Wednesday, February 09, 2022

FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
COVID-19: Alberta doctors, mayors react to Kenney removing vaccine passport, restrictions


By Kaylen Small Global News
Posted February 8, 2022 

LONG READ


WATCH: Premier Jason Kenney says Alberta's vaccine passport will end almost Tuesday at midnight and most other big COVID-19 health rules will be gone in three weeks from now. Dan Grummett, Tom Vernon and Morgan Black have team coverage on what is happening, how the health-care system is doing and how Albertans feel about the changes.

Doctors are calling health measure removal premature as hospitalizations remain high and elected officials are seeking clarity after Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced plans to lift COVID-19 restrictions in phases on Tuesday.


READ MORE: COVID-19: Kenney announces Alberta vaccine passport program ending at midnight

“It’s time for us to learn to live with COVID-19,” he said at a press conference, listing the challenges of the pandemic: disrupting livelihoods, dividing people and hurting mental health.

“It’s time to let kids be kids.”
When the clock strikes midnight

Kenney said the restrictions exemption program has “outlived its useful purpose,” announcing that after Feb. 8 at 11:59 p.m., it is done — citing what he called declining hospitalizations.

Alberta

 Current hospitalizations 1,623 yesterday
 Current patients in ICU 129 yesterday
Lines show 7-day average
Aug 2020Dec 2020May 2021Sep 2021Jan 202205001,0001,50005001,0001,500
Last Updated: 
Sources: Esri Canada


Mandatory masks for kids 12 and under will end on Feb. 13 at 11:59 p.m.

Other changes will follow as March arrives.

READ MORE: Decision on Alberta’s vaccine passport expected this week as province records 39 COVID-19 deaths Monday

“None of this is an end to COVID-19. New variants will arrive, and we will still see times when cases are higher in the province,” Kenney said.

“We will likely also see times when there is additional pressure on the hospitals. But restrictions, mandates and those kinds of interventions will not and must not become a permanent feature of our lives.

“We are well-positioned to live with this virus, as we do with many other infectious diseases,” he said.

Think of the hospitals


Dr. Noel Gibney, professor emeritus in the department of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta, said restriction removal is premature.

READ MORE: Alberta NDP Leader Notley says Premier Kenney is pandering to COVID-19 protesters

“What we’ve heard today is wishful thinking and an element of COVID denial where the government is saying, ‘Really, this isn’t a problem anymore,’ while we still have a major Omicron surge causing pressure on our hospital systems,” he said.

“The numbers that Mr. Kenney presented today were of active cases in a system where the testing is really only of a tiny proportion of the number of people that actually have active COVID infections in the province at the moment, and so I think to even discuss those numbers, it’s misleading.”

2:11 Alberta removes Restrictions Exemption Program effective at midnight: Kenney

The announcement is sending the wrong message, Gibney said.

“COVID is far from over… Our health-care system is still under severe stress,” he said.

“I think we need to get our hospitalizations significantly down from where they are now… We’re still running more patients in our hospital beds than we ever have before in any of the other surges.”

READ MORE: Kenney commits to lifting COVID-19 restrictions as Alberta highway protests continue

There are currently 1,623 people in hosptial with COVID-19, according to Alberta Health, with 129 in intensive care.

“If we look back at some of the previous waves, the government used hospitalization numbers of 400 or 500 to make decisions about what public health measures would be added or removed,” Gibney explained.


“We’re actually significantly above those numbers now, and our system remains under profound pressure.”

READ MORE: Two years into pandemic, effects of COVID-19 on youth mental health a growing concern

Gibney thinks it’s important to change restrictions as needed.

“I don’t think we need to stay fixed with significant restrictions all the time. But once and when our hospital systems actually settle out and the pressure is relieved, I think that the restrictions should also be relaxed,” he said.

“But we need to be prepared to consider reintroducing them if, at some point later in this year or some other time in the future, we get another significant surge that puts people at risk.”

‘Still at the peak’ of hospitalizations

Dr. Stephanie Smith, University of Alberta Hospital physician and infectious disease specialist, said everyone recognizes that people are tired, but health-care workers also need to ensure they can provide safe and responsive care to all Albertans.

“We’re trying to manage the COVID cases, and we’re trying to still provide all the other services, but the reality is that we’re not up to 100 per cent for our surgeries,” she said.

