Deadly Marburg virus spreads in Rwanda, with no vaccine or treatment

Most of the affected are healthcare workers across six out of 30 districts in the country.

By Ignatius Ssuuna The Associated Press
Posted October 1, 2024 

A medical worker from the Infection Prevention and Control unit wearing full protective equipment prepares to enter an isolation tent housing a man being quarantined after coming into contact in Uganda with a carrier of the Marburg Virus, a hemorrhagic fever from the same family as Ebola, at the Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. 

AP Photo/Ben Curtis

Rwanda says eight people have died so far from the Ebola-like and highly contagious Marburg virus, just days after the country declared an outbreak of the deadly hemorrhagic fever that has no authorized vaccine or treatment.


Like Ebola, the Marburg virus originates in fruit bats and spreads between people through close contact with the bodily fluids of infected individuals or with surfaces, such as contaminated bed sheets. Without treatment, Marburg can be fatal in up to 88 per cent of people who fall ill with the disease.

Rwanda, a landlocked country in central Africa, declared an outbreak on Friday and a day later the first six deaths were reported.

So far 26 cases have been confirmed, and eight of the sickened people have died, Health Minister Sabin Nsanzimana said on Sunday night.

The public has been urged to avoid physical contact to help curb the spread. Some 300 people who came into contact with those confirmed to have the virus have also been identified, and an unspecified number of them have been put in isolation facilities.

Most of the affected are healthcare workers across six out of 30 districts in the country.

“Marburg is a rare disease,” Nsanzimana told journalists. “We are intensifying contact tracing and testing to help stop the spread.”

The minister said the source of the disease has not been determined yet. A person infected with the virus can take between three days and three weeks to show symptoms, he added.

Symptoms include fever, muscle pains, diarrhea, vomiting and, in some cases, death through extreme blood loss.

The World Health Organization was scaling up its support and will work with Rwandan authorities to help stop the spread, WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Saturday on the social media platform X.

The U.S Embassy in Rwanda’s capital of Kigali has urged its staff to work remotely and avoid visiting offices.

Marburg outbreaks and individual cases have in the past been recorded in Tanzania, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Congo, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda and Ghana, according to the WHO.

The rare virus was first identified in 1967 after it caused simultaneous outbreaks of disease in laboratories in Marburg, Germany, and Belgrade, Serbia. Seven people died who were exposed to the virus while conducting research on monkeys.

Separately, Rwanda has so far reported six cases of mpox, a disease caused by a virus related to smallpox but that typically causes milder symptoms. Mpox, previously known as monkeypox because it was first seen in research monkeys, has also affected several other African countries in what the WHO has called a global health emergency.

Rwanda launched an mpox vaccination campaign earlier this month, and more vaccines are expected to arrive in the country. Neighboring Congo has so far reported most of the cases of mpox, the epicenter of the emergency.

The curse of diamonds: How Zimbabwe’s wealth is failing its people

I was listening this morning as the Minister of Mines, Winston Chitando, boasted over Zimbabwe’s increasing diamond production.

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

Indeed, Zimbabwe’s diamond industry has long been touted as a beacon of hope for the country’s economic revival.

In fact, Zimbabwe ranks as the seventh- biggest diamond producer in the world with an output of over 5 million carats worth over US$500 million in 2023, according to statistics released by the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS).

In terms of diamond output, the Southern African country was only behind Botswana, Russia, Angola, Canada, South Africa, and Namibia.


Zimbabwe is aiming to produce 7 million carats of diamonds this year, and the sector is targeting an annual revenue of US$1 billion.

Based on the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) figures, the diamond industry accounts for approximately 30% of Zimbabwe’s total mineral exports.

Whereas, the KPCS report that the Marange diamond fields are estimated to have produced over 20 million carats since 2006.

With production and exports soaring to 5 million carats in 2023, one would expect the communities surrounding these diamond-rich areas to be thriving.

Sadly, the reality is starkly different.

The people of Marange, displaced from their ancestral lands by companies like Chinese Anjin Investments, continue to wallow in poverty, their lives a testament to the dark underbelly of Zimbabwe’s diamond boom.

To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Group on: https://chat.whatsapp.com/CBQVPGODBPQG969OBVLyeT

Marange, a region in eastern Zimbabwe, was once home to thriving communities.

However, the discovery of diamonds in 2006 brought chaos.

Over 20,000 people were forcibly evicted from their ancestral lands in Marange to make way for diamond mining, based on Human Rights Watch.

As we speak, according to UNICEF, an estimated 70% of Marange residents lack access to clean water.

The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that infant mortality rates in Marange are 50% higher than the national average.

Yet, promises of compensation and better living conditions remain unfulfilled.

Today, Marange residents struggle to access basic necessities like clean water, healthcare, and education.

Diamond mining has ravaged Marange’s environment.

The once-pristine landscape now resembles a barren wasteland.

Diamond mining in Marange has resulted in the destruction of over 10,000 hectares of forest, according to the Environmental Management Agency (EMA).

The Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) says water pollution from mining activities affects over 50% of Marange’s rivers.

A study undertaken by the Midlands State University (MSU) has shown a protracted increase in water quality problems in both Save and Odzi rivers due to the discharge harmful substances from mining operations.

In fact, the Save and Odzi rivers are now a pale shadow of their former selves on account of the massive environmental degradation caused by siltation from the nearby mining activities.

This has forced the people of these areas to fetch water from unsafe sources, exposing them to waterborne diseases.

Deforestation and soil erosion have destroyed fertile land, threatening food security, affecting the livelihoods of 80% of Marange’s farming community, based on the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The Zimbabwean government’s failure to ensure that diamond revenues benefit local communities is a betrayal of trust.

Where are the schools, hospitals, and roads promised to these communities?

Why have the displaced residents not received fair compensation for their lost livelihoods?

The absence of transparency and accountability in the diamond industry has allowed foreign companies to exploit Zimbabwe’s resources, leaving locals with nothing but dust and despair.

This is not just an economic issue; it’s a human rights crisis.

According to Amnesty International, 90% of Marange residents reported experiencing human rights abuses related to diamond mining.

Over 500 cases of forced labour have been documented in Marange’s diamond mines by the International Labour Organization (ILO) – with most employees underpaid and working under unsafe conditions.

Women and children are disproportionately affected by diamond mining-related violence, with UN Women reporting numerous cases of sexual abuse.

The people of Marange and other diamond-rich areas deserve better.

They deserve to benefit from the resources extracted from their ancestral lands.

They deserve clean water, quality healthcare, and education.

Most importantly, they deserve justice.

Foreign companies, particularly Chinese Anjin Investments, have been accused of exploiting Zimbabwe’s resources with impunity.

