It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, December 09, 2022
Apple supplier Foxconn's founder pushed China to ease COVID curbs - WSJ
Story by Reuters • Yesterday
(Reuters) -Apple supplier Foxconn's founder Terry Gou had warned China that the government's zero-COVID stance would threaten the position of the world's second-largest economy in the global supply chain, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The appeal, sent by Gou in a letter more than a month ago, played a major role in convincing China's leadership to quickly reopen the economy and move away from its zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, the report said on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.
Gou's office said in a statement that it "sternly denies" the facts in the report. Foxconn, which is the biggest assembler of iPhones, declined to comment, while China's State Council Information Office could not be immediately reached for comment.
Gou retired from Foxconn in 2019 and has no formal role within the company any more, though remains influential.
The Taiwan-based company's Zhengzhou plant, which saw a month-long unrest in November, has lifted its "closed-loop" management curbs on Thursday.
The Zhengzhou plant had been grappling with strict COVID restrictions that fuelled discontent among workers over factory conditions, triggering an 11.4% year-on-year drop in November revenue.
Some Wall Street analysts cut their iPhone shipment targets for the all-important holiday quarter as a result of turmoil at the major iPhone factory.
Chinese health officials and government advisers seized on Gou's letter to bolster the case that the government needed to speed up its efforts to ease its tough COVID-19 controls, the report added.
(Reporting by Chavi Mehta in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Sarah Wu; Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips and Sam Holmes)
COP15
Oxford leads Nature Positive Universities Alliance to reverse biodiversity decline
Today at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), the University of Oxford and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced the launch of the Nature Positive Universities Alliance – a global network of universities that have made an official pledge to advance efforts to halt, prevent and reverse nature loss through addressing their own impacts and restoring ecosystems harmed by their activities. This push is part of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, a movement to avert climate catastrophe and mass extinction.
The Nature Positive Universities Alliance brings higher education institutions together to use their unique power and influence as drivers of positive change. Universities already carry out environmental and conservation research to help inform government and company action, but by publicly tackling their own supply chains and operational impacts on nature, universities can help guide the wider community on a path to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.
The University of Oxford has an environmental sustainability strategy with dual targets of net zero carbon and a net gain in biodiversity by 2035. These targets for large institutions are challenging to achieve, but through collaboration and idea-sharing with other universities via the Nature Positive Universities Alliance, we can collectively make progress towards achieving biodiversity net gain.
Harriet Waters, Head of Environmental Sustainability
University of Oxford
The initiative, which is part of the UN’s Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, launches with 117 universities from 48 countries, who have made individual pledges to address their impacts on nature. University pledges include four key elements: 1) Carrying out baseline assessments; 2) Setting specific, time limited and measurable targets for nature; 3) Taking bold action to reduce biodiversity impacts, protect and restore species and ecosystems, while influencing others to do the same; 4) Transparent annual reporting.
The initiative builds on the University of Oxford's experience in setting an ambitious target for biodiversity net gain by 2035 alongside net zero commitments. Oxford's Environmental Sustainability Strategy is founded on a study which quantified its environmental footprint and established a framework to address them.
E.J. Milner-Gulland, Tasso Leventis Professor of Biodiversity at the Department of Biology, University of Oxford, and co-founder of the Nature Positive Universities Alliance, said:
'As universities, we occupy a unique position in educating future leaders, researching solutions to environmental challenges, and influencing our communities and governments. By addressing our own institutions' environmental impacts, we can be powerful thought leaders while also directly contributing to restoring nature.'
All the founding universities announced today have pledged to assess their impacts to determine the most impactful initiatives to introduce, and to report on their progress. Examples of initiatives so far have included:Establishment of nature-friendly infrastructure such as ecological corridors at University of Buenos Aires, Argentina and University of Campinas, Brazil and new green walls at the UK’s University of Lincoln to support pollinators.
Contributing to afforestation and restoration through the development of institutional forests at Government Dungar College in Bikaner, India, and the University of Aveiro, Portugal.
Completing university-wide surveys and audits of biodiversity at the University of Turku, Finland, and targets to increase biodiversity for all University of Melbourne campuses.
Improving their supply chain through sustainable catering, such as reducing food waste and more sustainable menus at the University of Oxford and producing high quality farmed produce on its land to supply university canteens at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Commitments to improve operational footprints, such as achieving Green Lab accreditation across all University of Exeter laboratories.
Establishment of regional hubs of universities collaborating towards a nature positive goal in Algeria, Nigeria, India and Canada.
People from a further 408 universities are already a part of the wider network, playing their part in bringing their universities closer to meeting environmental targets, by developing research, lobbying their senior management and sharing case studies of their activities.
The network also includes a Student Ambassador Programme, which totals over 100 students from across 35 countries who are taking action toward nature positive awareness and approaches on their campuses. They are encouraging their universities to make an institutional pledge through advocacy and organisation of nature-positive activities such as volunteering for nature restoration, establishment of sapling nurseries and using their studies to further advance their institutions’ sustainability.
Sam Barratt, Chief of Youth, Education and Advocacy at the UN Environment Programme, said: 'Universities live at the heart of cities, at the crossroads of students’ futures and provide ground-breaking research that educates and informs society. We are delighted to see Universities will be joining hands to reset our relationship with nature so that, through this Alliance, new action and possibilities are created. The virtue of higher education has come from a reappraisal of the present to then steer the world to a new future. We look forward to seeing how the Nature Positive Universities Alliance does just that for this agenda too.'
The Nature Positive Universities Alliance is calling on other universities worldwide to join its collaborative network and to make institutional pledges.
Information on different ways for universities and their members to engage, or how to ask your university to consider making a pledge, can be found at www.naturepositiveuniversities.net.
Pew survey shows Russia perceived as less of a threat globally
9 DEC 2019
Despite involvement in a number of conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and accusations of interference in the US, Moscow enjoys increasingly positive perceptions.
Decades after the Cold War, populations across the globe by-and-large, do not see Russia as their greatest international threat, according to a survey by Pew Research Center.
Researchers asked populations in 17 different countries about which countries they saw as their biggest allies and threats.
In the US, 24 percent of the population saw Russia as the country’s greatest international threat, which put it on par with China. One in ten Canadians named Russia as their greatest threat, while 20 percent of citizens named the US as their biggest threat.