“All those poor Albertans, there are many still waiting for their elective surgeries and to have all these restrictions removed with the possibility of having some increased transmission and maybe more hospitalizations, that’s just pushing those surgeries further down the line, which is not what we are trying to achieve.”

2:01 Doctors put effectiveness of Alberta’s Restrictions Exemption Program
 under the microscope

Smith said removing the vaccine passport is the “least worrisome restriction that has been removed.”

“When we were in the Delta wave, then it certainly provided some degree of protection for those who were fully vaccinated… but we know that with Omicron, there is less vaccine efficacy, and so I do think that the utility of the REP program is probably not as robust as it was,” she said.

“So I guess I’m not entirely surprised that that was removed.

“Some of the other recommendations, even in Step 1, seem a little bit surprising, I guess. Removing too many restrictions at once, I think, may make it a little bit more difficult for the health-care system to try to recover since we’re really still at the peak of our hospitalizations.”

Wanting clarity

Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek said people need time to digest the information, of which she said she and Edmonton’s mayor were given a preview. She noted the end of the REP means the end of the city’s Vaccine Passport Bylaw.

“Here’s the thing that’s the most confusing to me: the restrictions exemption program has been lifted… However, we just heard very clearly from the minister and the premier that alcohol consumption time cut-offs and closing times for restaurants are still under the restriction guidelines,” she said.

“I’m pretty sure that the hospitality sector just got the exact opposite of what they wanted. Giving them more capacity doesn’t help them with the issue that they clearly stated was the service that they can actually offer.

“I’m looking forward to getting some clarity.”

READ MORE: COVID-19: Medical experts, restaurant owner raising concerns about lifting restrictions in Alberta

Gondek wants to collaborate with the province to advocate for citizens’ needs.

“I would hope that we can have meaningful dialogue before Stage 2 comes into play,” she said.

“I’m especially interested in making sure that the channels of communication are open should we start to see hospitalizations increase and case numbers increase. This is a very fluid situation, and we need to make sure that our partners are able to enter into dialogue with us as we both need to.”

Nobody is happy


Coutts Mayor Jim Willett said he was hoping for more from Kenney’s announcement and said it likely won’t help resolve the impasse at the border where people are protesting restrictions and vaccine mandates.

READ MORE: Tow companies reluctant to haul away vehicles hampering Alberta border blockade: RCMP

“The premier’s an excellent negotiator in that nobody’s going to be happy with what he just announced. It’s either going to be too much or not enough, and it’s happening too soon or it’s not soon enough,” Willett told The Canadian Press.

3:15 Alberta loosening  COVID-19 restrictions as border protests resume

Willett said he doesn’t know what the reaction is going to be among the people who are protesting, but he doesn’t expect any immediate disbanding of those at the border or those protesting at a checkpoint north of the village.

“I don’t anticipate that, no, not for the time being, and leaving masking in place until March 1 is not going to make anybody happy either,” he said.

“Anybody in the protest group or in rural Alberta is probably not going to be happy about that.”

READ MORE: COVID-19: Alberta politicians react to possibility of premier blocking health policies

Edmonton Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said he would not be available for comment until Wednesday but has previously said health rules must be based on scientific evidence and not put vulnerable people at risk.

– With files from The Canadian Press

COVID-19: Edmonton, Calgary school boards weigh in on Kenney dropping mask mandate for kids

In a letter to school authorities, Education Minister Adriana LaGrange outlined the impact that relaxing COVID-19 restrictions will have on schools and students.

“I have been encouraged to see a downward trend in the number of Alberta schools shifted to at-home learning over the last few weeks,” she said.

“At the peak of the fifth wave, there were 29 schools that were shifted to at-home learning, and today, only seven of the over 2,500-plus schools in our province remain learning at home.”

LaGrange said the masking requirement that will be removed effective Feb. 14 will apply to any students in schools or on school buses. Masking will still be required for adult staff and drivers.

“At this time, prevention measures, including cohorting, as well as enhanced cleaning and sanitization, will remain in school environments,” she said.

READ MORE: COVID-19: Alberta doctors, mayors react to Kenney removing vaccine passport, restrictions

The Calgary Board of Education told parents Tuesday night: “We know families have many questions about this announcement and what it means for their child. In the next few days, we will review our health measures in view of these changes.”

The Calgary Catholic School District said all health measures in its buildings will stay in place until further notice.

CCSD spokesperson Felicia Zuniga said the senior administrative team will be working on “a plan of action” in response to the province’s announcement.

