Wednesday, November 04, 2020


Mark Kelly becomes 4th astronaut elected to Congress



By Robert Z. Pearlman - collectSPACE.com Editor


Former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, seen addressing supporters on Tuesday night (Nov. 3) in Tucson, has been elected by the state of Arizona to the U.S. Senate. Kelly is the fourth astronaut to secure a seat in Congress.
(Image: © Mark Kelly)


Mark Kelly has won a seat in the U.S. Senate, making him only the fourth NASA astronaut to be elected to Congress.

Kelly, who launched four times into space before pursuing a career in politics, was successful in his bid to represent the state of Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Kelly, a Democrat, ran against incumbent Martha McSally, a Republican and former U.S. Air Force combat pilot. The special election was held to complete the six-year term of Senator John McCain, who died in 2018 (McSally was temporarily appointed by Arizona's governor after McCain's death).

"When we launched this campaign from this very spot, right here, 619 days ago, I could have never anticipated just how many Arizonians would be part of this mission," said Kelly, addressing supporters at the Hotel Congress in Tucson on Tuesday night (Nov. 3). "This mission does not end when the last vote is counted. It is only the beginning."

Kelly won the election by a margin of 52.63 percent, according to the Secretary of State for the state of Arizona.


Related: What the 2020 presidential election mean for space exploration

"When I was at NASA, we would train for two years for a space shuttle mission. From being in the space shuttle simulator and flying and training, two years of focusing on the details. Two years before we were on the launchpad ready to go. And then the work started," he said. "Now the work starts."

Kelly, who is married to former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, moved to Tucson in 2012 after he retired from NASA and Giffords survived an assassination attempt the year earlier. Together, the couple co-founded "Giffords" to advocate for reduced gun violence and to help make communities safer.

Kelly could possibly take office as soon as the end of the month, pending the state certifying the results of the election. When he is sworn in, Kelly will become the only active member of Congress who has flown in space. He is preceded in the legislative branch of the U.S. government by three former NASA astronauts and two members of Congress who flew on the space shuttle as payload specialists.

How astronauts vote from space: The only American in orbit now explain

NASA astronaut Mark Kelly on the flight deck of the space shuttle Discovery during the STS-124 mission in June 2008. (Image credit: Mark Kelly)

Kelly, a former captain in the U.S. Navy, a naval aviator and test pilot who flew combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, was selected for NASA's 1996 class of astronaut candidates — the same group that included his twin brother, Scott.

Kelly logged more than 54 days in space on four shuttle missions. He served as the pilot on his first flight, STS-108, launching on the space shuttle Endeavour to deliver supplies to the International Space Station in 2001. Five years later, Kelly flew as pilot of the shuttle Discovery on STS-121, NASA's second return-to-flight mission after the loss of the orbiter Columbia and its crew in 2003.

Kelly commanded Discovery's STS-124 crew in 2008, which installed Japan's Kibo laboratory on the space station. His fourth and final mission, STS-134, marked the last flight of Endeavour and delivered the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a cosmic ray detector, to be mounted to the station's backbone truss.

After leaving NASA, Kelly volunteered for one more "mission," allowing the agency's scientists to collect his physiological and medical data while his brother provided the same during a year aboard the space station. The landmark "twins study" helped further reveal the effects that long-duration space travel has on the human body.

Related: Presidential Visions for Space: From Ike to Trump

Science + data + facts

Mark Kelly for U.S. Senate campaign buttons. (Image credit: Mark Kelly)

The first astronaut to trade his spacecraft couch for a seat in Congress was John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth. One of the original Mercury 7 astronauts, Glenn served as a U.S. Senator representing the state of Ohio as a Democrat for four terms, from 1974 to 1999. After leaving office, Glenn, then 77, flew into orbit again, launching on space shuttle Discovery as a payload specialist.

Apollo 13 command module pilot John "Jack" Swigert was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives representing Colorado's 6th district as a Republican in 1982, but tragically died of cancer before he could take office.

Apollo 17 lunar module pilot Harrison "Jack" Schmitt followed up being one of the two last people to walk on the moon in 1972 by serving the state of New Mexico in the Senate as a Republican for six years, from 1977 to 1983.

Following the opposite path, Senator Jake Garn (R-UT) and Representative Bill Nelson (D-FL) were chosen to fly on the space shuttle as congressional observers and payload specialists at a time when NASA was working towards opening up spaceflight to "citizen" passengers. Garn joined the STS-51D crew on Discovery for a week-long mission to deploy two communications satellites in 1985.

Nelson, who later was elected to the Senate, flew on Columbia with the STS-61C crew. The six-day mission, which was the last to fly before the shuttle Challenger tragedy, deployed a satellite and conducted science in 1986.