While the proportion of those who see Moscow as the greatest threat to their societies decreases, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has become for visible on the international scene. According to the survey, 42 percent of people across 25 countries believed that Russia had become more influential globally.
More than half of Americans see Russia as playing a more important role in international affairs.
The perceptions did not necessarily mean in more people seeing Russia more positively. With the exception of India, at 15 percent, and Turkey, at nine percent, no more than four percent in any country named Russia as their most dependable ally.
The US
Despite disputes with a number of its traditional allies, the US still enjoyed favourable perceptions in a number of states.
Around 82 percent of Israelis saw the Americans as their biggest ally, while a number of China’s neighbours also cited the US.
They included South Korea on 71 percent, the Philippines on 64 percent and Japan on 63 percent. While large numbers in Canada, Australia, and South Korea see the US as an ally, many in these countries also saw it as a big threat.
China
A majority of people in most countries agree that Chinese influence on the world stage has grown considerably and saw China as one of the world’s biggest economic powers, alongside the US.
However, only a median of six percent considered China as theor most reliable ally, compared with 27 percent who named the US.
China is considered a threat by 62 percent of Filipinos, half of Japanese people, 40 percent of Australians, 32 percent of South Koreans and 21 percent of Indonesians.
In Canada, 32 percent of people saw China as a threat, the biggest figure for any state there.
The perception of the Chinese threat by South Koreans and Indonesians against China have increased in five years by 15 points and 11 points, respectively. However, the perceived threat of Beijing in Japan has fallen 18 percentage points.
Migrants are on the move: but can we say the same about the EU’s migration policy?
#CriticalThinking Peace, Security & Defence
9 Dec 2022
Jamie Shea Senior Fellow for Peace, Security and Defense at Friends of Europe, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
For centuries, Europe was a continent that people sought to leave. Millions of Italians, Poles, Irish and Germans emigrated to the United States; Scots left for Canada and Australia; other Italians went to farm the fertile soils of Argentina; Frenchmen and women crossed the Mediterranean to Algeria; and Belgians, Dutch, Portuguese and Brits departed to seek their fortunes in the vast colonies that European countries had conquered across the globe. Europe stood for political repression, poverty and ossified class structures. The New World or the colonies, by contrast, represented opportunity, social mobility and the chance to make a new beginning. So little wonder that Europe lost an estimated 20% of its population to migration between 1850 and 1950.
In more recent times, this paradigm has been reversed. Every year, European countries are seeing more people enter – or trying to enter – than leaving. For instance, last week, the United Kingdom’s Home Office reported that half a million people left the UK in 2021, whereas just over one million had arrived. Ukrainian war refugees, the uptick in foreign students or Hong Kongers taking advantage of their access to British passports only partly explain this increase in net immigration, but not completely. Europe is now seen as the place of opportunity, while many parts of the world sink into the economic stagnation, corruption and political repression that once characterised large swathes of Europe. Nonetheless, 400,000 Russian men fleeing Putin’s conscription drive or Albanians constituting the largest national group trying to migrate to the UK at the present time demonstrate that the roots of mass migration are not located only in Africa, Asia or Latin America but on the periphery of Europe as well.
Migration into Europe slowed to a trickle as the COVID-19 pandemic led to the closing of borders and the paralysis of the travel industry, with the main exception being Afghans who had to be evacuated from Kabul in chaotic circumstances after the withdrawal of NATO forces in August 2021. Yet, as the global economy emerges from the pandemic and borders reopen, migration has resumed, leading to a rise in illegal migration – the type that Europe finds most difficult to deal with. Over 2,000 migrants have drowned this year trying to cross from Africa into Europe
Tensions between the European Union, Russia and Belarus in the wake of Lukashenko’s electoral fraud and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, followed by EU-imposed sanctions, have also led to the abuse of illegal migrants as weapons of intimidation and political pressure. Russia has pushed them over its border with Finland and Belarus over its border with Poland in brazen attempts to destabilise their European neighbours. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to the migration of six million Ukrainians, and Russia’s deliberate targeting of Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure can only be interpreted as a move by Moscow to induce millions more cold and hungry Ukrainians to up sticks and move to the EU. Putin is clearly hoping that refugee fatigue in Poland, Romania or Germany will give this new wave of migrants a much cooler reception than the first wave back in March and April. Some Polish politicians are already calling for newly arriving Ukrainians to pay a financial contribution towards their housing, food and healthcare costs.
Many Europeans still associate migration with the crisis of 2015 when over a million illegal migrants poured into Europe from across the Mediterranean and the Aegean. Many migrants were legitimately fleeing never-ending wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, but others – from Pakistan to Vietnam – were economic migrants whose claims for political asylum would be much more tenuous. Germany ended up taking in the vast majority of the migrants but the strains on the state welfare system and political cohesion were obvious. Populists across the continent seized on the anxieties of porous borders and loss of national identity to advance their positions. In the UK, the leader of the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage, campaigned on the ‘threat’ of hordes of Turkish migrants pouring into the UK in the wake of Turkey joining the EU. Somehow, he managed to convince large numbers in the 2016 Brexit referendum vote that this was a realistic, near-term prospect.
Nothing of the dimensions of the 2015 crisis has been experienced since, but this year, illegal migration into the EU has started to rise significantly. Around 135,000 migrants so far have reached the EU via the Western Balkans; another 90,000 have entered Italy across the Mediterranean via the islands of Sicily and Lampedusa; and the UK has witnessed a record-breaking 40,000 illegal migrants cross the Channel in small dinghies. Predictably, this increase in illegal migration, which the EU border force Frontex estimates is a 160% increase over the year before, has reopened old wounds and fissures among EU member states when it comes to how to respond. In early November, there was a spat between Italy and France. The new far-right government in Rome, true to its election campaign promise to radically curb illegal migration, refused to allow the vessel Ocean Viking to dock at an Italian port to disembark the 234 migrants that it had rescued from precarious conditions in the Mediterranean. Over 2,000 migrants have drowned this year trying to cross from Africa into Europe. After several days marooned at sea, France eventually allowed the Ocean Viking vessel to dock in Toulon “à titre exceptionnel”.