READ MORE: Decision on Alberta’s vaccine passport expected this week as province records 39 COVID-19 deaths Monday

In a series of tweets, Edmonton Public School Board chair Trisha Estabrooks said the province’s announcement came as a surprise to the district.

“School divisions were not consulted on this shift,” she wrote. “If we were, EPSB would have shared the desire to move slowly, to listen to parents, to listen to boards.”

However, she emphasized school divisions have no authority to require mandatory masking.

“I know this will deeply upset many,” Estabrooks wrote.

“With low vaccination rates in kids age five to 11, this definitely feels like we are taking away a key layer in the approach to keep students and staff as safe as possible.”

In a media update Wednesday morning, Estabrooks said many young students are still not vaccinated and removing masks now is too fast.

“Parents have had a lot of faith in our back-to-school plan at Edmonton Public Schools and I’m hearing a lot of frustration and a lot of concern. And I just want to say to parents and to staff that we hear you. This is a lot of change and it’s happening very quickly.”

Click to play video: 'Alberta expands COVID-19 vaccination eligibility for youth'Alberta expands COVID-19 vaccination eligibility for youth
Alberta expands COVID-19 vaccination eligibility for youth

The Edmonton Catholic School Division did not have anyone to comment Tuesday evening, but said it is committed to reviewing and updating its back to school plan in response to updated direction from the government.

“The health, safety, and well-being of our students and staff continues to be our number one priority,” the ECSD said in a statement.

The president of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) said he is concerned about the speed at which the mask mandate is being lifted.

“We’ve consistently heard from government and health officials that schools reflect the COVID positivity rate in the community. We heard yesterday that the positivity rate is still well over 30 per cent. So why remove the mask mandate so quickly when community spread is not yet decreased significantly? What will be so different next week from this week?” Schilling said Wednesday morning.

He said the ATA was not consulted in the decision, so does not have an indication as to why the mask mandate is being removed so quickly. Schilling said he would like to see the data the government is using to make these decisions. He would also like to sit down with government to give them an indication of what those in schools are feeling and experiencing.

“A return to a normal school setting is something that everyone is hoping for. However, we do not want a hasty decision to put us a step backwards in just a few weeks,” he said.

“We strongly urge the government to take a more cautious approach regarding the removal of safety protocols in schools.”

Schilling said the ATA will look at all of its options in order to make sure teachers are working in a healthy and safe atmosphere, but added their hands are somewhat tied given the education minister’s letter informing school boards they don’t have the power to override the mask directive.

Support Our Students Alberta tweeted the changes Kenney announced are “unarguably reckless and illogical.”

“Once again, the UCP prioritizes politics over the health and safety of students,” the group said.

“To abruptly remove masks from schools on short notice, without school board consultation, risks throwing schools into chaos yet again.”

Reaction from parents at one school in Edmonton was mixed as they dropped their kids off for class Wednesday morning.

“I am very concerned about this because they’re little and I don’t want them to be sick, obviously. I think masks can protect them,” said Barbara Yang, who has two kids: one in Grade 4 and another in Grade 6.

She said masks have made a difference and has suggested her children keep wearing them after Monday.

Sienko Ikhabi said he has conflicting feelings about the mask decision.

“I think they serve a purpose but also for the kids, I also understand they probably find it difficult to have the masks on all day.”

Touqeer Sohail has two kids. He said he will see what happens with case counts, but admits he feels the decision to remove the mask mandate came too quickly.

“I think it might be better if we wait another month or so,” Sohail said. “I would like them to continue wearing masks but those are kids, so once they are with other kids, you never know.”

Harman Rao said he’s not happy with the decision and has asked his child to keep wearing a mask while at school.

“For me, that is a big issue,” Rao said. “I said, ‘You have to wear a mask every time.'”

— With files from Caley Gibson, Global News.

Alberta business group slams decision to eliminate COVID-19 vaccine passport program

Alberta’s Restrictions Exemption Program, or REP, was introduced last fall in an effort to curb spiking case rates and encourage vaccination. It requires Albertans to show proof of double vaccination or a negative rapid test result to obtain entry to businesses operating under the program.

The program is the first to go as part of the province’s three-step plan to lift public health restrictions.

“The restriction exemption program has served its useful purpose. It has done its job,” Kenney told a news conference.

