from taking a job in the state, according to a recent survey commissioned by the Tara Health Foundation.

    More than half of respondents said they would want their employer to speak publicly about restrictive abortion policies. For most Texas companies, that has not been the case.

    Despite the tech industry's record of speaking out on political issues such as LGBTQ and immigration rights, only two tech CEOs with offices in Texas immediately responded to the state's abortion ban. Both are women.

    Lyft CEO Logan Green tweeted Friday that the ban "threatens to punish drivers for getting people where they need to go- especially women exercising their right to choose," adding that Lyft "created a Driver Legal Defense Fund to cover 100% of legal fees for drivers sued under SB8 while driving on our platform."


    Website hosting provider GoDaddy told anti-abortion group Texas Right for Life that its anonymous abortion tip line violated its terms of service on Friday.

    "We have informed prolifewhistleblower.com they have 24 hours to move to another provider for violating our terms of service," a spokesperson told The New York Times.

    Texas Gov. Abbott told CNBC on Thursday that he does not believe the legislation banning abortion after six weeks - before most women know they are pregnant - will cause employers to react negatively.

    "This is not slowing down businesses coming to the state of Texas at all," he said, adding that Elon Musk is a fan of Texas' social policies.

    The Tesla CEO tweeted in response that he would "prefer to stay out of politics" and that "the government should rarely impose its will upon the people."

    Data released Tuesday suggests that the ban may deter college-educated workers from accepting positions in Texas. In a survey of 1,804 working adults ages 18 to 64 with a college degree, the majority said they would not apply for jobs in a state with an abortion ban similar to SB 8.

    One male respondent from Washington wrote that the bill would make him "not likely to do business (or live) in that state. And further, as a decision influencer in some cases, I would highly recommend that no organization that I am affiliated with does business in that state - including meetings and conventions."

    Texas cities Austin and Houston are considered some of the fastest-growing tech hubs in the US due to low taxes and minimal regulation. Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Amazon, Google, Dell, PayPal, and Salesforce are just some of the industry giants who have moved offices to the state over the past decade.

    Bumble, the $6.6 billion company founded by Whitney Wolfe Herd in 2014, tweeted that it was "women-founded and women-led," and would "keep fighting against regressive laws like #SB8."

    Match Group - the $38.4 billion parent company of several dating platforms, including Hinge and Tinder - told its staff in a memo that it would start a fund for its Texas employees to access abortions outside of the state. Match Group is helmed by CEO Shar Dubey.


    A Microsoft spokesperson told Insider that the company has nothing to share at this time. Dell said it would circle back if it has any statements to share.

    "If you look at what our state is doing, and then you see another state where they're not doing some of those things, you might say, 'Well, the money's good, but where do I want to raise my family?" Tammi Wallace, CEO of the Greater Houston LGBT Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg.

    Facebook, Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Google, PayPal, and Salesforce did not respond to Insider's request for comment.

    Lyft, Uber lash out at legal threat from strict Texas abortion law

    Companies to cover fees for any drivers sued for driving women to abortion clinics

    Lyft and Uber say they will cover all legal fees for the ride-hail companies' drivers if they are sued under a new restrictive anti-abortion law in Texas for driving passengers to outlawed procedures. (Steven Senne/The Associated Press)

    Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft said Friday they will cover the legal fees of any driver who is sued under the new law prohibiting most abortions in Texas.

    The Texas law bans abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and often before women know they're pregnant. Rather than be enforced by government authorities, the law gives citizens the right to file civil suits and collect damages against anyone aiding an abortion — including those who transport women to clinics.

    San Francisco-based Lyft said it has created a fund to cover 100 per cent of the legal fees for drivers sued under the law while driving on its platform. Calling the Texas law "an attack on women's right to choose," Lyft also said it would donate $1 million to Planned Parenthood.

    "We want to be clear: Drivers are never responsible for monitoring where their riders go or why. Imagine being a driver and not knowing if you are breaking the law by giving someone a ride," Lyft said in a statement.