More migrants and less EU unity are not a good recipe for an effective EU migration policy
This incident reignited previous acrimonious disputes between Paris and Rome over the responsibility for handling migrants. Paris had long accused the Italian government of encouraging migrants to move to France instead of dealing with their duty to process asylum claims and refugee status in Italy, as stipulated by the Dublin Agreement on Migration. On numerous occasions, France re-established border controls and suspended Schengen arrangements along the France-Italy frontier. In recent times, France and Italy had striven to repair their relations. During the French EU Presidency, French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin concluded a temporary mechanism with 12 of the 27 EU member states on illegal migration. It provided for the distribution of migrants according to agreed national ceilings. France and Germany agreed to resettle 3,500 migrants from Italy. Yet, as always, the implementation of agreements on migration lags far behind the ambitions. So far, only 100 migrants have been resettled under the temporary mechanism. Following the Ocean Viking affair, Darmanin has suspended the mechanism and other agreements on migrant handling with Italy.
More migrants and less EU unity are not a good recipe for an effective EU migration policy. Recognising this, the European Commission has been pushing over the last two years to revise its proposed Migration Pact in the hope of finally persuading all 27 member states to sign up. To make its approach more comprehensive, the Commission is suggesting more focus on reducing migration at the source by working with countries of origin and transit countries to discourage migrants from leaving home in the first place. This would include more EU funding for local resettlement or to help migrants stuck in camps in Libya, Sudan or Morocco to return home safely. Helping to stimulate more employment opportunities in countries feeding migration is part of the strategy too, although it clearly would take several years to be effective and its success would be tied to the EU’s willingness to open its markets to agricultural products, textiles and finished goods. Yet, as 80% of migrants in Africa remain in the continent, the EU has a clear interest in preventing millions more from leaving for Europe.
The more drawn out these decisions become, the more important it is to devise short-term measures to plug the gaps in the interim. EU ministers met two weeks ago to discuss these steps and how EU member states can better control illegal migration through joint action than by pointing fingers at each other. Before the arrival of spring and its calmer waters for migrant smugglers in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, it would be helpful if those EU ministers could agree on a Migration Pact with the following elements.
There is not an agreed set of rules […] as to how NGO vessels should operate and which information should be shared
First, a common regime for dealing with migrants in the Mediterranean is needed. The EU maritime operation Sophia, which took over from a previous Italian naval presence, has been replaced by the EU Naval Force (NAVFOR) supporting the navies of the riparian EU member states. There is a need now to make this a permanent system of naval deployments extending beyond the solely central Mediterranean, and linking up with the NATO task force supporting Frontex in the Aegean. Sea monitoring needs to be completed by air detection through the deployment of maritime patrol aircraft, observation drones and satellite tracking. NATO’s recently established capability of Global Hawk observation drones at the Signonella air base in Sicily can certainly be put to good use here with NATO and the EU sharing the operating costs. Wherever possible, the naval patrols of the North African littoral states, such as Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, need to be integrated into this sea monitoring network and its data and intelligence sharing system, SHADE. The maritime presence needs clear and common rules of engagement, for instance, in providing rescue at sea and humanitarian support to migrant boats at risk of sinking. The key requirement is for EU vessels to gain access to the North African states’ territorial waters to interdict the migrant smugglers and confiscate their boats. The objective has to be to prevent migrants from crossing the Mediterranean in the first place by disrupting the infrastructure and communications of the smuggling rings. Concerted action to block the financial transactions of these gangs and seize their assets will require a truly comprehensive approach involving customs and treasury departments as well.
This connects to the second priority, which is to train and co-finance the coast guards of the North African states. The EU has started to do this with the Libyan coast guard as an extension of its Sophia operation. This exercise has not been free of criticism, given reports of heavy-handed methods and even human rights violations by the newly formed Libyan coast guard. But this is not a reason to give up but rather double down on the effort with more onsite monitoring by Frontex and more EU pressure on the authorities in Tripoli to discipline its coast guard force. The Libyan training and capacity-building programme needs to be extended along the North African littoral, and the EU needs to encourage the North African coast guard forces to share intelligence and conduct joint interdiction operations. The same applies to border forces along the poorly guarded frontiers of North Africa.
A third priority is for the EU to foster a dialogue between its Mediterranean member states and NGOs that have chartered vessels to rescue migrants in the Mediterranean. These NGOs are often headquartered in Germany and northern Europe, where public opinion often salutes their acts of humanitarian charity. But these same NGOs are highly unpopular with EU Mediterranean states such as Italy, Greece, Malta and Cyprus, which accuse them of encouraging migrants to put to sea in unseaworthy dinghies in the belief that they will be quickly picked up by the NGO rescue vessels and delivered safely to an EU port. Even before Giorgia Meloni came to power in Rome last October, Italian governments were refusing the often overloaded NGO vessels entry to ports in Sicily or Lampedusa. The problem here is that there is not an agreed set of rules between the EU and Frontex on the one hand, and the NGOs on the other as to how NGO vessels should operate and which information should be shared. Rights to operate in the Mediterranean must go hand in hand with duties and obligations. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) based in London has offered to mediate based on its established code of conduct for merchant shipping. The EU should take up the offer and set up a permanent coordination mechanism with the NGOs, perhaps under IMO chairmanship.
The refusal to allow migrants to work before their status is settled means that they are forced to vegetate in squalid, damp hotels for years, costing the government millions every month, even when many have skills that would prove useful in the local economy
Next is coming up with a more durable form of the French-inspired temporary mechanism concerning the distribution of migrants across the EU. This will be the hardest part, as many eastern EU member states have steadfastly resisted migrant quotas or opening their frontiers to migrants from outside Europe at all. The result is a lopsided situation where the overwhelming majority of migrants end up in a limited number of EU recipient countries, notably in the Mediterranean region, Germany or Sweden. Others become trapped in Bosnia and Herzegovina because they are unable to move on to northern Europe via Croatia and Hungary. But if EU joint actions are to be effective, the concept of solidarity has to be a two-way process where states are not allowed to pick and choose between different forms of solidarity. So, just like EU COVID-19 recovery funds under the NextGenerationEU programme are linked to respect for the rule of law and human rights in Hungary or Poland, the EU institutions, with the full backing of the European Parliament, will need to link EU funding and project finance to a member state’s willingness to accept a fair share of migrants for asylum and resettlement processing. Migrants would not be allowed to switch countries before their status has been settled.