But chamber president and CEO Deborah Yedlin said that public health measures like the REP and masking remain critical to ensuring people feel comfortable dining at restaurants, attending sporting and entertainment events, going to gyms and going to work.

“Today’s announcement on the immediate removal of all pandemic measures and restrictions ignores the importance of consumer confidence in our economic recovery,” Yedlin said.

She added the chamber believes that prematurely lifting restrictions could lead to reduced revenues for businesses, as people choose to stay home and minimize the potential for exposure to the virus.

Yedlin also warned of labour shortages due to illness, and a potential increase in infection rates at schools, “sending children and teachers home and disrupting work patterns and productivity for many parents.”

Click to play video: 'Alberta ending vaccine passport program and other COVID-19 public health restrictions'Alberta ending vaccine passport program and other COVID-19 public health restriction

Another industry group, the Alberta Hospitality Association, which represents restaurants and bar owners, wanted to see other restrictions — such as a liquor curfew, bans on live music and billiards, and rules about how many people can be seated at one table — removed before the passport program.

Instead, those restrictions remain in place until at least March 1.

“We’re in favour of whatever it takes so that we can operate our businesses at 100 per cent. If that means keeping the REP, then by all means,” said Ernie Tsu, president of the association and owner of Calgary’s Trolley 5 brewpub.

“They went against all of the stakeholder groups that wrote letters in. They didn’t listen to us at all.”

Earlier Tuesday, at the Rose & Crown in Banff, Alta., Vern Iskauskas said he was awaiting Kenney’s announcement with a mixture of excitement and trepidation.

The owner of the pub and popular live music venue said he welcomes a move toward lifted restrictions, but thinks it’s a mistake to ditch the proof-of-vaccine program first.

“I’m very open to lifting restrictions, I just hope it’s done in the right way,” he said.

“We fear losing some of the loyal customers who have come back to us because they feel safe here. We also fear that if there is a little bit of a spike in cases afterward, which could happen for a variety of reasons not necessarily associated with the REP, that our industry … could be scapegoated again, with further restrictions placed upon us.”

Many other business owners said they feel mixed emotions over the idea of scrapping the passport.

Paul Shufelt, who owns Robert Spencer Hospitality Group, which operates a handful of Edmonton restaurants including Workshop Eatery and Woodshed Burgers, said he knows that if the province removes the mandate, business owners will have the ability to continue checking proof-of-vaccination for their own purposes.

But he said that’s a tough decision to make.

“Probably more than anything, I worry for my staff on the front line, whether we go one way or the other, because those are the people that tend to feel the wrath of angry or frustrated customers,” Shufelt said. “I don’t think there is a right answer, and that’s the hard part.”

“We’re welcoming a return to normalcy, but I understand both sides of it,” said Mark Petros, owner of Nick’s Steakhouse and Pizza in Calgary. “A lot of our customers work at the Foothills Hospital and the Children’s Hospital because we’re close by, and we don’t want to see the hospitals getting overloaded.”

Click to play video: 'Alberta removes Restrictions Exemption Program effective at midnight: Kenney'Alberta removes Restrictions Exemption Program effective at midnight: Kenney

The Edmonton Chamber said before the announcement that it supported responsible health and safety measures that allow businesses to operate while protecting customers, workers and communities

“We would hope that any decision to ease restrictions would be made in consideration of health information and supporting data,” Jeffrey Sundquist, president and chief executive of the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, said in an email.

Also on Tuesday, Saskatchewan announced a plan to lift all of its COVID-19 restrictions. Starting Monday, the province will no longer require COVID-19 vaccine passports. It is also ending its indoor mask mandate at the end of the month.

Premier Scott Moe said providing proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to enter businesses like restaurants had helped in the fight against spread of the virus.

But he said it also created deep divisions in the province — in effect “two classes of citizens.”

“The benefits of this policy no longer outweighs the costs,” Moe said, adding people should be able to choose whether they get vaccinated or not.

“This government is going to respect that right.”

Endemic Fatalism and Why It Won’t Resolve COVID-19


Blog by Jacob Steere-Williams

Pandemic fatigue has been pushed aside by a new phenomenon in many places around the world; endemic fatalism. The raging Omicron variant of COVID-19 has ushered in the highest case positivity rates since the beginning of the pandemic, flooding hospitals and attacking even those vaccinated and boosted against the disease. “We’re all going to get it,” is a phrase now heard almost daily. Omicron has in many ways shifted the narrative of COVID-19. Against this backdrop has emerged a new idea, that COVID-19 is transitioning from a pandemic to an endemic disease. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, for example, publicly asserted that the European Union should reduce surveillance, testing, and quarantine periods, and treat COVID-19 more like the seasonal flu than a deadly pandemic. This is against the backdrop of COVID-19 cases rising 48% worldwide in just one week, shattering previous records even in countries that have been relatively successful at keeping the disease at bay, such as Australia and Japan.