    WATCH | New Texas law makes most abortions illegal: 


    New Texas law makes most abortions illegal

    4 days ago
    2
    The most restrictive abortion law in all of the U.S. is now in effect in Texas following inaction by the Supreme Court. The law bans any abortion after six weeks or after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is before many women know they’re pregnant. 2:02

    "Similarly, riders never have to justify, or even share, where they are going and why. Imagine being a pregnant woman trying to get to a health-care appointment and not knowing if your driver will cancel on you for fear of breaking a law."

    Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi responded to Lyft's statement in a tweet announcing a similar policy for its drivers.

    "Drivers shouldn't be put at risk for getting people where they want to go," Khosrowshahi wrote. Uber is also headquartered in San Francisco.

    The ban leaves enforcement up to individual citizens, enabling them to sue anyone who provides or "aids or abets" an abortion after six weeks. This potentially includes drivers who unknowingly take women to clinics for abortion procedures.

    A judge on Friday temporarily shielded some Texas abortion clinics from being sued under the new law.

    The temporary restraining order was issued by District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble in Austin in response to a Planned Parenthood request. Although the law remains in effect, the judge's order shields Planned Parenthood's clinics, specifically, from whistleblower lawsuits by the non-profit group Texas Right to Life, its legislative director and people working in concert with the group.

    A hearing on a preliminary injunction request is scheduled for Sept. 13.

    Earlier this week, the chief executive of Tinder-owner Match Group said she is setting up a fund to help any Texas-based employees who need to seek an abortion outside the state.

    Rival dating app Bumble also criticized the law and announced on Instagram it will donate funds to six organizations that support women's reproductive rights.

    Both dating companies are based in Texas and led by women.

    Match Group said CEO Shar Dubey is creating the fund on her own and not through the company. She spoke out against the law in a memo to employees on Thursday.

    "I immigrated to America from India over 25 years ago and I have to say, as a Texas resident, I am shocked that I now live in a state where women's reproductive laws are more regressive than most of the world, including India," Dubey said in the memo.

    The Texas law, which took effect early Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency appeal from abortion providers, constitutes the biggest curb to the constitutional right to an abortion in decades. It does not make exceptions for rape or incest.

    Website hosting service GoDaddy Inc. on Friday, meanwhile, shut down a Texas anti-abortion website that allowed people to report suspected abortions.

    With files from Reuters

    Nationwide Nabisco Strikes Demonstrate Growing Strength of the Labor Movement
    Nabisco workers on strike on August 10, 2021.
    COURTESY OF NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS

    BY Tyler Walicek, Truthout
    PUBLISHEDSeptember 3, 2021

    Confronted with management’s burdensome demands for contract concessions, Nabisco workers in Portland, Oregon, instigated a strike last month that has rapidly taken on national proportions. On August 10, around 200 members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union (BCTGM) Local 364 walked off the job at the industrial bakery. Since then, the workforces of every Nabisco production and distribution facility in the country have followed suit, a coordinated action years in the making. The strikers have drawn on the radical energies of a recently resurgent labor movement in the United States — a momentous upswell in a key vector of working-class power.

    Sweet Deals for Executives, Scraps for Workers


    Nabisco, the maker of popular processed foods like Chips Ahoy! cookies, Oreo cookies and Ritz crackers, is a subsidiary of Chicago’s Mondelēz International. When Kraft Foods split into different entities to skirt antitrust violations in 2012, its snack food business was spun off and reconstituted as Mondelēz, now a Fortune 500 company with $26 billion in yearly revenue. Mondelēz CEO Dirk Van de Put was compensated over $16 million in 2020; in 2017, he was lavished with a pay package of $42.4 million989 times the median pay of a Mondelēz employee. Meanwhile, management has declined to redistribute any of its pandemic profit gains; though people staying home in 2020 resulted in a major uptick in snack sales, the company has continued angling to cut overtime and healthcare benefits. Mondelēz’s single-minded focus on squeezing every possible cent from its workforce, combined with such exorbitant executive pay, has underscored disparities between workers and management, accelerating a discontentment that has been gathering strength for almost a decade.