Such a scheme would enable the EU to reform the Dublin Agreement so that migrants’ claims for asylum or refugee status would be processed in the countries to which they are assigned. This would help take some burdens off of Italy and Greece, and reduce the enormous backlog in processing asylum claims that drag on for years. In the meantime, migrants should be encouraged to work so that tax receipts help to offset the considerable sums that governments spend every month to provide them with food, medical care and shelter. In the UK, the refusal to allow migrants to work before their status is settled means that they are forced to vegetate in squalid, damp hotels for years, costing the government millions every month, even when many have skills that would prove useful in the local economy. The EU could seek to standardise the legal application process for asylum across the Union and provide technical support to member states experiencing major backlogs.
Naturally, it will be easier to convince the eastern European states to accept more migrants if those that do not pass the asylum and refugee procedures are returned to their homelands or departure points within a reasonable timeframe. This principle is broadly accepted within the EU but has proved difficult to implement. Migrants can tie up legal appeal procedures for several years and it is difficult, if not impossible for EU member states to send migrants back to war zones or to countries where their human rights would be in jeopardy. The UK cut a deal with Rwanda to accept migrants rejected by the asylum process; although the government trumpeted this deal with great fanfare and chartered the aircraft to fly the first batch of migrants to Kigali, the UK courts soon ordered a halt to these forced transfers. To date, not one single migrant has been taken to Rwanda. A similar situation has arisen between the EU and Turkey, where Brussels has committed to pay Ankara €6bn a year to help Turkey integrate its 4mn migrants and stop them from heading to Greece across the Aegean Sea or Turkish Thrace. Turkey has committed to take back rejected migrants under this agreement, but the number repatriated this way is a tiny fraction of those who have reached EU territory. If every migrant entering the EU eventually manages to stay, whether their claims for settlement are justified or not, there is little sense in the EU trying to develop a common repatriation policy. This is certainly not to suggest that the EU should adopt the equivalent of the UK’s controversial Rwanda scheme, but it does need to carry out a collective reflection on how it can work with transit countries like Turkey or Morocco and countries of migrants’ origin to return migrants wherever possible. In the past, the EU has proposed to set up migrant processing centres in North Africa to dissuade migrants from attempting the dangerous crossing of the Mediterranean. Yet this idea never took off as migrants invariably decided that they have a better chance of resettling in the EU if they reach EU territory by whatever route first. An EU migration policy clearly cannot work if member states choose only migrants with whom they feel an ethnic or religious affinity
Finally, to gain broad acceptance, an EU Migration Pact has to rule out attempts to forcibly push migrants into the EU. Turkey has tried to do this along its borders with Greece, Russia along its border with Finland, and, most violently, Belarus along its border with Poland. Unsurprisingly, these EU states have reacted by building fences along their borders, increasing surveillance and reinforcing border guards. This weaponisation of migrants for hybrid warfare is a form of aggression, and the EU has every right to defend its borders to deter aggressors from manipulating migrants in this way in the future. The EU has co-financed some of these fences and increased the personnel and budget of Frontex in order to secure its most exposed borders. The same applies to protecting Spain’s border with Morocco in its Ceuta and Melilla enclaves on the North African coast, where migrants have tried several times to scale the border barrier.
In conclusion, the EU needs migrants to maintain its working-age population as its demographics move towards a greater proportion of pensioners relative to workers. Other countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have long demonstrated the economic benefits and skills that migrants bring. But migration has to be controlled and represent a balance of interests and responsibilities across 27 EU member states that react to migrants in different ways. It is notable in this regard how welcoming countries like Poland, Slovakia and even Hungary have been towards Ukrainian refugees since Putin’s invasion in contrast to their attitudes towards Muslim migrants. But as admirable as this welcome to the Ukrainians has been, an EU migration policy clearly cannot work if member states choose only migrants with whom they feel an ethnic or religious affinity. This said, a common buy-in to a migration system – which all member states are ready to implement – is what the EU needs, and especially as current disagreements and finger-pointing only help the anti-EU and far-right populist forces that rely on identity politics and opposition to migrants. The spat between France and Italy over the Ocean Viking shows the potential of migration to rapidly escalate tensions within the EU. So, it is high time for EU interior ministers to engage in a revised and workable Migration Pact before the next wave of migrants reaches our shores.
The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.
With US hi-tech redundancies, thousands of Indians risk returning home
by Alessandra De Poli
The skilled workers who have been laid off have up to 60 days to find a company that will sponsor them to stay in the United States. However, recruitment is blocked. For historical and cultural reasons, India produces thousands of graduates in STEM subjects every year. But the guarantee of employment is no longer certain.
Milan (AsiaNews) - Last month, news broke that Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp), Twitter, and Amazon would lay off tens of thousands of workers, and now thousands of Indians - engineers, computer scientists, and developers who had moved to the United States to work in big tech companies - are grappling with the consequences of that decision.
Skilled workers residing in the US can do so thanks to a visa called the H-1B, which allows US companies to hire foreigners for up to six years in positions for which they have been unable to find US citizens. According to a Bloomberg analysis, US companies have sponsored at least 45,000 workers for H-1B visa applications in the past three years.
Meanwhile, permit holders can apply for permanent residency and purchase property, but if they lose their jobs, they have 60 days to find new employment. If they cannot find a new company to sponsor them to renew their visa, they must return to India and attempt to complete the paperwork from there. This can easily turn into an ordeal as waiting times for an appointment at US consulates in India have reached up to 800 days.
The demand to move to the US among Indian professionals is very high, but only 850,000 H-1B visas are granted to them each year. Indians also tend to face long periods for obtaining US citizenship (the well-known green card) because each foreign nationality is granted a maximum of 7% green cards.
People of Indian origin make up 1% of the American population and 6% of the workers in California's Silicon Valley. Seventy per cent of H-1B visas go to Indians and in cities like Seattle, 40 per cent of foreign engineers come from India.
The situation is the result of two long-standing trends: on the one hand, US immigration policy, which since the 1960s has allocated quotas based on skills and family reunification; on the other hand, Indian investment in education in what are called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).
The preponderance of Indians in science subjects is due to the decisions of the first premier of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, who during the Cold War tried to take advantage of investments from the United States or the Soviet Union to set up institutions that would train their citizens in subjects considered fundamental to the country's technological development, which - it was thought - could catch up with the world powers in a few years. This is how some of the country's best schools came into being, including the Indian Insitutes of Technology.
However, ironically, India's best engineers emigrate abroad attracted by much higher salaries, while according to a 2011 Wall Street Journal survey, only 75% of engineering graduates have the skills to hold a high-level position in the technology industry. This has led to the paradoxical situation whereby a degree in a STEM subject today often translates into one more unemployed Indian youth.