A treatise on asiatic cholera / edited and prepared by Edmund Charles Wendt ; in association with John C. Peters [and others].. Credit: Wellcome Collection. Public Domain Mark
A treatise on asiatic cholera / edited and prepared by Edmund Charles Wendt; in association with John C. Peters [and others]. Credit: Wellcome CollectionPublic Domain Mark.

 

What’s fueling the push to see COVID-19 as endemic, and what’s at stake in treating COVID-19 more like the flu, a not-so-subtle shift that health experts have warned against for the past two years? In part the answer stems from the misplaced idea that, while Omicron is more contagious than the previous strains of the disease like the Delta variant, it is less virulent. The United States Centers for Disease Control, for example, reported this week that the Omicron variant has 53% less risk of hospitalization and 91% less risk of death when compared to Delta. This has led many people to think that Omicron is spreading so rapidly around the world, hitting both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, that we will reach collective herd immunity in short order. Seeing COVID-19 as endemic, in other words, might mean an end to the pandemic.

But reframing COVID-19 as an endemic disease right now is a premature notion at best, representing more of what we want COVID-19 to become than the epidemiological reality we face today. The truth is that hospitals around the world are near capacity, percentage-wise, with more children under five years old than we have seen throughout the pandemic. Healthcare workers, parents, and those individuals immunocompromised are strained beyond measure after two years of physical and mental hardship. It makes sense that we want to see COVID-19 become a milder disease like the seasonal flu; seasonal, predictable, less virulent.

But the evolutionary trajectory of COVID-19 does not at this time suggest a clear path towards endemicity, and epidemiologists and evolutionary biologists warn against impulsively applying this notion to the disease. The seasonal flu, for example, operates on the principle of ‘antigenic turnover’, where variants of the disease typically arise from prior variants. COVID-19 has not behaved in this manner; Omicron is not an offspring of Delta, and not all disease models function on the pattern whereby a new disease must always evolve towards lowered virulence. Take, for example, Ebola. The facts are that we just don’t know what Omicron will do to shape global levels of immunity; we certainly don’t know what other strains of COVID-19 will lie ahead in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

A historical dive into the term endemic, though, may help us to see the faults of reframing COVID-19 as endemic right now. Although the term was occasionally used in the 18th century, by the mid 19th century, a period that saw the rise of the modern field of epidemiology, endemic was frequently employed when thinking about infectious disease. Derived from the Greek words “in” and “people,” epidemiologists by the 1850s used endemic to mean diseases that regularly occurred in particular locations. At a time when scientific experts believed that some diseases could erupt spontaneously given the right mix of environmental conditions, the term endemic was tied to terrestrial and soil-based notions of disease. Intimately linked to the term endemic was its counterweight, epidemic, which meant an imported and often (it was believed) contagious disease.

The publicly stated objective of the Epidemiological Society of London, the oldest organization of its kind which began in 1850, was the study of both epidemic and endemic diseases, and the relationship between the two. These were connected terms, not oppositional ones, and a disease like cholera was considered both endemic and epidemic at the same time.

Distinguishing endemic from epidemic was a way to explain the geographical distribution of disease around the world, no doubt, but it was also fueled by 19th century colonialism. At the 1859 presidential address of the Epidemiological Society, president, Benjamin Guy Babington despaired that “cholera has now been so long regarded as an established endemic of India, that we now hear of its appearance in different localities in that country without surprise, and with comparatively little interest.”[1] Framing cholera as endemic to India was a way to scapegoat the origin of the disease to a far-away land and people: “them” not “us.” Malaria and yellow fever were seen to be “endemic” to the tropics, plague to Southeast and East Asia. Built into the idea of an endemic disease in this era was also a way to explain the rise, distribution, and spread of epidemic disease. As Babington continued in his 1859 speech on cholera, “it is otherwise when this terrible invader approaches nearer home. We then begin to consult maps, and to compare dates and seasons, in order to ascertain how far the disorder, in respect to its period of invasion, its march, and its mortality, coincides in character with that which it exhibited during its former visits to Europe.”[2]