Anjin Investments, according to Global Witness, has extracted an estimated US$1 billion worth of diamonds from Marange since 2010.

Yet, research shows that the company has paid less than 5% of its profits to the Zimbabwean government through the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA).

In all this, their operations have displaced communities, destroyed environments, and ignored labour laws.

The President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa administration’s failure to regulate these companies has perpetuated the suffering.

The government must take responsibility for its failures.

It must ensure transparent and accountable management of diamond revenues.

Chinese companies as Anjin Investments must provide fair compensation to displaced communities, as well as invest in meaningful essential infrastructure and services.

There needs to be measures in place to protect the environment and hold polluters accountable.

State institutions such as the EMA have to be seen to be fulfilling their mandates without fear or favour.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for these mining operations must be adhered to and re-evaluated.

The international community has a role to play in demanding greater transparency in Zimbabwe’s diamond industry and supporting initiatives promoting local community development.

These companies should be held accountable for all environmental and human rights abuses.

We need to see the ILO on the ground assessing the working conditions of employees at these mining companies.

Civil society organizations (CSOs), such as the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG), must continue to advocate for the rights of affected communities.

They must document human rights abuses, support community-led initiatives, and engage in policy advocacy.

Finally, I recommend the establishment of an independent body to oversee diamond revenue management.

The Auditor-General says that over 50% of diamond revenue is unaccounted for due to lack of transparency.

The Zimbabwean government has allocated less than 10% of diamond revenue to community development projects based on the Ministry of Finance statistics.

We also need the development of a comprehensive compensation package for displaced communities.

Companies operating in the extractive sector must be compelled by law to invest in environmental rehabilitation and conservation.

Lastly, Zimbabwe must strengthen its labour laws in order to protect workers and ensure their enforcement.

Zimbabwe’s diamond wealth should be a blessing, not a curse.

It’s time for the government to prioritize the needs of its citizens over the interests of foreign companies.

We must demand transparency, accountability, and fair distribution of resources.

Only then can we begin to address the historical injustices perpetrated against communities like Marange.

Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer.

 email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/

Post published in: Featured

US ports strike causes first shutdown in 50 years

Natalie Sherman
Business reporter, BBC News
Reporting fromNew York


Tens of thousands of dockworkers have gone on strike indefinitely at ports across much of the US, threatening significant trade and economic disruption ahead of the presidential election and the busy holiday shopping season.

Members of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) walked out on Tuesday at 14 major ports along the east and gulf coasts, halting container traffic from Maine to Texas.

The action marks the first such shutdown in almost 50 years.

President Joe Biden has the power to suspend the strike for 80 days for further negotiations, but the White House has said he is not planning to act.


What is the strike about?


Talks have been stalled for months and the current contract between parties expired on Monday.

The White House said that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were monitoring the strike closely.

"The President has directed his team to convey his message directly to both sides that they need to be at the table and negotiating in good faith - fairly and quickly."

The two sides are fighting over a six-year master contract that covers about 25,000 port workers employed in container and roll-on/roll-off operations, according to the US Maritime Alliance, known as USMX, which represents shipping firms, port associations and marine terminal operators.

On Monday, USMX said it had increased its offer, which would raise wages by almost 50%, triple employers' contributions to pension plans and strengthen health care options.

Union boss Harold Daggett has called for significant pay increases for his members, while voicing concerns about threats from automation.

USMX has accused the union of refusing to bargain, filing a complaint with labour regulators that asked them to order the union back to the table.

Under the previous contract, starting wages ranged from $20 to $39 per hour, depending on a worker's experience. Workers also receive other benefits, such as bonuses connected to container trade.

Mr Daggett has indicated the union wants to see per-hour pay increase by five dollars per year over the life of the six-year deal, which he estimated amounted to about 10% per year.

The ILA said workers are owed after shipping firm profits soared during the Covid pandemic, while inflation hit salaries. It has warned to expect a wider strike of its members, including those not directly involved in this dispute, though the exact numbers are unclear.

The union has said it represents more than 85,000 people; it claimed about 47,000 active members in its annual report to the Labor Department.

What items will be affected by the strike?

Time-sensitive imports, such as food, are likely to be among the goods first impacted.

The ports involved handle about 14% of agricultural exports shipped by sea and more than half of imports, including a significant share of trade in bananas and chocolate, according to the Farm Bureau.

Other sectors exposed to disruption include tin, tobacco and nicotine, Oxford Economics said. Clothing and footwear firms, and European carmakers, which route many of their shipments through the Port of Baltimore, will also take a hit.

Imports in the US surged over the summer, as many businesses took steps to rush shipments ahead of the strike.

"I don't think we will see immediate, significant economic impacts...but over the course of weeks, if the strike lasts that long, we can begin to see prices rise and for there to be some shortages in goods," said Seth Harris, a professor at Northeastern University and a former White House adviser on labour issues.

What will the economic impact be?


More than a third of exports and imports could be affected by the strike, hitting US economic growth to the tune of at least $4.5bn each week of the strike, according to Grace Zemmer, an associate US economist at Oxford Economics, though others have estimated the economic hit could be higher.

She said more than 100,000 people could find themselves temporarily out of work as the impact of the stoppage spreads.

"This is really a trigger event, one that will see dominoes fall over the coming months," said Peter Sand, chief analyst at ocean freight analytics firm Xeneta, warning that the stand-off also has the potential push up wider shipping costs.

That would hit consumers and businesses which tend to rely on so-called "just-in-time" supply chains for goods, he added.

How could this affect the US election?


The stand-off injects uncertainty into the US economy at a delicate time.

The economy has been slower and the unemployment rate is ticking higher as the US election approaches in six weeks.

The strike risks putting President Biden in a tricky spot.

US presidents can intervene in labour disputes that threaten national security or safety by imposing an 80-day cooling-off period, forcing workers back on the job while negotiations continue.

In 2002, Republican President George W Bush intervened to open ports after 11 days of a strike action by dockworkers on the west coast.

The US Chamber of Commerce business group has called on President Biden to take action.

"Americans experienced the pain of delays and shortages of goods during the pandemic-era supply chain backlogs in 2021. It would be unconscionable to allow a contract dispute to inflict such a shock to our economy," said Suzanne P. Clark, president and chief executive of the business group.

The ILA's Mr Daggett endorsed Democrat Biden in 2020, but has been critical of the president more recently, citing pressure on west coast dockworkers to reach a deal a year ago. He met with Donald Trump in July.

Although any strike chaos is likely to hurt Democrats, the cost of alienating allies in the labour movement just weeks before the election would be greater, said William Brucher, a professor of labor studies and employment relations at Rutgers University.