This situation has been compounded by layoffs in the tech industry in India as well: Byju's, one of India's most popular online learning start-ups, has laid off around 2,500 employees this year. And it is just one of more than 40 start-ups that have joined Meta and Twitter in the layoffs.
"When hiring in the global technology sector started to decline in August, it was clear that the storm would hit India," explained a labour market official.
However, according to Somdeep Deb, vice-president of labour consultancy Right Management, "Organizations need to be a little more patient. As an economy, India has survived many such cycles, including the 2008 global financial crisis, and more recently, the Covid-19 pandemic. We have fought those and we have moved ahead. Organizations can’t keep applying the brakes every six months or keep fighting market forces forever. What would be better for them would be to set their targets focused on sustainable growth. Job cuts have long-term implications, especially if they’re not thought through".
UK
‘Stop grandstanding and start governing’: SIR Keir Starmer blasts Rishi Sunak's response to strikes
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer urged Rishi Sunak’s administration to “stop grandstanding and start governing” by getting around the table with unions. At a business conference in London he said: “I don’t want strikes and disruption.“I don’t think those going on strike want strikes and disruption. They are facing a very real cost of living crisis, they are struggling to pay their bills.”
Rishi Sunak plans to BAN ambulance strikes
Army top brass say it's unfair soldiers will have to miss Christmas to fill in for NHS staff who earn MORE than them:
PM is preparing tough laws that will 'protect lives and livelihoods'
The PM said he had a 'duty to take action' to protect public amid winter strikes
The army could be brought in to ease pressures on strike days in December
Military bosses are said to be fuming over suggestions soldiers should fill in
Government looking to introduce 'minimum service levels' in transport sector
Ambulance workers could be banned from going on strike under laws being considered by Rishi Sunak, it was revealed this morning after army bosses criticised plans for soldiers to fill the gaps.
The Prime Minister yesterday pledged to 'protect life and livelihoods' amid mounting fears about the impact of a co-ordinated wave of strikes this winter.
Top brass have reportedly told ministers it is 'not right' for soldiers, who are banned from striking, to fill in for roles over the festive period.
It comes as Mr Sunak accused union chiefs of making unreasonable pay demands and said he had a 'duty to take action' to protect the public.
The Prime Minister yesterday pledged to 'protect life and livelihoods' amid mounting fears about the impact of a co-ordinated wave of strikes this winter
Army bosses fear the plans for hundreds of soldiers to fulfill paramedic roles could harm the military's 'operational capability'.
A source told the Telegraph: 'You've only got to look at a private soldier on £22,000 a year and whose pay scales have not kept up with inflation for the last decade, having to give up Christmas, or come straight off operations, to cover for people who want 19 percent [salary increases] and are already paid in excess of what he or she would be, and it's just not right.
'The Government’s first lever it reaches for every time there is any difficulty – whether it’s floods, strikes, all the rest of it – is the Armed Forces, as opposed to it being the last resort.'
A second added it was hypocritical to 'use public servants who receive one of the smallest pay awards and legally can't strike, and have no independent advocate body, to cover for public servants who do'. Minister defends government plans to reform strike rules
During angry clashes with Sir Keir Starmer, he branded the Labour leader 'weak' and told him to 'stand up for working people' by backing a crackdown
It comes as reports suggest Rishi Sunak is considering implementing new laws which would require public bodies such as the NHS to provide a minimum level of service at all times.
Around 2,000 military personnel and volunteers are currently undergoing training to stand in for multiple public sector roles, from ambulance drivers to Border Force officials.
An official request for soldiers to be sent out in ambulances during paramedic strikes on December 21 has not yet been made, reports say.
The standard wage for a soldier at the rank of private is £21,424, compared with £27,055 for a paramedic with less than two years’ experience.
PM Rishi Sunak said at Prime Minister's Questions: 'Hard-working families right now in this country are facing challenges. The Government has been reasonable.
'It's accepted the recommendations of an independent pay review body, giving pay rises in many cases higher than the private sector.
'But if the union leaders continue to be unreasonable, then it is my duty to take action to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British public. That's why, since I became Prime Minister, I have been working for new tough laws to protect people from this disruption.'
During angry clashes with Sir Keir Starmer, he branded the Labour leader 'weak' and told him to 'stand up for working people' by backing a crackdown. Downing Street declined to comment on the exact proposals that would be brought forward.
But sources confirmed measures being considered include a ban on emergency service workers taking strike action.
A similar ban already applies to the police and armed forces but does not cover blue light services such as firemen – who are also balloting for a strike over pay – and ambulance staff.
PCS chief Mark Serwotka announces Border Force strike action
Another anti-strike option for the Government would be to amend the Civil Contingencies Act to allow ministers to ban strikes that threaten to trigger a national emergency.
Ministers are also looking at options for limiting the power of militant unions to call out their members.
This could include raising the threshold required in ballots for industrial action and requiring unions to put pay offers to their members. Forcing unions to put pay deals to their members in referendums is another option being looked at.
The Government is already committed to introducing 'minimum service levels' in the transport sector. This means union leaders would be forced to ensure a certain number of services run during walkouts to limit their impact. Ministers are looking at expanding the legislation to other sectors.
But they are facing pressure to explain why the legislation, promised in the Tories' 2019 manifesto, has still not begun its passage through Parliament.
Downing Street later declined to provide a timeline or any details on the new laws Mr Sunak invoked. The Prime Minister's spokesman said work on new measures was 'ongoing' and that 'we want to do it at speed'.
'We keep the powers under review and obviously in light of what we are seeing with effectively rolling strikes, the Prime Minister thinks it is right to push ahead with new powers,' the spokesman told reporters.
Sources said Mr Sunak hoped to announce the package early next year. But Labour has vowed to oppose new strike laws and ministers are anxious about how long legislation could take to put in place.
Transport Secretary Mark Harper said Labour's opposition meant the Government was unable to get its minimum service law through Parliament as quickly as it wanted to. He told MPs on the Commons transport committee: 'Usually legislation that is pushed through rapidly tends to have to be pushed through when there's cross-party agreement on that legislation, and that I don't think is the case here.'
Labour later confirmed it would oppose 'unworkable' minimum service laws and said it would repeal the 2016 Trade Union Act if it came to power. This could make it easier for strike ballots to take place.