Framing a disease as either endemic or epidemic, then, has also been about fitting a political and cultural agenda. As John Macpherson, Inspector-General of Hospitals in Bengal, India, noted in 1867, “no question in medicine is more interesting than that of an endemic disease taking on the character of an epidemic, and of the behaviour of an endemic, when its own epidemic form reaches it.”[3]

By the 1880s with the rise of the germ theory, the notion of an endemic disease began to subtly  change to mean a disease present in a location through human-to-human or animal-to-human reservoirs, but one that could for either human, animal, or environmental reasons erupt into an epidemic or even a pandemic. Cholera, plague, and typhoid served as models for this new type of thinking. All three had begun to decline in Europe and North America and in the process were labelled as endemic to what we now call the Global South. And the culture wars still raged.

The question that came before epidemiologists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists in the twentieth century regarded the reasons why an endemic disease might suddenly erupt into an epidemic one. Already by the late 19th century some experts suggested environmental, evolutionary, and zoonotic reasons, though even today this question still dominates research into infectious disease.[4] What is clear from even a cursory historical examination of the concept of endemicity is that there are cultural and political, and not always scientific reasons for labelling a disease endemic. By the mid 20th century the term endemic became more oppositional to the term epidemic, and experts in the Global North considered cholera, typhoid, and plague to be diseases endemic to the Global South- out of sight, out of worry. But these diseases, particularly cholera and typhoid, continue to ravage human populations. Western notions of endemicity have enabled those in the Global North to neatly shelf the diseases as problems of economic development. A similar phenomenon happened in the 1990s with HIV/AIDS, when that disease was reframed as endemic, something similar to diabetes in the US and Europe even while it stormed—and continues to storm countries such as South Africa.

Is the Omicron variant an excuse to do the same thing to COVID-19? If so it seems at best like welcoming endemicity is a neoliberal apology for the failure of most government’s ability to properly handle COVID-19 for the past two years. At its worst this view is neodarwinian fatalism; more need to die before we can get back to ‘normal’. We should stand against both, and be more concerned with putting into place measures we know work to mitigate the spread of the disease. Moreover, we need to see endemics as the mid-Victorian epidemiologists saw them, save for the cultural imperialism: as intimately connected to epidemics. Edward Goodeve, for instance, the British representative to the 1866 International Sanitary Conference, recommended that cholera had “endemic centres” which served as the “starting-points” of epidemics. “What may be called the endemicity of cholera,” he argued, “is little more than a prolonged epidemic.”[5] We may be faced with something eerily similar with COVID-19.

 

Works Cited

[1] Benjamin Guy Babington, “Presidential Address,” Transactions of the Epidemiological Society of London (7 November 1859), 10.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John MacPherson, “On the Early Seats of Cholera in India and in the East,” Transactions of the Epidemiological Society of London (1 April 1867), 65.

[4] Christos Lynteris (ed.), Framing Animals as Epidemic Villains: Histories of Non-Human Disease Vectors (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave), 1-27.

[5] Edward Goodeve, “On the International Sanitary Conference, and the Preservation of Europe from Cholera,” Transactions of the Epidemiological Society of London (2 December 1866), 27.

 

Jacob Steere-Williams, PhD is a historian of epidemic disease and public health, an Associate Professor at the College of Charleston, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. He is the author of the 2020 book The Filth Disease: Typhoid Fever and the Practices of Epidemiology in Victorian England (University of Rochester Press), and the Associate Editor of the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences.

Rep. Andy Levin introduces resolution that would allow House of Representatives staff to form unions
Rep. Andy Levin, a Michigan Democrat, speaks at a rally outside the US Capitol. 
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


Rep. Andy Levin introduced a resolution that would allow House of Representative staff to organize.

Congressional staff has been agitating for a union after years of workplace issues.

Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have said they'd back staff's plans to unionize.

Rep. Andy Levin will introduced a resolution on Wednesday giving staffers in the House of Representatives the green light to form unions in their offices and committees. Should the resolution pass, it could eventually alter Congress's grueling work culture and practices.


The Michigan Democrat unveiled the legislation a week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated she'd support employees who wanted to organize, and one day after White House press secretary Jen Psaki said President Joe Biden was on board with the effort. While congressional support agencies like the Capitol Police and Library of Congress have been allowed to unionize for some time — and have — the resolution would extend those powers to House employees in individual members' offices and on committees. (You can read the resolution below.)