But public support of strikes could be tested by the dispute, which has been championed by Mr Daggett, who was acquitted of having links to organised crime in a 2004 case by federal prosecutors. A related civil suit remains unresolved.

Films such as the 1954 classic On the Waterfront once defined the dockworkers union's image, but Prof Brucher said he thought that historical memory had largely faded and many people shared the dockworkers' concerns about cost-of living and automation.

"As much as it could sway public opinion against the ILA, a strike by ILA members is their decision and I don't think they will be swayed by public opinion in any meaningful way," he said.

"What is more likely to happen is the pressure of a strike will likely force the employers back to the table with a much more substantial offer."

Dock worker strike shuts down ports in the East, threatening big hit to the U.S. economy

Don Lee
Tue, 1 October 2024 at 8:05 am GMT-6·4-min read


Workers take part in a port strike at Port Newark on Oct. 1, 2024, in Bayonne, N.J. (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Associated Press)


The union representing thousands of dock workers from Maine to Texas launched a strike Tuesday over wages and the use of automation, shutting down seaports with a work stoppage that threatens to cause significant disruption to trade and the national economy.

It was the first strike since 1977 for the International Longshoremen’s Assn., whose 47,000 members handle cargo operations at three dozen ports on the East and Gulf coasts that receive about half of U.S. imports . And it comes at a delicate time, economically and politically, as the country is emerging from a period of high inflation and is just a month ahead of national elections.

If the strike ends quickly, it isn’t expected to have big impacts on businesses or consumers. Many retailers had their products shipped earlier than usual and built up inventory in anticipation of a labor action. Some importers have transported goods by air and others have rerouted cargo to the West Coast, adding to increased traffic at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest container complex in the U.S.


But with each passing day, economists say it will cost billions of dollars in lost trade, although some of that would be recouped later. And if the ports remain shut down for longer than a week or two, more significant and wider effects will hit the American economy.

Initially the impact may be relatively minor and even unnoticeable to most consumers, with products like European wine and perishables like bananas costing more, said Jason Miller, a supply chain management expert at Michigan State University. But after a couple of weeks, he said, automakers that produce cars in the U.S. could be forced to slow production or even impose temporary layoffs if they can’t get enough imported parts and components.

“There’s just a limit to what the system can take. You can only divert so much,” said Miller.

Idle cranes and shipping containers are seen at Port Jersey during a port strike on Oct. 1, 2024, in Bayonne. (Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Associated Press)

The Biden administration has said that it is not considering invoking the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act to break a strike, but analysts say it may have little choice if it is not settled soon, given the potential economic and political damage it could cause.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach combined had their busiest August ever this year, and both ports have prepared for increased cargo volume in anticipation of the strike. West Coast dock workers are represented by a different union, which agreed to a new contract last year.

“Port operators on the West Coast learned to operate under severe duress during the reopening of trade following pandemic-era distortions,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the tax and consulting firm RSM US. “We think that this will partially mitigate some of those that will adversely impact trade volumes during the duration of the labor action.”

Brusuelas estimated the strike would affect about $1.3 billion in exports and $3 billion in imports daily, still a modest figure given the size of the American economy. “The major industries impacted by this action will be local transportation and warehousing and imports of autos,” he said. “Agricultural goods, coal, and petroleum figure to see the greatest short-term impact.”

The impact figures to be heaviest in places that are home to or support the biggest ports along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, including New York-New Jersey; Savannah, Ga.; Houston; and Charleston, S.C. But businesses in California say they expect it will also touch them and consumers on the West Coast.

Third generation longshoreman Ray Bailey Jr. trustee of ILA Local 1291 encourages picketers outside the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal Port in Philadelphia. (Ryan Collerd/AP)

“If we have learned anything at all from previous supply chain disruptions, it is that the fallout results in higher cost for consumers on goods like clothing, fruits and vegetables and medical supplies,” said Patty Tschaepe, president of the Los Angeles Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Assn.

Longshoremen started picketing after their six-year labor contract with the United States Maritime Alliance expired at midnight.

The alliance, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators at the ports, said late Monday that the two sides had traded offers in what appeared to be a last-ditch effort to avert a strike. The union has been pressing for wage increases of 77% over six years, according to published reports. The maritime alliance said Monday that it had offered nearly 50%.

Top-scale longshoremen earn a base pay of $39 an hour. The union also has pushed hard against employers wanting to use robotics and other labor-saving technologies. The alliance said Monday that it had offered to maintain the current language on automation and semi-automation.

The union, in its latest posted statement Monday, said the ocean carriers, mostly foreign-owned, had made billions of dollars of profits on the back of union workers whose wages have been eaten away by inflation.

Neither side had an immediate comment Tuesday.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Major Longshoremen Strike Hits East Coast Ports

Dave Jamieson
Updated Tue, 1 October 2024 


Thousands of dock workers at ports along the East and Gulf coasts went on strike early Tuesday morning amid a contract dispute, halting the flow of goods with a potentially costly work stoppage.

Their union, the International Longshoremen’s Association, failed to reach a new six-year agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing employers at ports from Maine to Texas. Workers walked off the job just as their previous contract expired.

It’s unclear how long the strike will last and how expensive it will be, but a prolonged shutdown could deal a significant blow to the economy since the workers who handle shipping containers control major commercial choke points.

The showdown also presents a political problem for President Joe Biden, who has the power to suspend the strike. Doing so would take away workers’ leverage and could hurt the union-friendly president’s relationship with organized labor.



Workers formed picket lines at major ports early Tuesday, holding signs that said “Profit over people is unacceptable” and “Fight automation, save jobs.”

Addressing workers at a port terminal in Elizabeth, N.J., Harold J. Daggett, the union’s president, said after the strike started that it would go down in history as a righteous fight against greedy corporations.

“These companies... they don’t give a fuck about us,” Daggett said in a union video posted to Facebook. “Well, we’re gonna show them they’re gonna have to give a fuck about us. Because nothing’s gonna move without us.”

The Maritime Alliance did not comment immediately on the strike, but said earlier in the day Monday that the two sides had traded counter offers and it was “hopeful” they could reach an agreement soon.

The ILA has been pushing for significant raises in its next contract. Members currently top out at a $39-per-hour base wage, and the union has been calling for a $5 raise in each year of the next agreement, or $30 over the full duration. The ILA also wants protections against automation at ports that it said would destroy jobs.

Daggett has accused the Maritime Alliance of making “lowball” and “insulting” proposals that members couldn’t accept and said the blame for a strike would fall “squarely on the shoulders” of employers.

He has also said the ILA wouldn’t hesitate to snarl commerce, predicting that car dealers, malls and construction firms would have to lay people off because they weren’t receiving goods and materials.