A spokesman said: 'The Conservatives are responsible for the state of industrial relations in Britain today.' Trades Union Congress chief Frances O'Grady accused the PM of 'attempting cheap political pot-shots'.
She said: 'The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty. Public sector workers would love to be able to deliver minimum service levels. But 12 years of Conservative cuts and mismanagement have left our public services falling apart at the seams.'
Sharon Graham of the Unite union, which represents ambulance staff, said: 'Rather than dealing with the critical issue of workers suffering pay cuts as prices rocket, he promises to attack the very organisations that are fighting for workers and putting more money in their pockets.'
Yesterday The Mail reported that Labour had accepted £1.6million from unions in the third quarter of this year.
UK
Rail union leaders accuse government of ‘blocking’ deal to end Christmas strikes
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) said the strikes “come gift wrapped from Rishi Sunak”.
Rail union leaders have continued to blame the Government for “blocking” a deal to end the long running dispute over pay, jobs and conditions which threatens more travel chaos in the run up to Christmas.
The Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) said the strikes “come gift wrapped from Rishi Sunak”, claiming the Government was preventing rail employers from making any improvements to offers for workers in train operating companies.
The Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) made the same claim on Wednesday evening, warning that a resolution is now further away.
Rail workers and the industry have been put in an impossible position by the Tory government
TSSA Interim General Secretary, Frank Ward
Members of both unions, and Unite, are set to launch a series of strikes in the next few weeks which will cripple services.
The TSSA said that despite some hope earlier in the week that progress and movement could be made in an attempt to resolve the dispute, the Government yesterday “blocked” efforts by employers to table an improved offer.
“This is devastating news for rail workers, passengers and the wider economy as it exposes the damage the Government is willing to do to working people,” said TSSA interim general secretary, Frank Ward.
“Rail workers and the industry have been put in an impossible position by the Tory government. Christmas chaos and disruption across our railways are now unfortunately guaranteed, and come gift wrapped from Rishi Sunak and his anti-worker Conservative government’s agenda.
“We are truly sorry for the disruption that this action will cause to passengers and businesses. We have tried everything to achieve a resolution, but we will not sell our members’ jobs for a cheap deal that slashes their pay and fails to provide the job security being given to colleagues in the rail industry.”
Mick Lynch, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (Kirsty O’Connor/PA)
Strikes in several industries will escalate in the next few weeks, starting with another walkout by Royal Mail workers on Friday.
Thousands of members of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) will hold a rally outside Parliament to coincide with the strike.
Border Force staff at airports will strike over Christmas, while nurses will stop work next Thursday in separate disputes.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman urged people to rethink flying around Christmas as she warned of “undeniable, serious disruption” for thousands if strikes go ahead.
In an interview with broadcasters, she said: “It’s very regrettable that they have made this decision to potentially strike over critical times in the run up and following Christmas and the New Year.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman (Toby Melville/PA)
“If they go ahead with those strikes there will be undeniable, serious disruption caused to many thousands of people who have holiday plans.
“I really want to urge people who have got plans to travel abroad to think carefully about their plans because they may well be impacted.
“We’ve got plans in place that will involve, to a degree, bringing in some of our military colleagues to help us in a variety of roles.
“Ultimately, I’m not willing to compromise on security at the border, that’s the number one priority.
“That may well have an adverse impact on convenience for people, frankly, whether it’s the time they have to wait for flights, or departures, they may well be delayed on arrivals and various travel plans. Ultimately, security at the border is my number one non-negotiable priority.”
Crucial discussions on the detail on how ambulance trusts will operate on a strike day will be discussed at a local level and life and limb cover will be provided on these days
Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe, Unite
It is understood that officials from the Department of Health and NHS England are meeting on Thursday to discuss contingency plans for the health service during strike days.
Unite national officer for health Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe said a meeting with ambulance employers on Thursday was “constructive and cordial”.
She added: “We discussed England-wide broad principles regarding the derogations for the ambulance service on days of industrial action, but the crucial discussions on the detail on how ambulance trusts will operate on a strike day will be discussed at a local level and life and limb cover will be provided on these days.”
By Press Association
UK Royal Mail workers begin wave of pre-Christmas strikes
Thousands of striking staff head to Westminster for protest outside parliament over conditions and pay
A Royal Mail postal worker delivering mail on Christmas Lane in High Halstow. Workers are on strike in an escalating row over pay, jobs and conditions.
More than 100,000 postal workers have begun the first of a series of days of strike action that threaten to disrupt deliveries across the country in the run-up to Christmas, after the failure of 11th hour talks to resolve a protracted and bitter dispute over pay and conditions.
The Communications Workers Union (CWU), which has planned six days of strikes on 9,11, 14, 15, 23 and 24 December, has organised a protest by workers at the Houses of Parliament on Friday as the row with management continues to escalate.
The CWU said at least 15,000 of its members would head to Westminster on Friday for what it claimed would be the biggest-ever demonstration held by postal workers.
“Royal Mail bosses are risking a Christmas meltdown because of their stubborn refusal to treat their employees with respect,” said Dave Ward, the CWU general secretary. “Postal workers want to get on with serving the communities they belong to, delivering Christmas gifts and tackling the backlog from recent weeks. But they know their value.”
The company, which had its offer of up to 9% for workers rejected, has argued that Royal Mail needs to restructure as it is losing £1m a day and said it may need to cut up to 10,000 jobs by August.
The company is facing 18 days of strikes this year if all the planned action takes place. It has said the eight days of strikes up until 16 November cost it £100m.
The dispute began this summer after Royal Mail rejected union demands for a pay rise that matched inflation, which is currently 11.1%.
A spokesperson for the company said: “We spent three more days at Acas this week to discuss what needs to happen for the strikes to be lifted,. In the end, all we received was another request for more pay, without the changes needed to fund the pay offer.
“Strike action has already cost our people £1,200 each. The money allocated to the pay deal risks being eaten away by the costs of further strike action. The CWU is striking at our busiest time, deliberately holding Christmas to ransom for our customers, businesses and families across the country.”
Last month, Royal Mail asked the government to allow it to stop delivering letters on Saturdays, arguing it was financially unsustainable after it reported a £219m loss in the six months to September.
The embattled company, which last month warned it may need to cut up to 10,000 jobs by August, made a £235m profit in the same period last year.