    Since Mondelēz assumed ownership of Nabisco in 2012, longtime workers claim, working conditions have deteriorated, sacrificed to management’s ever-more relentless drive for profits. In the background are ambient threats of outsourcing and job loss: The company halved its union workforce earlier this year, with plant closures in Fairlawn, New Jersey, and Atlanta, Georgia, and the union has had to negotiate with an acute awareness that the company can make good on its threats of offshoring. Six years ago, Mondelēz transferred Oreo production from Chicago to Mexico — a move that earned it condemnation from Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders alike.

    Against this background, tension between capital and labor within Mondelēz-Nabisco has heightened since contract negotiations in 2016, when management attempted to eliminate pensions in favor of 401(k)s. In April 2020, BCTGM ceded that ground — only for the company to return to the table with even more extensive demands. BCTGM Local 364 vice president and 14-year Nabisco veteran Mike Burlingham says Mondelēz has displayed no interest in compromise: “They don’t want to share their wealth with the workers.… They want to come to the table, insult us with their proposal — which is more like a list of demands — and try to tell us to our faces that this is for our own good,” he told Truthout.

    The Mondelēz proposal, which a spokesperson euphemistically described as an “alternative work schedule,” would require more work for less pay, at an already taxing and physically demanding job. Burlingham says that even without the proposed changes, “a lot of us are already putting in 13 to 16 hours a day due to forced overtime, day in and day out, for weeks on end.”

    The previous contract afforded workers time-and-a-half pay for shifts over 8 hours and Saturdays, with double time for Sundays. Now, the company wants to limit overtime pay to those who work more than 40 hours — without taking into account which days are worked, or the lengths of individual shifts. Burlingham estimated that for some workers, the reductions in overtime pay could result in losses of $10,000 per year.The past few years in the United States have seen a historic groundswell of labor actions, coinciding with the highest public favorability toward unions in decades.

    The plan would also establish a two-tiered benefits system, under which new hires would also be charged more for health insurance — a well-worn tactic for stoking internal division within unions. This management overreach led to a breakdown in negotiations. It was Mondelēz-Nabisco’s continued intransigence that led BCTGM to trigger the Portland action, the first strike at the company in 52 years.

    Coordinated by BCTGM International, the strike expanded to an interstate scale. Mondelēz has three factories (Chicago; Portland, Oregon; and Richmond, Virginia) and three distribution facilities (Aurora, Colorado; Addison, Illinois; and Norcross, Georgia) — all six of which are now on strike. These workforces were already stretched to breaking point. The frustrations expressed by strikers at the Portland bakery are far from isolated concerns, and were echoed by those at other Mondelēz facilities. Interviewed by Jacobin, utility operator April Flowers-Lewis, who has worked at the Chicago plant for 27 years, described deteriorating conditions: brutal schedules, rescinded benefits and an attitude of disrespect from management. In July, Mondelēz was also cited by the city of Chicago for failing to pay out sick leave.

    A Mondelēz spokesperson, quoted by CBS, stated that the “alternative work schedule” proposals are intended to “promote the right behaviors” among workers. Elsewhere, the company described the goal of its proposal as “setting up our U.S. bakeries for future investment and long-term success.” At present, the company is busing in nonunion workers (colloquially, “scabs”) to continue production.

    Meanwhile, as the action enters its third week in Portland, strikers have earned the resounding support of many in the community. Mohammed Mohammed, a production worker on the picket line, spoke to Truthout as a cacophony of celebratory honks from passing cars threatened to drown out his words: “I’m grateful for the city that’s shown us a lot of support. We got a lot of union support; a lot of local businesses bring us food.… People know we’re essential. We’re strong because of each other.”

    Such expressions of solidarity have been plentiful, from supporters both on the ground and online (including Danny DeVito). A strike support GoFundMe has raised over $50,000, and BCTGM has urged a boycott of all of Nabisco’s enduringly popular snack foods. On the picket line, demonstrators have been joined by members of over a dozen other unions, including the AFL-CIO and UFCW. At one point, confirmed Mike Burlingham, union railroad conductors in Portland reversed their train and refused to cross the picket line to deliver their freight of confectionary ingredients to the bakery.