“These people today don’t know what a strike is,” Daggett said in a recent video the union produced. “In today’s world, I’ll cripple you. I will cripple you, and you have no idea what that means.”

Longshoremen strike at midnight at Bayport Terminal on Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2024, in Houston. (AP Photo/Annie Mulligan) via Associated Press

The Maritime Alliance had accused the union of walking away from the bargaining table in recent weeks. In September, it filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that referees private sector labor disputes, asking officials to pursue an injunction forcing the ILA to negotiate.

(Dock workers on the West Coast are represented by a different union that reached a new deal with employers last year, so those ports would not be affected by the ILA’s walkout.)

The Taft-Hartley Act enables the president to intervene in strikes that impact national security, requiring work to continue amid an 80-day “cooling off” period. Robyn Patterson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email that senior officials had been in touch with the Maritime Alliance over the weekend, “urging them to come to a fair agreement fairly and quickly.”

“We’ve never invoked Taft-Hartley to break a strike and are not considering doing so now,” Patterson said.

House Republicans had called on the White House to “utilize every authority at its disposal to ensure the continuing flow of goods” in the event of a work stoppage.

On Monday, the AFL-CIO labor federation had urged lawmakers to stay out of the dispute and not undermine port workers.

Liz Shuler, the federation’s president, said employers who can count on getting an injunction to stop a strike don’t bargain “in good faith.”

“Like all other workers, longshoremen need raises just to keep up with the cost of living,” Shuler wrote in a letter to House Republicans. “They need fair contract provisions that protect their jobs from being eliminated by automation.”

In 2022, the White House and Congress intervened to prevent a massive rail strike that could have hurt the economy — a move that injured Biden’s standing among unions.

Strike Shuts Eastern US and Gulf Ports, Threatening Economy

Laura Curtis
Tue, 1 October 2024



(Bloomberg) --

Dockworkers walked out of every major port on the US East and Gulf coasts for the first time in nearly 50 years, staging a strike that could ripple across the world’s largest economy and cause political turmoil just weeks before the presidential election.

The 36 affected ports have the combined capacity to handle as much as half of all US trade volumes, and the closures immediately halt container operations and auto shipments. Energy supplies and bulk cargo won’t be directly affected. Some exceptions will be made to allow for the movement of military goods and cruise ships.

The significance of a work stoppage at every major container port from Houston to Miami and New York-New Jersey depends on how long the strike lasts. The economic loss from the shutdown, which began at 12:01 Tuesday morning Eastern Standard Time, will be between $3.8 billion to $4.5 billion a day, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Subscribe to the Bloomberg Daybreak podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen.​​​​​​

Shipping congestion resulting from a week-long strike would take about a month to clear, according to Grace Zwemmer at Oxford Economics.

Shares of Denmark’s A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd AG fell on Tuesday, after both container lines gained more than 11% in September.

The International Longshoremen’s Association is seeking higher wages and a rollback of the language on automation in a six-year contract that expired at midnight. Union leader Harold Daggett has for months threatened a strike starting on Oct. 1 if no deal is reached before the deadline. The last time East and Gulf coast dockworkers went on strike was in 1977.

“We are prepared to fight as long as necessary, to stay out on strike for whatever period of time it takes,” Daggett said in a statement posted to Facebook. The last offer from the companies “fell far short of what ILA rank-and-file members are demanding in wages and protections against automation.”

The ocean carriers and terminal operators represented by the US Maritime Alliance, also known as USMX, have accused the ILA of refusing to negotiate since the union called off talks back in June. A strike was all but certain until Monday afternoon, when reports emerged that the White House has been in communication with the two sides over the weekend and some progress has been made on wages.

President Joe Biden, who prides himself on being pro-union, has said the dispute is a matter for collective bargaining and he wouldn’t invoke his authority under national security laws to order dockworkers back to the ports while negotiations continue.

Trade, transportation and retail industry groups have been urging the White House to intervene to limit damage from the strike. Container carriers are preparing to impose surcharges tied to the disruption, raising the overall cost of shipping.

$2.1 Billion a Day

“It would be unconscionable to allow a contract dispute to inflict such a shock to our economy,” Suzanne Clark, CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce, wrote in a letter to Biden on Monday.

“Taft-Hartley would provide time for both parties in negotiation to reach a deal on a new labor contract,” Clark continued, referring to the 1947 congressional act that allows a president to intervene in labor disputes that involved national security.

Estimates from the National Association of Manufacturers show the strike jeopardizes $2.1 billion in trade daily, and the total economic damage could reduce GDP by as much as $5 billion a day. NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons urged Biden to force a resumption of operations while negotiations continue.

“The president can protect manufacturers and consumers by exercising his authority, and we hope he will act quickly,” Timmons said in a statement late Monday.

The Teamsters union issued a statement Monday urging the Biden administration to stay out of the dispute. ILA leader Daggett has warned the White House not to intervene, and said if forced back to the ports, dockworkers would handle fewer containers than usual, slowing operations.

The union hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate, though according to Daggett, former President Donald Trump “promised to support the ILA in its opposition to automated terminals” during a Mar-a-Lago meeting last fall. Neither Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris has drawn public attention to the strike threat.

“Moments ago, the first large-scale eastern dockworker strike in 47 years began at ports from Maine to Texas, including at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said a statement just after midnight.

“In preparation for this moment, New York has been working around the clock to ensure that our grocery stores and medical facilities have the essential products they need,” she said.

Meanwhile, the flow of goods has already been redirected by the threat of disruption. Many importers brought their goods in early or through West Coast ports to mitigate the risk and pad inventories.

Port terminals along the coasts wound down their operations ahead of the midnight deadline, and railroads are also pulling back service.

“The most important thing is going to be for the carriers, shippers and workers to come to terms,” said Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power.” “There’s really no substitute for the ports being up and running.”

--With assistance from Josh Wingrove, Cailley LaPara, John Harney, Joe Carroll and Andrew Langley.

US East Coast dockworkers strike, halting half the nation's ocean shipping

Doyinsola Oladipo and David Shepardson
Updated Tue, 1 October 2024 

Scroll back up to restore default view.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast dockworkers began a strike early on Tuesday, their first large-scale stoppage in nearly 50 years, halting the flow of about half the nation's ocean shipping after negotiations for a new labor contract broke down over wages.

The strike blocks everything from food to automobile shipments across dozens of ports from Maine to Texas, in a disruption analysts warned will cost the economy billions of dollars a day, threaten jobs and potentially stoke inflation.

The International Longshoremen's Association union representing 45,000 port workers had been negotiating with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) employer group for a new six-year contract ahead of a midnight Monday deadline.