The Other New York Times Workers On Strike
The newspaper’s IT specialists, security guards and sales coordinators — some of whom earn as little as $52,000 a year — strike alongside reporters for better wages.
Claudia Irizarry Aponte— THE CITY
Dec 8, 2022 Security workers Karen Letellier, left, John Garafalo and Lila Rivera were among the 1,100 employees of The New York Times who walked off the job for 24 hours, Dec. 8, 2022. CLAUDIA IRIZARRY APONTE/THE CITY
When a man wielding a sword and an axe entered the New York Times building last month and demanded to speak with a reporter, it was security workers, among them Karen Letellier, who confronted him, ordering him to surrender his bag and drop to the ground.
“Our job is a huge responsibility,” said Letellier, 36, a concierge who has worked for the Times for five years. “There is no room for mistakes when people’s lives are at risk.”
Letellier, like other security workers, is also one of the lowest-earning employees at The New York Times. She is among the nearly 1,100 New York Times Guild members who walked off the job for 24 hours at midnight Thursday. They’re part of a union that includes reporters, editors and assistants, but also lower-wage workers like security guards, IT specialists, ushers and sales coordinators who earn as little as $52,000 annually.
They, like all the Times staffers on strike, contend they’ve lost out on the Gray Lady’s boom of recent years. One of the few profitable media companies in the country, it reported a $36.6 million profit in the third quarter and an operating profit of $51 million, up from $49 million the previous year, even as it spent $550 million to purchase the sports news website The Athletic, and an undisclosed amount in “the low seven figures” range for the Wordle game app this year.
Among the union demands still on the table: Increasing the salary floor to $65,000, which the company has so far refused even as it authorized $150 million in stock buybacks this year.
The union estimates the proposals would cost the company roughly $100 million over the four-year life of the contract. Management and the union have been bargaining for 20 months, ever since the contract spanning roughly 1,400 staffers expired in March 2021.
Bill Baker, a unit chair and IT specialist at The New York Times, speaks at the picket line on Thursday. CLAUDIA IRIZARRY APONTE/THE CITY
Many workers have not received any merit or negotiated increase, aside from contractual raises, in more than a decade, said Bill Baker, an IT specialist at the Times company for 16 years. Many in his department earn annual salaries in the range of $55,000, Baker said.
“There has been no real upward mobility for people in my department” other than being promoted to non-union positions, he said.
‘We Deserve It’
The work stoppage, the likes of which has not been seen at the Times in decades, left several major desks without staff. The last major Guild-led work stoppage at the scale of Thursday’s strike was a multiday strike in September and October of 1965. In 2017, Times staffers staged a brief lunchtime walkout to protest planned cuts to the newsroom’s copyediting staff.
The union currently includes reporters, editors and research and news assistants across the country, plus security personnel and workers on the business side — including the IT, finance and advertising departments — who are employed by the company in its headquarters on Eighth Avenue near Times Square.
While much of the public’s attention has focused on the Times’ reporters and editors, who make up the bulk of the bargaining unit, union activists are conscious that the most pressing needs are felt by administrative staff.
“We’re representing people with such varied jobs and interests, so this can be a chance for us to make sure we’re covering all those bases and a big part of our ask this time around,” said grievance chair Jim Luttrell, a senior editor.
“We’re not being greedy. We deserve it,” said concierge Lila Rivera, 49, of the union’s demand for a $65,000 salary floor. “It’s our responsibility to make this place safe.”
Workers at The New York Times have been represented by the NewsGuild of New York since 1940. The unit has historically included security guards, sales coordinators and customer service representatives alongside reporters and editors.
In previous decades, the unit also included cafeteria workers and building management at the Times’ old headquarters before those positions were outsourced, said Baker, who is a unit chair.
A separate unit representing some 700 tech workers — engineers and designers who manage the website interface and its news apps — voted to unionize with the NewsGuild of New York this year. Those employees staged a “collective lunch break” in solidarity with their striking coworkers on Thursday.
Seeing Red
Scores of Times workers — wearing red clothing, the NewsGuild’s color — attended an afternoon rally in front of the newspaper’s headquarters near Times Square.
Among the speakers was Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, a unit council member.
“When this paper struggled, all of us had to share in its austerity,” said Hannah-Jones. “When this paper is doing well, the people who work hard every day to make this place a global phenomenon deserve to share in success.” Hundreds of reporters and workers of The New York Times formed a picket line outside their Times Square building as contract negations stalled.
CLAUDIA IRIZARRY APONTE/THE CITY
No labor action has stopped production of the paper since the New York City newspaper strike of 1978, which halted the print and distribution of several newspapers in the region, including The New York Times, for 88 days.
“It is disappointing that they are taking such an extreme action when we are not at an impasse,” New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement. “Though we’ve made progress and offered several new proposals this week to address issues identified as priorities by the Guild, we still have much more work to do when we return to the bargaining table.”
Throughout Thursday, the Times was publishing and sharing stories across social platforms and its mobile app, including a news alert for WNBA star Brittney Griner’s release from a Russian prison in a prisoner swap.
The company began planning for the work stoppage last week, asking reporters to file stories early as if preparing for a major holiday, and using additional resources like its non-union international staff. Times management ramped up its efforts following more than 1,100 union members signing a pledge to walk out of the job on Thursday if the two sides did not reach an agreement.
By Wednesday, the company backed off a proposal to replace its existing adjustable pension plan with a 401(k) retirement plan, instead letting the union choose between the two, the Associated Press reported. The company also agreed to expand fertility treatment benefits.
Workers on the picket line said the decision to go on strike was not easy, nor one they were eager to make.
“But we need more money, we need job security,” said security guard John Garafalo, gesturing at the scores of Times workers picketing on 40th Street. “These are my people.” THE CITY is an independent, nonprofit news outlet dedicated to hard-hitting reporting that serves the people of New York.
The Public Health Consequences When Railroads Don't Pay Sick Leave
How workers, families, and employers suffer when sick leave policies are thin
A railway worker helps load railcars onto a train in San Diego, California,
In June of this year, Aaron Hiles, a railway engineer and ex-Marine from Lee's Summit, Missouri, felt unwell enough to make a doctor's appointment. When his employer, a large freight rail carrier, changed his schedule at the last minute, he put off his appointment because his company does not provide paid sick leave and would have penalized him if he skipped a day of work. A few weeks later, Aaron died of a heart attack while on the job.