    Strikers in Portland, as well as those in Atlanta, Richmond and Chicago, have received the aid of their local Democratic Socialists of America chapters. Portland DSA has helped coordinate solidarity rallies, marches and strike support, as has Portland Jobs with Justice, a labor and community activism coalition. Organizers entered a Fred Meyer grocery by the dozen to make shoppers aware of the boycott. Jobs with Justice co-chair Russell Lum told Truthout, “It’s a cry out to Nabisco, sure, but it’s also a cry out against a broken economic system…. The bleeding of these jobs [by outsourcing] is Mondelēz’s business model, and the signal to the workers is, ‘You’re next.’ That’s how Mondelēz wants to bargain, with the workers feeling like they’re on a knife’s edge.”
    Demanding More Than Crumbs

    The past few years in the United States have seen a historic groundswell of labor actions, coinciding with the highest public favorability toward unions in decades. 2018-2019 were particularly militant years; notable developments include the late 2019 major strike at GM and the Red for Ed wave of nationwide teachers’ strikes. Strike activity reached a 30-year-high in 2019. Some Bureau of Labor Statistics data gave the impression that work stoppages dropped off precipitously at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis — though, it’s worth noting that these numbers do not reflect actions involving under 1,000 employees. During that period, amid complicating factors like layoffs and social distancing, there was an enormous number of small-scale pandemic-safety walkouts by essential workers. Alternate data better captured these stochastic, nontraditional actions. In other words, solidarity, organizing and radical energies persisted throughout the pandemic. And though the virus is still exacting a devastating toll, the return to major strike activity in 2021 indicates a potential for sustained worker militancy.

    BCTGM’s modest size makes its members’ boldness all the more impressive. Amid a national climate hostile to unions, BCTGM, further beleaguered by offshoring and plant closures, fell from over 114,000 members in 2002 to about 63,900 in 2019 — making it one of the smallest production worker unions. Historically, the union has not been particularly militant. Like many manufacturing strikes, BCTGM’s actions have tended towards the defensive: protecting existing wins, rather than breaching new territory.BCTGM’s bold actions of the summer of 2021 are an indicator that unions in the United States, resurgent to a degree unseen in decades, will sustain their struggle into the future.

    That said, “there are a lot of signs that even manufacturing union workers are increasingly fed up with employer demands for concessions,” says C.M. Lewis, an editor at the labor publication Strikewave. The Mondelēz-Nabisco strikes are preventative measures: “We’re not on strike to secure huge gains. We’re on strike to keep what we’ve already got,” Cameron Taylor, BCTGM Local 364’s business agent, told HuffPost. However, taken with a string of recent BCTGM actions, they’re a component of a positive trend. Says Lewis, “That Nabisco workers [are] striking in multiple states is rare and encouraging, and could be a sign of increased militancy down the road.”

    BCTGM members are finding their footing: They organized a workforce of several hundred at a Tennessee brewery in December 2020. And in July, BCTGM members took on the titanic PepsiCo, striking at a plant owned by its subsidiary Frito-Lay in Topeka, Kansas, over concerns analogous to those at Nabisco. The 19-day strike ended with a renegotiated contract — which didn’t meet every BCTGM term, but still held ground and won some gains. Though short of unmitigated victory, that strike still helped bolster the confidence of Nabisco workers in Portland, as Mike Burlingham related to Truthout: “There was a show of solidarity” with Frito-Lay employees, he said, and “it was really good to see those workers were able to come to an agreement … and were successful.” Burlingham added, “There’s been an influx of strikes around the country … people are paying attention to what’s going on. It’s getting to a point where people are saying, ‘It’s enough of the corporate greed. Enough is enough.’”

    BCTGM is up against a company that has proven willing to go to great lengths to further exploit workers and ensure the flow of profit. Mondelēz’s threats of offshoring have weight behind them, thanks to free trade agreements and loosened restraints on capital mobility. Mondelēz also maintains massive production capability at a “superplant” in Mexico — ostensibly, the “world’s largest cookie plant” — giving the company enormous leverage in its threats to shift production to workforces in Mexico that are even more callously exploited. (Relatedly, the company, along with Nestle, Cargill, Hershey, and others, has also been named in a class action lawsuit alleging that it “knowingly” utilized forced child labor. That’s far from its only scandal.)