Employees who wish to unionize point to historically low pay, a lack of accountability for bad behavior by lawmakers and managers, and poor gains in diversifying Congress' workforce as key reasons for seeking greater labor protections. Their case got a significant boost as an anonymous Instagram account called Dear White Staffers began posting staffers' experiences with sexual harassment or living on food stamps, causing it to explode in popularity on Capitol Hill.

Publicly, the organizing fervor is only occurring on the Democratic side; House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, told Punchbowl News that, "I don't think it would be productive for the government."

Congressional staffers are allowed to unionize thanks to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 — but the act also requires a resolution in each chamber for the necessary provisions to go into effect.

"You built the car but you have to turn it on," Daniel Schuman, policy director at Demand Progress, said of the legislative mechanism. "The resolution will turn it on."

Levin posted a video of himself filing the resolution on Wednesday morning "to let our employees form unions and bargain collectively at long last."


If the resolution passes the House, it effectively would give a green light to organizing in that chamber by extending legal protections to employees who seek to organize their offices or committees, and would allow the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights the ability to certify results of union elections and recognize union representatives. Each individual office or committee would have to unionize individually.

It's unclear how the process would then play out. With hundreds of separate offices and committees and a high turnover rate, organizing the House of Representatives would be an unprecedented and likely messy challenge.

A spokesperson for Pelosi declined to comment on whether she'd support Levin's resolution, or put it up for a vote in the House.

On the Senate side, a few Democratic lawmakers have tweeted support for allowing staff to unionize after a spokesperson for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the New York Democrat "believes that hard-working Senate staff have the right to organize their workplace and if they chose to do so, he would support that effort."

But so far, no Democratic senators have put forth the necessary resolution to give their employees organizing rights.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat who was one of the senators to tweet that staff should be allowed to unionize, told Insider, "I think a number of my colleagues are working on it already. So I'll look at that."

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont hailed bringing collective bargaining to the Capitol as a step in the right direction — albeit one that might require more groundwork."We'll take a look, not right at this moment," he told Insider while walking through the Senate tunnels. "But it's certainly an idea that appeals to me."

Bryan Metzger contributed to this report.



Congressional Workers Union launches organizing effort as Pelosi and Schumer say they support Capitol Hill staffers' unionization efforts

Unionization efforts gain momentum on Capitol Hill


BY NIKOLE KILLION
FEBRUARY 9, 2022 / CBS NEWS

Washington — Michigan Congressman Andy Levin is introducing a resolution Wednesday that would formally allow House staffers to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.


"It basically effectuates something that Congress did for everybody else who works for us except our personal office staff and our committee staff," the Democratic lawmaker Levin told CBS News. "It's a really big deal."

The resolution calls for "approving certain regulations to implement provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act." That 1995 legislation extended labor protections to support legislative branch employees and entities like the U.S. Capitol Police, Library of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol but it stopped short of fully covering House and Senate staff.

"This resolution simply says what we did back then, now we are applying to the staff who work in our personal offices and in our district offices and in our committees and it's about time," Levin said.

The unionization movement accelerated on Capitol Hill last week after an Instagram account dubbed "Dear White Staffers" went viral with grievances from anonymous staffers about low pay, lack of diversity and hostile work environments.

A report by the cross-partisan reform group, Issue One, found one in eight congressional staffers aren't paid a living wage, with staff assistants earning a median annual salary of $38,730. A separate survey by the Congressional Progressive Staff Association found that 39 percent of respondents have taken out a loan to make ends meet.

Republican leaders say they oppose staffers' efforts to unionize but a growing number of Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have expressed support for the move. The White House said President Biden is also on board.

"He supports the right of any individual to seek to join a union, to collectively bargain, and of course Capitol Hill staffers are certainly individuals who are pursuing that," Press Secretary Jen Psaki said.

It's unclear how soon Levin's resolution could be taken up by the full House. If approved, he said it would be up to staffers to decide how to organize.

"I think this is a part of a much broader movement in society," Levin explained. "You had industry after industry start to form unions, Amazon, now we have Starbucks … and Capitol Hill is not exempt."

Black artists should join India.Arie and leave Spotify

OPINION: Spotify built an empire streaming Black music that helped the audio-streaming giant pay Joe Rogan $100 million. Black artists, know your value and do not subsidize your own oppression.