The U.S. freight rail network, extending almost 140,000 route miles, is the largest rail system in the world. It is also almost entirely privately owned. Railway companies and their workers' unions have been in negotiations for their next contract, and paid sick leave policy has been at the forefront of ongoing debates. Thanks to a nearly one-hundred-year-old bill, Congress has had the power to resolve disputes between labor unions and railroads to prevent disruptions to interstate commerce. U.S. Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh helped to broker a tentative national contract between the railways and unions in September, which included modest salary increases, but was rejected by multiple railroad worker unions for its omission of any paid sick leave.
Though negotiations were set to continue, President Joe Biden called on Congress last week to intervene. However, a subsequent amendment adding seven days of paid sick leave failed to pass, leaving rail workers little room to negotiate further. These tense deliberations across railways, unions, and the government heightened the national attention around not only the labor rights of railway workers, but also more broadly around employee health protections in the United States.
Paid sick leave is not only a strategy to protect an individual worker's health, it is also recognized as a public health tool that can improve health outcomes for families and communities, all while making workplaces safer. Failing to guarantee these protections risks exacerbating health inequities across racial and income divides, leaving us with a less healthy workforce for tomorrow.
Individuals with paid sick leave have higher odds of having appropriate vaccinations and preventative tests than those without
Paid Sick Leave Is Good for Families
Paid sick leave is a crucial policy measure with the potential to improve employee and family health. Across twenty years of studies, research finds that controlling for socio-economic factors, on average, individuals with paid sick leave have higher odds of having appropriate vaccinations (e.g., flu shot) and preventative tests (e.g., mammograms) than those without such leave. Adults with paid sick leave may also have lower emergency department utilization. Alternatively, U.S. workers without paid sick leave report lower rates of noncommunicable disease screenings (even when such screenings are free) and higher rates of psychological distress.
The protective effect of paid sick leave extends to entire families, as well. The odds that children with at least one parent with access to paid sick leave have had an annual doctor's visit are 27 percent higher than the odds for children whose parents have no paid sick leave. Some research suggests parental paid sick reduces a child's likelihood of visiting the emergency room.
It is clear that the lack of paid sick leave is a significant barrier to accessing appropriate health care. Rail workers like Aaron Hiles are falling between the gaps because they have no paid sick leave. A preventative visit may have saved his life and led to an increased lifespan. Health Care Utilization With Access to Paid Sick Leave
Workers with paid sick leave are... Reducing the Working Unwell
Paid sick leave is also an effective public health tool. Research suggests access to paid sick leave may result in reduced presenteeism, the practice of working while unwell, which itself has been shown to significantly reduceproductivity, resulting in delays in recovery and worsening employee mental health. Significantly, paid sick leave has been found to reduce the transmission of influenza-like illnesses among workers. A 2018 study compared the effects of paid sick leave policy in Washington D.C. and Connecticut and determined that the positive public health impact of paid sick leave could reduce overall absences due to sickness by 18 percent by limiting the spread of disease. This was acutely appreciated during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results from an analysis of federal emergency sick leave measures during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that states that adopted new sick leave policies experienced an average of 400 fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases per state per day. These sick leave policies, however, expired in 2020.
Increasingly worrisome is the impact of paid sick leave—and the lack of it—on emergency department utilization. United Healthcare estimates that addressing avoidable emergency department visits could save the industry $32 billion each year. Research shows that even after controlling for confounding factors such as race, education, income, and insurance, availability of paid sick leave was associated with significant reductions in moderate (one to three visits) and repeated (less than three visits/year) use of emergency departments.
Paid sick leave has consequences for health equity as well. One study conducted during the H1N1 pandemic (2009-10) illustrated racial disparities across a range of social determinants of health—including housing context, job precarity, ability to social distance. The findings indicate that Black and Hispanic adults experience higher rates of exposure to illnesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nearly half of all Hispanic workers (48 percent) and more than one-third of Black workers (36 percent) report having no access to paid time off. These disparities are compounded when workers are stratified by income (see figure).
The expansion of remote work capabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic presented additional challenges across racial and educational divides. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that nearly half of White respondents were able to work from home, compared to 38 percent of Black respondents. It also reports that almost 24 percent of individuals with a high school education could work from home, compared to nearly 68 percent of individuals with at least a bachelor's degree.
Access to Paid Leave for Civilian Workers, March 2021
The health of railway workers is uniquely endangered by the unpredictable scheduling requirements of their employers. Workers are also subject to a point scoring system and have reportedly lost points and faced penalties for calling out sick with COVID-19, suffering a heart attack, and getting into a severe car accident. Another employee lost points after missing work when his mother died. Even missing a phone call from the rail company results in point deductions. Once called, workers have ninety to one-hundred-and-twenty minutes to report to the station, depending on the time of day and geographic distance to the station.
Unpredictable work schedules, which have been extensively studied in the retail and food service sectors, have been associated with income volatility and an increased risk of experiencing housing instability or hunger. Irregular work patterns are also associated with smoking, lack of exercise, obesity, and acute sleep loss, which further risks harming employee mental and physical health.
In one study of twenty-two countries ranking highest on the Human Development Index—a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators—the United States stands alone in its complete lack of mandated federal support for workers experiencing either short-term sick days or long-term sick leave. While most other industrialized countries (see figure) leverage legislative tools to guarantee these protections, the United States relies on a patchwork of voluntary employer policies as well as state and local laws to address this need. Paid Sick Leave Policies Across the Developed World
Unpaid sick leave leads to delays in health care among workers, families, and children who fail to receive health care until emergencies arise, and it causes people who already experience health inequalities to face additional hurdles to accessing care. While Congress has rejected railway union demands for paid sick leave, public health advocacy organizations are using this opportunity to advocate for federally mandated paid sick leave across industries. American workers should not have to risk going to work sick—which lowers their productivity, damages their health, and exposes their coworkers and the public to illnesses—for fear of risking loss of their salary and employment. The United States can join other high-income countries that guarantee paid sick leave protections to workers.
Ajeet Singh is a physician advocate, working on the front lines of safety-net healthcare delivery while supporting a range of public health interventions to improve the lives of patients.
Priyanka Sethy is pursuing a PhD in government and political science at Harvard University. She is a former research intern at the Council on Foreign Relations, and previously worked as a research assistant at the Saltzman Institute for War at Columbia University and at Harvard Kennedy School's Evidence for Policy Design.
.png)