    With corporate power further entrenched by the depredations of neoliberal policy and the dismantling of labor laws, workers often find themselves struggling to preserve a status quo. Yet, as C.M. Lewis says, “Successful strikes build confidence and power, and Nabisco workers are experiencing firsthand what potential power they hold in their workplaces. Although this is a defensive strike for the moment, holding the line now is a good start toward going on the offensive and raising standards instead of managing declining working conditions.”

    Unions across the country are demonstrating a greater willingness to strike when companies go beyond the pale. The Nabisco picketers all shared that sense of last-straw frustration. Said Oreo production line worker Nicole Bertholomey, “They’re being greedy. We work so hard for this company, and we have families at home. They’re making so much money, and they still want to take everything away from us.”

    The 2021 Nabisco strike sits at the intersection of two intertwined forces: growing union confidence, support and strike activity, in correlation with widespread austerity and egregious demands from the ownership class. The interests of capital, at Mondelēz and elsewhere, are not only unwilling but are structurally unable to pursue any end but endless profit. As Nabisco employee Mohammed Mohammed told Truthout, echoing his coworker Mike Burlingham, “It came to a point where enough is enough.”

    That phrase could be heard from many others up and down the Nabisco picket line, and the sentiment has lately found purchase throughout the country, from coal mines to the offices of The New Yorker. “Labor” is not a monolithic entity, and there are of course complex challenges impacting unions’ ability to take on corporate power. Still, it’s evident that workers are increasingly unwilling to capitulate — and less hesitant to deploy the strike.

    Hope lies in the fact that an embattled populace has, in recent years, been reminded again and again that organizing is the real vehicle of working-class power. BCTGM’s bold actions of the summer of 2021 are an indicator that unions in the United States, resurgent to a degree unseen in decades, will sustain their struggle into the future.


    Hardesty, Rubio stand with striking Nabisco workers

    Nabisco strike in Portland spread to other cities



    by: KOIN 6 News Staff Posted: Sep 4, 2021 / 

    PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Portland City Commissioners Jo Ann Hardesty and Carmen Rubio joined the picket line outside the Nabisco bakery facility in Northeast Portland on Saturday.

    They rallied with workers in front of the bakery as passing cars honked their support. Nabisco bakery workers have been on strike for nearly a month and their action has now spread to Nabisco facilities in Denver, Chicago, Atlanta and elsewhere.

    Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty joined the picket line at the Nabisco facility in Portland, September 4, 2021 (KOIN)

    “I know the sacrifice you make, I know what it’s costing your family,” Hardesty told the striking workers. “This is happening all across the country because of you.”

    Nabisco’s corporate parent, Mondelez International, posted a new contract offer to the workers on their website. The offer, made Thursday, offers a $5000 ratification bonus, a 60-cent-per-hour raise and a 401K match increase, among other items.

    Mondelez said the offer expires September 7.





    Nabisco Workers Strike Could Cause Supply Issues

    No more buttery Ritz Crackers until some negotiation happens

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2021

    Thanks to a heated labor battle, the Triscuit supply could run drier than the actual cracker. Grocery stores are stocking up on Nabisco treats because of a production slowdown at bakeries and distribution facilities around the country.

    Why is production slowing down? On August 10, about 200 employees at a Nabisco bakery in Oregon put down whatever makes Ritz crackers so buttery and went on strike. Since then, workers in four other states have joined them.

    What do they want? Workers want their pensions back after the company switched to a 401(k) plan in 2018. They’re also angry about a July proposal from Mondelez International, Nabisco’s parent company, that would increase shift length but cut overtime pay.
    Employees have also expressed concerns about the company’s outsourcing of work to Mexico after two recent factory closures in the US.
    Mondelez has denied those claims and said that, while it is moving some workers to 12-hour shifts to handle the recent spike in demand, employees are well compensated.

    Zoom out: Workers have been gaining leverage in a labor market where qualified employees are hard to find. This Nabisco standoff will test the limits of that resurgent power. – MM

    Nabisco worker calls for boycott of company’s snacks amid strike

    Alexis Christoforous
    ·Anchor
    Wed, September 1, 2021, 

    Steven James has been working as a machine operator making Oreos, Chips Ahoy! and other Nabisco snacks at a plant in Richmond, Va. for 20 years.