In addition to those five space explorers and Kelly, four other U.S. astronauts ran for Congress, but were unsuccessful in their bids.

Apollo 15 command module pilot Al Worden campaigned for but lost the Republican primary for Florida's 12th district seat in the House of Representatives in 1982. Skylab and space shuttle crew member Jack Lousma won the Republican primary, but lost the election to be a senator from Michigan in 1984.

Jay Buckey, who flew as an STS-90 payload specialist on Columbia, withdrew his bid for a New Hampshire Senate seat prior to the Democratic primary in 2008. Two years later, STS-128 mission specialist José Hernández won the Democratic nomination but lost the election for California's 10th district seat in the House of Representatives.

LGBT+ candidates surf rainbow wave to victory in U.S. elections

Record numbers of LGBT+ candidates are standing in the US elections and early results suggest historic wins across the country

by Hugo Greenhalgh | @hugo_greenhalgh | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Wednesday, 4 November 2020 14:29 GMT

LONDON, Nov 4 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - LGBT+ candidates have surfed a rainbow wave to victory in the U.S. elections with a series of historic wins, including Sarah McBride becoming the first openly transgender person to win a State Senate seat.

At least 35 of a record 574 LGBT+ candidates on the ballot were estimated to have won as of early Wednesday, including Ritchie Torres and Mondaire Jones, respectively the first out gay Afro-Latino and Black men elected to Congress.

"Tonight's wins for LGBTQ people of colour and transgender Americans across the country are historic and long overdue," said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the LGBT+ rights organisation GLAAD, in a statement.

"Their victories represent a leap forward for LGBTQ acceptance and a demand for more of the progress and equality that their very presence demonstrates."

McBride, who became the first trans person to address a major party convention when she spoke at the Democrat National Convention in 2016, is the country's highest ranking openly trans official after winning the Delaware State Senate race for the party.

She tweeted that she hoped her victory "shows an LGBTQ kid that our democracy is big enough for them, too".

Veteran human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, who last year travelled with McBride to Australia and New Zealand, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that her election marked "an outstanding victory for trans people".

Other landmark victories included Mauree Turner, who identifies as non-binary, or as neither male or female, and became Oklahoma's first Muslim state representative, according to the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which backs LGBT+ candidates.

Michele Rayner became the first Black openly LGBT+ woman to be elected to Florida's state legislature, while Shevrin Jones became the state's first Black LGBT+ state senator. Georgia got its first openly LGBT+ state legislator, Kim Jackson.

"Having visible LGBTQ people in positions of political power is crucial to ensuring that LGBTQ people across America are championed," said Eloise Stonborough, associate director of policy and research at Stonewall, Europe's largest LGBT+ organisation.

A National Election Pool exit poll conducted by Edison Research indicated that LGBT+ voters represent 7% of the 2020 electorate, higher than the estimated 4.5% of the adult population.

LGBT+ voters made up 6% of the electorate in the 2018 midterm elections, and 5% in the 2016 presidential elections.

As the 2020 presidential election result teetered on a knife edge, with millions of votes still uncounted, LGBT+ rights groups said the early wins showed the growing political importance of the community.

"Over the last three elections, the share of LGBTQ voters has continued to increase, solidifying our community as a key rising constituency that politicians must court," Human Rights Campaign (HRC) president Alphonso David said in a statement.

"Our issues matter, our votes matter and politicians around the country have taken notice."

Alan Wardle, director of the Global Equality Caucus, a network of LGBT-supporting parliamentarians around the world, said the elected representatives sent out "a strong signal that LGBT+ people belong in public life".

In an emotional video interview posted to social media before his win was confirmed, Torres thanked his mother for helping his campaign in South Bronx.

"I would not be here today if it were not for my mother," he told reporters from Spectrum NY1, a local TV channel.

"And South Bronx is full of mothers like mine who have suffered and struggled and sacrificed so that her baby boy can have a better life than she did."

(Reporting by Hugo Greenhalgh @hugo_greenhalgh and Rachel Savage; Editing by Claire Cozens and Katy Migiro. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit http://news.trust.org)

Delaware Has Elected The First-Ever Openly Trans State Senator In The US

"I spent my entire life feeling like tonight was so incomprehensible that it was seemingly impossible," Sarah McBride told BuzzFeed News.

Amber Jamieson BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 3, 2020

Sarah McBride / Via sarahmcbride.com
Sarah McBride, the first openly trans state senator in US history.


Sarah McBride, a 30-year-old LGBTQ activist, will become the most powerful openly trans lawmaker in the nation after winning her state senator race in Delaware during Tuesday's elections.