The ILA said in a statement on Tuesday it shut down all ports from Maine to Texas at 12:01 a.m. ET (0401 GMT) after rejecting USMX's final proposal made on Monday, adding the offer fell "far short of the demands of its members to ratify a new contract".

The ILA's leader, Harold Daggett, has said employers such as container ship operator Maersk and its APM Terminals North America have not offered appropriate pay increases or agreed to demands to stop port automation projects that threaten jobs.

The USMX said in a statement on Monday it had offered to hike wages by nearly 50%, up from a prior proposal. Daggett, meanwhile, said the union is pushing for a 61.5% pay increase, according to CNBC.

"We are prepared to fight as long as necessary, to stay out on strike for whatever period of time it takes, to get the wages and protections against automation our ILA members deserve," Daggett said on Tuesday.

USMX did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Hundreds of dockworkers demonstrated on Tuesday at the Port of New York and New Jersey, one of the largest ports affected, carrying signs and shouting slogans as music blared and vendors hawked food.

Daggett arrived to rally them with cheers of "ILA all the way!"

"Got to keep it going, got to stay strong. You deserve it," Daggett told them.

The strike, the ILA's first major stoppage since 1977, is worrying businesses that rely on ocean shipping to export their wares or secure crucial imports. It affects 36 ports - including New York, Baltimore and Houston - that handle a range of containerized goods from bananas to clothing to cars.

The walkout could cost the American economy roughly $5 billion a day, JP Morgan analysts estimate, as shipments are disrupted from busy terminals.

The National Retail Federation on Tuesday called on President Joe Biden's administration to use its federal authority to halt the strike, saying the walkout could have "devastating consequences" for the economy.

U.S. Representative Sam Graves, a Republican who chairs the House of Representatives' Transportation Committee, called on Biden "to immediately intervene to avoid this unnecessary harm to our economy."

Biden officials have repeatedly said he will not do so, while urging both sides to come to an agreement.

Retailers in recent months have accelerated holiday importsand are moving other shipments to the West Coast.

"We expect the strike itself to last for five to seven days until a government intervention ... but the ripple effect is likely to be felt across the whole network into Europe, into Asia for at least into January, February," said Peter Sand, chief analyst at shipping pricing platform Xeneta.

There are nearly 100,000 containers in New York City-area ports alone waiting to be unloaded, now frozen by the strike, and 35 container ships headed to New York over the coming week, said Rick Cotton, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The union is "holding the entire country over a barrel," said Steve Hughes, CEO of HCS International, which specializes in automotive sourcing and shipping. "I'm really afraid that it is going to be ugly."

The dispute is also wedging labor-friendly Democrat Biden into a virtual no-win position with Vice President Kamala Harris in a razor-thin race for the White House with Republican former President Donald Trump.

White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients and top economic adviser Lael Brainard urged USMX board members at a meeting on Monday to resolve the dispute fairly and quickly, a White House official said.

The White House on Tuesday said in a statement that it is monitoring the effects on the supply chain and assessing ways to address potential impacts, noting the initial effect on consumers is expected to be limited.

Officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity they are hoping for a short strike, noting the two sides had resumed talks late on Sunday and had narrowed their differences on Monday.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Tuesday that it does not expect "significant changes to food prices or availability in the near term."

BACKUP PLANS

Retailers accounting for about half of all container shipping volume have been busily implementing backup plans as they head into their all-important winter holiday sales season.

Many of the big players rushed in Halloween and Christmas merchandise early to avoid any strike-related disruptions, incurring extra costs to ship and store those goods.

Retail behemoth Walmart, the largest U.S. container shipper, and membership warehouse club operator Costco say they are doing everything they can to mitigate any impact.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the state expects no immediate impact on food supplies or essential goods but said impacts could widen depending on how long it lasts.

"It’s critical for USMX and the ILA to reach a fair agreement soon that respects workers and ensures a flow of commerce through our ports," she said on Tuesday.

In Copenhagen, Maersk shares dropped almost 5% on Tuesday, with profit-taking following recent gains, as investors had been expecting significant increases in freight rates due to the strike, which would boost shipping companies' earnings.

The Danish company has said it would introduce a port disruption surcharge on all cargo moving to and from the U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast terminals beginning Oct. 21 ranging from $1,500 to $3,780 a container.

(Reporting by Doyinsola Oladipo; Additional reporting by Gursimran Kaur, Nilutpal Timsina, Shivani Tanna and Shubham Kalia in Bengaluru, David Shepardson in Washington and Stine Jacobsen in Copenhagen; Writing by Richard Valdmanis and Miyoung Kim; Editing by Miral Fahmy, Peter Graff, Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis)


A port strike could cost the economy $5 billion per day, here's what it could mean for you
Reuters
Mon, 30 September 2024 at 9:20 am GMT-6·5-min read



Some 45,000 union workers could walk off the job at seaports on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts on Oct. 1, cutting off vital trade arteries just weeks ahead of the nation's presidential election.

A JPMorgan analysis projected that a strike could cost the U.S. economy $5 billion daily.

The strike could hit 36 ports that handle about one-half of U.S. ocean imports. That could affect availability of a range of goods from bananas to clothing to cars shipped via container, while creating weeks-long backlogs at ports. It could also stoke shipping cost increases that may be passed on to voters already frustrated with housing and food inflation, according to logistics experts.
What's behind the potential port strike?

The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) union representing workers at ports from Maine to Texas and the United States Maritime Alliance employer group appear to have hit an impasse over pay. The current six-year contract expires at midnight on Sept. 30.

A strike at all East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports would be the first for the ILA since 1977.

The White House said it is not trying to help broker a deal, as it did last year during West Coast talks, and a Biden administration official has said the president would not use his federal powers to block a strike.

A widespread and lengthy strike could cause shortages and cost increases across a broad range of industries.
What do port workers do?

Longshoremen, also referred to as stevedores, handle cargo from incoming ships. They mostly work on container ships, but also do some work with car carriers and cruise ships.

They operate cranes that pluck containers from ships to "lashing," securing cargo containers to prevent them from falling off during transit, and process paperwork.
Ports handled $38B in vehicle imports last year

Ports covered by the contract handled $37.8 billion worth of vehicle imports during the 12 months ended June 30, 2024, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. The Port of Baltimore, Maryland, leads the nation in car shipments.

Auto parts are also a key import on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, with shipments from Europe more difficult to reroute than those from China, logistics experts said.