    On Aug. 16, James joined about 1,000 of his fellow union members in five states and walked off the job to protest what they say are “unfair” demands for concessions in contract negotiations with Nabisco's parent company Mondelez International (MDLZ). James, who isn't working another job, said he plans to stay out of the plant until a fair contract is signed.

    “We're not asking for a lot,” James told Yahoo Finance Live. “We just want a fair contract.”

    As America’s appetite for snack foods has grown during the pandemic, James said he and his colleagues on the frontlines have been working 12-hour shifts, seven days a week.

    “It was just constant. Never had time to spend with the kids. Never had time to spend with the family,” he said.

    The walkout began on Aug. 10 at a biscuit bakery in Portland, Ore., and has since spread to Aurora, Colo., Richmond, Va., Chicago, Addison, Illinois, and Norcross, Ga. Union members in those states have been working without a contract since May and are represented by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM).

    James said he was given one-time “hazard pay” of $300 earlier this year for working long hours during the pandemic while “some of the supervisors, they got $10,000."

    "We had some management working from home. So, of course they were good, they were safe. We risk our lives coming out every day working all those hours,” he added.

    The strike has not affected Nabisco’s ability to churn out popular snacks during the pandemic, since Mondelez International has been using non-union workers at plants where there have been walkouts.

    James said he and his union members are asking customers to show their support by boycotting the snack giant.

    “We try to tell everyone, do not buy any Nabisco products at this time, because we are on strike,” said. James. “The community has really shown us some support. We have businesses and our local brothers and sisters have really been giving us a lot of support, and they are with us walking on the line as well.”


    Union workers are asking customers to boycott Nabisco snacks like Ritz Crackers. Credit: Mondelez International

    In a statement, Mondelez said, “Our goal has been — and continues to be — to bargain in good faith with the BCTGM leadership… while also taking steps to modernize some contract aspects which were written several decades ago.”

    'Keep our jobs here in the U.S.'

    Union workers also want Mondelez to restore their pensions, which were replaced by a 401(k) plan in 2018.

    Striking workers are also protesting two factory closures in February in Atlanta, Georgia and Fair Lawn, New Jersey, a move the union says is part of a larger plan to transfer low-wage jobs to Mexico.

    “They closed two of our plants and they sent the product to Mexico,” said James. “We just want to keep our jobs here in the U.S.”

    In a statement, BCTGM International President Anthony Shelton said union workers “are telling Nabisco to put an end to the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico and get off the ridiculous demand for contract concessions at a time when the company is making record profits.”

    Mondelez International’s net income climbed 98% in the quarter ended in June to $1.1 billion, while sales climbed 12.4% to $6.6 billion, compared to the same time a year ago.

    Mondelez denies that any jobs went to Mexico as a result of the recent factory shutdowns in Georgia and New Jersey. Company spokeswoman Laurie Guzzinati told Yahoo Finance that production at the shuttered facilities has been absorbed by existing bakeries in Portland and Richmond. Some Oreo production was shifted to Mexico in 2016, a move that Donald Trump criticized as a presidential candidate.

    Growing (with) Muskeg Oil Sands Reclamation and Healing in Northern Alberta

    2021, Anthropologica

    26 Pages
    Scientists working for oil companies in the Athabasca region are developing methods by which to reclaim muskeg (boreal peatlands) on land disturbed by oil sands extraction. The Alberta government requires companies to reclaim disturbed land by achieving equivalent capability of the landscape to support an end land use. Indigenous community members instead define reclamation as establishing not only quantifiable ecological functions, but also relationships to their traditional territories. Tensions emerge as Indigenous concerns are often subsumed within bureaucratic discourses that favour scientific classification and quantification of land uses in reclaimed areas. Divergent responses to muskeg in reclamation activities are informed in part by these competing emphases on quantifiable landscapes as opposed to those that are relational and growing. This article traces this multiplicity through the examination of government and scientific literature and ethnographic fieldwork with Indigenous communities in northern Alberta. Muskeg is used as an analytical tool to explore competing conceptions of land reclamation. Mistranslation of polysemantic terms like muskeg occur on an ontological level, and settler colonial relations and power imbalances between competing languages and knowledge systems proliferate in reclamation activities.