Just moments after her win, she told BuzzFeed News that she hopes her achievement as the first-ever openly trans state senator will encourage other young LGBTQ people to follow their dreams.

"I am hopeful that tonight's result can send a potentially lifesaving message to a young trans kid," said McBride. "They can go to sleep knowing that their dreams and their truths are not mutually exclusive."

McBride, a former White House intern in the Obama administration and later the press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, came out as trans when she was serving as the student body president of American University in Washington, DC, in 2012.

She was in the car driving to her election party on Tuesday when the first round of votes came in showing she might win. Shortly after getting to the party at a local small business in Wilmington, the Associated Press and the New York Times called the race for her.

"I spent my entire life feeling like tonight was so incomprehensible that it was seemingly impossible," she said. "To have those results come in and see in black and white online the AP call it ... helped to reinforce that nothing is truly impossible."


McBride named fellow Democrat Danica Roem, who was elected as the first openly trans state lawmaker to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017, as one of the people who paved the way for her to run.

On Tuesday night, Roem tweeted her congrats to McBride, declaring that she was "so, so so, so proud."




Danica Roem@pwcdanica
Update: She was ready. She did run. And she just won. @SarahEMcBride, I am so, so, so, so proud of you, of who you are, of the campaign you ran and the values you stand for. I'm so grateful for your friendship and to call you the first out trans state senator in American history. https://t.co/GjPl4IgRh302:04 AM - 04 Nov 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite


McBride pointed out that when she was growing up, the only public references to trans people were "punchlines in a comedy or a dead body in a drama" and that she didn't get to see trans people in positions of power.

"I know how much of a difference it would have made for me as a young person struggling for my place in the world," she told BuzzFeed News. "Growing up, there was no example of something like this."

The new state senator–elect for Delaware said she hopes she becomes known as "the healthcare senator and the paid-leave senator" — two issues, she said, made even more important by the coronavirus pandemic.


McBride knows the power of healthcare and paid leave; her husband Andy died from cancer when she was just 24.

She recalled that one of the most tragic and beautiful conversations she'd had with her late husband in his final months was him crying for all the things he would miss — the nieces and nephews he wouldn't get to see grow up, the family members he would miss, and "the fact that he wouldn't be able to tell me he loved me and was proud of me."

"Because it was so sad, it’s seared in my memory," said McBride. "This evening I can hear Andy’s voice saying, 'I love you and I'm proud of you.'"


Jason Minto / AP
McBride campaigning on Sept. 15 in Claymont, Delaware.

Another Delaware Democrat who has closely followed her journey is Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee. McBride volunteered on his son Beau Biden's campaign for attorney general of Delaware, and she later became the first openly trans speaker at a political convention when she spoke at the 2016 DNC.

"In doing this work, I return to the most important lessons my father taught me and my children," wrote Joe Biden in the foreword to McBride's memoir Tomorrow Will Be Different, "the same principle that animates courageous advocates like Sarah McBride: that all people are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect."


McBride said despite her own win, she will "anxiously watch" the national results on Tuesday night, hoping that Biden becomes the next president.

But whatever happens, she's focusing on her new role representing the people of Delaware. "As much work as the last year was, the real work begins tomorrow," she said before heading off to give her victory party speech to a crowd of supporters.



Amber Jamieson is a reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.


Sarah McBride becomes first transgender state senator in U.S. history


A record number of LGBTQ+ community members ran for office in 2020.


Sarah McBride attends "Out in Office" panel at Tribeca Celebrates Pride Day at 2019 Tribeca Film Festival at Spring Studio on May 4, 2019 in New York City. Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for Tribeca Film Festival


Story at a glance

Sarah McBride won a state senate seat in Delaware, making her the highest-ranking transgender official in the U.S.

All states except for Alabama saw LGBTQ+ candidates run for office in 2020.


Democrat Sarah McBride made history on Election Day by becoming the first openly transgender state senator to be elected in U.S. history following her win in Delaware on Tuesday night. 

Politico reports that McBride, formerly the national press secretary of the Human Rights Campaign, will represent the 1st state Senate District from Delaware. She will now become the highest-ranking transgender official in the U.S.


McBride was part of a surge of LGBTQ+ candidates running for office in the 2020 election cycle, with the LGBTQ Victory Fund counting 1,006 openly LGBTQ+ community members campaigning for office. This is a 41 percent increase in LGBTQ+ candidates from 2018, with the number of genderqueer or gender non-binary candidates jumping to 25 candidates in 2020 from six in 2018.

Other openly transgender U.S. state legislators include Virginia Delegate Danica Roem (D); Colorado Rep. Brianna Titone (D); and New Hampshire state Reps. Lisa Bunker and Gerri Cannon. 