The ports also lead the U.S. in shipments of machinery, fabricated steel and precision instruments, coming in at $97.4 billion, $16.2 billion and $15.7 billion, respectively, S&P Global Market Intelligence data showed.
US agriculture exports, imports at risk in port strike

About 14% of all U.S. waterborne agricultural exports, by volume, would be at risk from a strike. Over a one-week period, the potential value of those exports is estimated at $318 million, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Additionally, 53% of U.S. waterborne agricultural imports by volume are vulnerable to a strike, leading to a potential economic impact of over $1.1 billion per week, the Farm Bureau said.

Three-quarters of the nation's banana imports from countries like Guatemala and Ecuador land at ports on the East and Gulf Coasts, said Jason Miller, interim chair of Michigan State University's department of supply chain management.

Separately, the U.S. imports coffee and cocoa in large volumes and exports cotton.

A strike also would affect container exports of soybeans, soybean meal and other products and would have a significant impact on chilled or frozen meat and eggs, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition.

The $18-billion-a-year U.S. beef and pork export market and the $5.8 billion poultry and egg export sector relies on refrigerated containers that cannot sit idle for long.

About 45% of all waterborne U.S. pork exports and 30% of beef exports were shipped via East Coast and Gulf Coast ports in the first seven months of this year, said U.S. Meat Export Federation spokesperson Joe Schuele.

More than a quarter of all U.S. egg and egg product exports and around 70% of all poultry meat exports are shipped from ports along the East and Gulf Coasts, according to Customs data and the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.

The affected ports also handle more than 91% of containerized imports and 69% of containerized exports of U.S. pharmaceutical products, according to Everstream Analytics.

More than one-third of containers departing the U.S. with lifesaving medications leaves from the port in Norfolk, Virginia, while nearly one-third of containerized pharmaceutical imports enter the country through the port in Charleston, South Carolina.
Retailers rushing shipments of holiday goods

Retailers account for roughly half of all container volumes. Many U.S. retailers already have rushed in shipments of year-end holiday goods.

The ports that would be affected by a potential strike bring over half of the nation's knitted and non-knitted apparel, valued at $32.8 billion combined, as well furniture valued at $23.4 billion, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Though the Gulf Coast ports of Houston and New Orleans are major oil and gas shipment hubs, those commodities would remain largely unaffected by a strike involving more labor-intensive container cargo. The same applies to coal exports from Norfolk, Virginia, experts said.

The ILA, however, has pledged to handle military cargo and to work passenger cruise ships during a strike.
One-week shutdown could lead to six-week recovery, Maersk estimates

In broad terms, a strike would raise costs for shipping while also imposing lengthy delays.

The top five ports in the negotiating group - New York and New Jersey; Savannah, Georgia; Houston; Norfolk; and Charleston - handled more than 1.5 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) valued at $83.7 billion in August, according to John McCown, senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy. About two-thirds of that cargo was inbound, while the remainder was outbound, he said.

Trade disruptions from a work stoppage would begin immediately, causing supply chain problems, logistics experts warned.

Analysts at Sea-Intelligence, a Copenhagen-based shipping advisory firm, estimated that it could take anywhere from four to six days to clear the backlog from a one-day strike.

Maersk, one of the largest providers of ocean transportation and a member of the employer group, warned that a one-week shutdown could require up to six weeks of recovery time, "with significant backlogs and delays compounding with each passing day."

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles, Karl Plume and Tom Polansek in Chicago, Marcelo Teixeira in New York and David Shepardson and Jarrett Renshaw in Washington; Editing by Anna Driver, William Maclean and Deepa Babington)

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What to expect in port shutdown strike 2024: Holiday shipping delays

45,000 Dockworkers Shut Down the East and Gulf Coasts. They Need to Stop Arms Shipments Too


Dockworkers shut down the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports in a strike led by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). This strike has the potential to shake up the US economy just weeks before the presidential election and could disrupt the shipping of weapons to Israel if workers go further.


Mike Pappas 

October 1, 2024

LEFT VOICE USA



Over 47,000 workers with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), which handle nearly half of all U.S. import and export cargo, have gone on strike after their contract expired at midnight on October 1. The workers throughout 36 U.S. ports on the East and Gulf coasts are waging the first port strike on the East Coast since 1977 after negotiations with United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) failed. The ILA is demanding annual wage increases of $5 per hour, along with higher starting wages, and improvements to healthcare and retirement benefits. The union is also demanding increased protection from job loss due to automation.

A strike of this magnitude could have huge impacts on the economy and will stop the flow of everything from food to automobiles at major ports. Even a short work stoppage could have large effects on downstream supply chains for weeks to come.

This could also affect the broader economic and political picture weeks ahead of the U.S. presidential election, which is projected to be a very tight race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. President Joe Biden has already said that he won’t use the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows the president to intervene in labor disputes that supposedly threaten national security or safety by imposing an 80-day cooling-off period — essentially stopping a strike. Such measures were taken, for example, back in 2002 when the port strike threatened the preparation for the Iraq war.

“It’s collective bargaining. I don’t believe in Taft-Hartley,” Biden told reporters. The looming strike puts the Biden administration in a difficult place as he has framed himself as the “most pro-union president in history” but ideally would like to avoid a lengthy strike that could affect the economy so deeply this close to an election. He certainly had no qualms about intervening on behalf of the bosses in the 2022 railway strike, using the union-busting Railway Labor Act to impose a deal on workers to prevent the economy from taking a massive hit.

Union President Harold Daggett has been outspoken throughout negotiations. As reported by Politico, he did not ask government officials for help avoiding a strike and even criticized a union deal by West Coast dock workers to avoid a strike last year. Daggett has also been openly critical of Biden’s labor record and threatened that the union could hurt the economy if the union’s demands are not met. “In today’s world, I’ll cripple you,” he said recently in a video post. “I will cripple you.”

But despite the perceived public strife between the union and Biden administration, part of the reason the administration likely hasn’t intervened as strongly is not because President Biden is pro-union, but because Daggett himself has pledged the union will continue shipping weapons for military operations even as workers strike. As Daggett said,

We continue our pledge to never let our brave American troops down for their valour and service and we will proudly continue to work all military shipments beyond October 1st, even if we are engaged in a strike.

This exception for weapons shipments prevents the strike from fully clashing with the interests of U.S. imperialism. It also means that instead of using the power of the union to fight the genocide in Gaza and Israel’s regional escalations, Daggett and other union leaders are going along with it. To unleash the full power of the strike this exception must be reversed.

The ILA strike comes in context of a recent uptick in labor activity throughout the United States. As Left Voice reported, on September 12, 33,000 Boeing factory workers broke onto the national scene and made headlines with what was, at that point, the biggest strike of the year. At the same time, the UAW is getting ready for multiple possible strikes against Stellantis in response to recent job cuts; in Los Angeles County workers may go on strike on October 10.