David A. Love |
Feb 9, 2022
India.Arie attends the 62nd Annual Grammy Awards at Staples Center on January 26, 2020 in Los Angeles, CA.
 (Photo by David Crotty/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for Black America and the streaming entertainment industry. It is time for all Black artists to join India.Arie and send a message to Spotify and drop it like it’s hot. The reason for this is Joe Rogan.

Rogan, who entered into an exclusive $100 million deal with Spotify to stream his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, first came under fire for his anti-vaxxer messaging and COVID misinformation on his show. As a result, artists such as Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and others have pulled their music from Spotify and boycotted the music streaming service. But India.Arie went a step further and dropped her music from Spotify not only because of Rogan’s anti-vax talk but because of his enthusiastic use of the N-word.



Also Read:
India Arie talks about why she quit Spotify

Rogan not only used the N-word countless times but referred to a movie theater filled with Black people as Planet of the Apes—a comment which Trevor Noah condemned—and said Black people have “a different brain.” And he hosted a guest who claimed Black people have a gene giving them “a proclivity to violence” that white and Asian people do not have.

“I empathize with the people who are leaving for the COVID disinformation reasons, and I think that they should also think that Joe Rogan has the right to say what he wants to say. I also think that I have the right to say what I want to say,” India.Arie said on social media. “So as an artist who builds…Spotify is built on the back of the music streaming, so they take this money that’s built from streaming, and they pay this guy 100 million dollars, but they pay us 0.003 percent of a penny. Just take me off. I don’t want to generate money that pays this. Just take me off. That’s where I’m at,” she added.
India.Arie in a video posted on social media explaining why she removed her music from Spotify. (Screenshot/Facebook)

Rogan apologized for using the racial slur, as Spotify recently removed 70 episodes of his podcast The Joe Rogan Experience for racially offensive content and COVID misinformation (more than 100 episodes of the show have been deleted in total). And while Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said he was “deeply sorry” about the harm created by the situation with Rogan, he said dropping the podcast entirely would be a “slippery slope.” Ek also vowed to dedicate an “incremental investment of $100 million for the licensing, development, and marketing of music (artists and songwriters) and audio content from historically marginalized groups.”

While Spotify hit 180 million subscribers, a study found that 19 percent of Spotify users have unsubscribed or plan to cancel their account because of Rogan, with another 18.5 percent considering canceling if more music is dropped from the service.

Spotify executives certainly have their reasons for sticking with Rogan. Some would argue Spotify can make $100 million deals with any white supremacist hipster dude-bro they please. Rogan has a large following, and obviously, Spotify is getting that bag in the way that Fox News is getting the bag by featuring Nazi and anti-vax cosplayers who come to work fully vaccinated because their boss mandated it.



Also Read:
India.Arie calls out racism, sexism in the music industry

But understand Spotify is not making $100 million deals with you, Black artists and podcasters. India.Arie already told you this. They are making deals with Rogan because of you and not merely instead of you. Know your value and do not subsidize your own oppression.

“So artist relations from Spotify called me yesterday, and they asked me what I want, and I’ve been thinking about this all night. I’m not going to say it all here, but what I want to say to you, it’s something that I already knew, but I want you to know that they said it last night,” India.Arie said. “Most of the streams on Spotify are Black music. But we know that. If you’re paying attention at all, you understand the role of Black music in this world. So that’s a deeper nuance.”

Who will join India.Arie, and why haven’t other Black artists already done so? Some of the most popular artists on Spotify include Rihanna, Lil Nas X, Doja Cat, Drake, The Weeknd and others.

Given that Black people were among the hardest hit by COVID and have built a music industry that historically shortchanged us—whether vinyl records back in the day or digital streaming today—now is the time for Black artists to stand up and represent.

And just to show we can chew gum and walk at the same time, NFL players, you’re next.



David A. Love is a journalist and commentator who writes investigative stories and op-eds on a variety of issues, including politics, social justice, human rights, race, criminal justice and inequality. Love is also an instructor at the Rutgers School of Communication and Information, where he trains students in a social justice journalism lab. In addition to his journalism career, Love has worked as an advocate and leader in the nonprofit sector, served as a legislative aide, and as a law clerk to two federal judges. He holds a B.A. in East Asian Studies from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He also completed the Joint Programme in International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford. His portfolio website is davidalove.com