In 2023 alone, striking worker totals increased by 141 percent. This increase was mainly due to four large strikes — SAG-AFTRA, the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, Los Angeles Unified School District workers, and the UAW — that accounted for 65% of the workers who went on strike last year.

And while strike activity isn’t at the levels seen in the 1960s and 1970s, the uptick in working class militancy and increasing use of strikes as a tool to fight is movement in a positive direction. The working class is flexing its muscles, demonstrating its strategic power within the economy. The hope is that these struggles extend beyond fighting for demands in the workplace and outwards. From addressing rising inflation, unaffordable rents, lack of childcare options, and rising benefit costs to fighting against the genocide in Palestine or the bombing campaign in Lebanon, workers mobilized can win if workplace struggles are combined with our social movements. By using the power of labor, we can confront genocide and imperialism and fight against the economic crises caused and exacerbated by capitalism. For this reason, it is vital that we give our support to the striking port workers while also demanding that the union leadership stop the shipment of weapons.

Will Walz or Vance Tackle Issue of VA Privatization?

OR WILL THE MODERATORS?!

By Suzanne Gordon, Steve Early

September 30, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Susan Ruggles, Creative Commons 2.0



Amid the rhetorical fog of their game-changing presidential debate in June, Donald Trump and his then-opponent only dealt with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in passing.

Former president Trump claimed that, after he vacated the White House, “crazy Joe Biden” no longer allowed military veterans to choose between VA care and private sector alternatives to it. When he was in the White House, Trump asserted, VA patients could “get themselves fixed up” in private hospitals and medical practices, rather than waiting “three months to see a doctor.” The results of this outsourcing were “incredible,” and earned his administration “the highest approval rating in the history of the VA.”

In response, President Biden understandably failed to make two points in response, either due to cognitive decline or cognitive dissonance. One, out-of-control spending on private care has left the VA-run Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with a projected $12 billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025—which is not good news for veterans. And two, a Democrat in the White House didn’t abandon privatization since there has been more of it under him than Trump.

Biden instead pivoted to talk about the PACT Act of 2022, which has helped nearly a million post-9/11 vets file more successful disability claims based on their past exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the next decade, the PACT Act authorizes hundreds of billions of dollars for effective delivery of their medical care and financial benefits—but all of that is dependent on a well-functioning VA.

This brief and unilluminating exchange left unaddressed the real challenges facing the federal government’s third largest agency. The VHA operates the nation’s largest public healthcare system and provides high-quality, direct care (not insurance coverage) for former service members, who have low incomes or service related medical problems. But, in the September sequel to the presidential debate in June—with so many other things to talk about—veterans affairs became a topic little discussed by Trump or VP Kamala Harris.

Vance vs. Walz

The next opportunity for a more substantive exchange about the past, present, and future of VA care will be Tuesday night, Oct. 1. During their first and probably only vice-presidential debate, two former non-commissioned military officers will have the chance to embrace or reject the costly and disastrous bipartisan experiment with VA outsourcing that began under Obama, continued under Trump, and expanded under Biden.

Not surprisingly, Governor Tim Walz is the one more likely to do that. Because, on the campaign trail, Senator J. D. Vance– a fellow beneficiary of VA educational benefits–has been, in Trump-style, bashing the VA and talking up privatization.

In a recent podcast interview with Shawn Ryan, a former Navy SEAL turned influencer, Vance claimed the agency is so slow moving and uncaring that “veterans spend three hours on the phone trying to get an appointment” and you even “have people commit suicide, because they’re waiting 28 days to get an appointment with a doctor.” The solution, according to Vance, is “give people more choice. I think you will save money in the process.”

After winning the first of six House races, before becoming governor of Minnesota, Walz joined the House Veterans Affairs Committee (HVAC)—a low-status committee assignment spurned by many aspiring politicians. In 2018, he joined just 69 other House Democrats in opposing the VA MISSION Act, one of Donald Trump’s proudest legislative achievements and the basis for his 2024 campaign pledge to make VA “patient choice” more widely available.

Walz warned, accurately, that MISSION Act outsourcing would force the VA to “cannibalize itself” by diverting billions of dollars from direct care delivery to reimbursement of private-sector providers. This incremental defunding of VHA hospitals and clinics now threatens to leave them in what Walz called a “can’t function situation.”

In Congress, Walz also became an advocate for fellow veterans with service-related conditions. His own hearing damage resulted from repeated exposure to artillery blasts, during 24 years of National Guard training exercises. He won applause for co-sponsoring a bill, focused on suicide prevention services; it was name after a Marine veteran who killed himself in 2011 after long struggles with PTSD and depression.

A Union Ally (Sometimes)

Walz’s role as ranking Democrat on a then Republican-led HVAC is fondly recalled by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents VA employees in his home state. During his first run for Congress, the then-high school teacher and coach reached out to local AFGE leader Jane Nygard, who discovered that “he’s not someone who just says something to make you happy, he actually takes action.”

According to Nygard, “whenwe had issues with the St Paul VA, which had bad management and low staffing, Congressman Walz, a fellow union member, listened to our union. He got the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service involved and we ended up having a three-day retreat with upper management. Eventually, upper leadership retired and labor relations improved.”

The one bad mark on Walz’s union report card is his vote in favor of the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Act of 2017. This Trump-era effort to strip VA workers of their due process rights in disciplinary cases was challenged in court by AFGE. To his credit, Biden’s VA Secretary Denis McDonough ended a five-year legal battle over implementation of the Act by reaching a settlement with the union last year. Thousands of unfairly fired workers became eligible for reinstatement or back pay, at a total cost estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the Federal News Network.

Other workers or managers terminated for “grievous misconduct” were not covered by this deal. Nevertheless, Trump has promised to “fire every corrupt VA bureaucrat who Joe Biden outrageously refused to remove from the job.” A campaign spokesman for Vance recently hailed the MISSION Act as “bipartisan legislation that expanded veterans’ access to quality care and cut needless red tape.” Tim Walz’s opposition to it was “not the kind of leadership veterans need in Washington,” the spokesman said.

Party Platform Differences

To do anything at the VA different or better than Biden did–or Trump before him–Walz and Harris first need to win in November. They can both boost veteran voter turnout, particularly in battleground states, by zeroing in on the skimpiness of the GOP’s plan for “Taking Care of Our Veterans”—all 47 words of it!

This lone paragraph, buried in the Republican platform adopted in Milwaukee, leads off with immigrant bashing. The Party pledges “to end luxury housing and Taxpayer benefits” for border-crossers and “use those savings to shelter and treat homeless Veterans.” In addition, a second Trump Administration will “expand Veterans’ Healthcare Choices, protect Whistleblowers, and hold accountable poorly performing employees not giving our Veterans the care they deserve.”

The equivalent Democratic Party platform statement is far more substantive. It covers veteran homelessness and suicide, PACT Act implementation, improving mental health programs, new services for female veterans, support for family members caring for VA patients, and cracking down on scams targeting veterans who file disability claims over their toxic exposures.

“Going forward,” the Democrats declare, “we will strengthen VA care by fully funding inpatient and outpatient care and long-term care, and by upgrading medical facility infrastructure.” Unfortunately, this otherwise laudable campaign pledge fails to acknowledge the reality of VA outsourcing, under Biden, which has further diverted funding from VA direct care and infrastructure upgrades for the last four years.

Tying Trump-Vance to Project 2025

At least some VA defenders in the Democratic Party are tying Trump and Vance to the VA-related recommendations of Project 2025. As Iraq war veteran and U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA.) points out, that Heritage Foundation playbook for the GOP “takes dead aim at veterans health and disability benefits.”

In August, Deluzio warned readers of Military.com that his Republican colleagues on the HVAC have often “sided with corporate interests to outsource care” for VA patients. And now their presidential transition planners at the business-backed Heritage Foundation want to refer even more vets to “costly private facilities, a fiscally reckless move that…has ballooned costs for the VA.”

According to Deluzio, the “ultimate endgame of these plans is to dismantle the VA’s own clinical care mission—should send shivers down the spines of America’s veterans and those who want the best care for them.”

On the campaign trail, Trump and Vance have been diverting attention from that “endgame” by positioning themselves, over and again, as defenders of “patient choice.” At a mid-August event at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in western Pennsylvania, Vance referenced the very real healthcare access problems of “our veterans living in rural areas.” He assured his invitation-only crowd that, if “those who put on a uniform and serve our country… need to see a doctor, we got to give them veteran’s choice to give them that ability to see a doctor.”

In Detroit, at a late August convention of the National Guard Association, where he was warmly received, Trump again accused the Biden-Harris Administration of gutting his many “VA reforms” related to “choice” and “accountability.” He hailed VA outsourcing as a great system of “rapid service,” in which patients “go to an outside doctor…get themselves fixed up and we pay the bill.”

Between now and November 5, veterans need a lot more factual information about VA privatization to counter the steady drumbeat of “fake news” they’re getting from Trump, Vance, and the GOP. Let’s hope that now retired National Guard Sergeant Waltz steps up to the plate and takes a winning swat at the former Marine corporal from Ohio who became a Yale-educated lawyer and multi-millionaire venture capitalist with little personal need for the VA services so important to working class vets in his own state and others.

 

Social networks help people resolve welfare problems - but only sometimes, new research finds

Sharing a social welfare problem with several friends, family or support services doesn’t always mean the issue is more likely to be resolved, finds new research.

Bangor University

Lead researcher Dr Sarah Nason, from Bangor University’s School of History, Law and Social Sciences explained: “Debt, benefits, special educational needs, healthcare issues, these are everyday problems that many of us face, and it’s only natural to turn to people you know and trust for help and advice. However, we found that having to talk to more people or support services was an indicator that the problem was more complex and difficult to resolve.”

The team studied four distinct areas across England and Wales: Bryngwran, a village on Anglesey in North Wales; Deeplish, a district of Rochdale in Greater Manchester; the town of Dartmouth in Devon; and three wards in the London borough of Hackney.

In total, the researchers conducted individual interviews with 191 people, mapping out who they spoke to on a regular basis, such as friends, family, work colleagues or community volunteers, and who they might turn to with any problems relating to social welfare. They also asked how many of these contacts knew each other, to determine how well-connected the person’s social network was.

The researchers also spoke to community organisations and local authorities, identifying available sources of formal and informal advice and community support in each area.

They found that individuals living in the rural communities in Devon and North Wales had larger networks with more interconnections, compared to smaller, less well-connected networks of people in the urban locations in Hackney. In Deeplish in Rochdale, social networks were comparatively small, but quite well-connected. This was linked to ethnicity, with the primarily South Asian participants in Deeplish also having networks with the highest proportion of family members. For those with White ethnicity, people who identified as English generally had smaller social networks than those identifying as British or Welsh. The most interconnected networks were amongst people who identified as Welsh.

The researchers also found greater similarities between social networks within each case study community than between those of people with individual characteristics, such as age, gender, employment status or disability across the case study areas.

Dr Nason said: “Our research isn’t intended to be statistically representative of the case study areas, as we only spoke to a relatively small group of people in each community. However, from those interviews and from our analysis, location and ethnicity appear to be important factors in understanding how people relate to their community and access support. This highlights how important it is to provide local, community-based and culturally sensitive support and advice rather than ‘one size fits all’ services at a national level.” 

Although many services are moving to ‘digital by default’ rather than offering face-to-face support, digital services did not meet many people’s needs. In all case study areas, interviewees said that accessing help and advice locally and in-person was important to them, with local access being seen as essential to many people. 

Despite the differences between the four areas studied, the researchers found that the size and connectedness of social networks had a limited impact on the likelihood of people’s social welfare problems being resolved.

The biggest factor in resolving problems was the nature of the problem itself. Across all four areas, people with welfare benefits or financial problems were more likely to have received help from formal advice services and to have their problems resolved, than those with problems around housing, social care, special educational needs provision or mental health services.

“There are well-established processes for dealing with welfare disputes or debt, and although these can be daunting, with the right support and advice these issues generally get resolved,” said Dr Nason. “However, it’s noticeable that the problems which were least likely to be resolved relate to local authority services which have seen substantial budget cuts over recent decades, and where services are stretched to the point of failure. Stronger social networks and more support and advice can’t completely compensate for this lack of investment in public services.”

Other factors impacting people’s ability to get help were lack of education around rights and entitlements, limited awareness of advice services, feelings of stigma or shame in seeking help, and loss of trust in the state. However, the significance of each of these factors was different across the case study areas. For example, stigma/shame was perceived as a particular issue in rural North Wales, lack of formal education was a challenge in Rochdale, and mistrust of the state was highest amongst marginalised communities in Dartmouth and younger people in Hackney. 

The study highlights the important role played by community centres or hubs, which provide vital services to their local community, including social welfare advice. However, the researchers caution that these organisations are often under-resourced and cannot be a substitute for more formal legal advice services.

“Across all the communities we studied, the local hubs or centres were really valued by people, providing day-to-day support such as food banks,” explained Dr Nason. “However, some problems that people face need specialist legal advice, and these community centres rely on being able to signpost people on to more formal services. Without proper funding for the formal advice sector, problems continue. Communities may be able to access help, but there won’t be access to justice.”
 

---

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Social networks help people resolve welfare problems - but only sometimes, new research finds