Across all 50 states, only Alabama remains as the single state with no known openly LGBTQ+ candidates in a 2020 race. 

Texas, Florida, and California saw the biggest number of LGBTQ+ community members run for office.

McBride campaigned on Democratic stances like affordable health care and criminal justice reform.

Prominent Delaware political figures expressed support for McBride during her campaign, including Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, Sen. Chris Coons (D), and Rep. Lisa Rochester (D).

Alphonso David, the president of the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement of congratulations for McBride, relating it to a larger victory for LGBTQ+ representation in government.

“Tonight, Sarah made history not just for herself but for our entire community,” David said. “She gives a voice to the marginalized as a representative and an advocate. This victory, the first of what I expect to be many in her career, shows that any person can achieve their dream, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

IDAHO’S CONTROVERSIAL NEW TRANS RIGHTS BILLS FACE LEGAL CHALLENGES

ANTI-GAY GOP LAWMAKER VOTED AGAINST CORONAVIRUS BILL BECAUSE IT ‘REDEFINED FAMILY’

SOUTH CAROLINA COURT STRIKES DOWN LAW BANNING LGTBQ+ SEX ED

WHAT IS THE LEGACY OF PETE BUTTIGIEG’S HISTORIC RUN AS AMERICA’S FIRST GAY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?

Published on Nov 04, 2020

It Looks Like A Man Who Died Of COVID-19 Was Elected To North Dakota's State Legislature

David Andahl, 55, died from the coronavirus last month.

Stephanie K. Baer BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on November 4, 2020

Facebook: DavidAndahlND

A man who died from the coronavirus appears to have won a seat in North Dakota's state legislature, according to unofficial election results.

David Andahl, 55, was a Republican nominee for one of two District 8 House seats in the November general election. He and his running mate Dave Nehring, of Bismarck, were leading their Democrat counterparts with around 35% and 41% of votes, respectively, early Wednesday, results showed.

Andahl died Oct. 5 after being sick with COVID-19 for about four days, his mother told the Bismarck Tribune.

"So many things he was very passionate about, and was hoping that he could get into the Legislature and be of some help," his mother Pat Andahl told the Tribune last month. "He was looking forward to it. He was looking forward to being part of that."

State Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem issued an opinion earlier stating that votes for Andahl should still be counted and that a vacancy would be created if he is elected.

"To disregard the votes cast for a candidate would disenfranchise the voters of the state," Stenehjem wrote.

Under a state law cited in the attorney general's opinion, a vacancy could be appointed by a legislative member's party, or voters could petition for a special election to be called by the governor.

Following Andahl's death, District 8 Republican Chairperson Loren DeWitz said an appointment would "be open to anybody," including the incumbent, Rep. Jeff Delzer, who Andahl and Nehring defeated in the June primary, the Tribune reported.



Stephanie Baer is a reporter with BuzzFeed News and is based in Los Angeles.


UPDATED  
Uber and Lyft's win to keep California drivers classified as contractors has national implications

California voters pass Proposition 22, denying gig workers the benefits of full employees -- after gig economy companies spent over $200 million on the campaign.


Dara Kerr 
Nov. 4, 2020 


Uber and Lyft drivers have long rallied to be classified as employees. James Martin/CNET

California voters on Tuesday 
passed Proposition 22, a ballot measure backed by Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies. During the yearlong battle over the initiative, which aimed to exempt the gig economy companies from classifying their drivers as employees, millions of dollars have been spent and all sorts of tricks have been pulled from the political playbook.

Proposition 22 is likely to have national implications as other states watch what happens in California, the home of Silicon Valley tech giants. If Proposition 22 had failed, they may have been forced to rethink their business models. Now that the ballot measure has passed, companies can use the campaign as a blueprint for similar fights they're waging in other states and countries.

Early polling showed a close race for the ballot measure, with 46% of voters backing the proposition and 42% opposed. The initiative needed 50% of the vote to win. As of Wednesday morning, the bill appeared to have passed with 58% of the ballot, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates contributed more than $205 million to the campaign, with a last-minute $1 million more from Uber on Monday. The No on Proposition 22 campaign was backed with about $19 million from labor groups and unions. The initiative became the most expensive ballot measure campaign in California history and one of the most expensive in US history, according to Ballotpedia.


At stake was whether the gig economy companies would be required to reclassify their workers as employees, as mandated by California law AB5. If classified as employees, workers would get labor benefits, such as health care, sick leave and minimum wage. But the companies said that would add tremendous costs to their businesses. Proposition 22 suggests creating an alternative in which drivers remain independent contractors and get a few more benefits, like an expense reimbursement and health care subsidy.


The No on Proposition 22 campaign said that's not enough. It said that drivers still might not make minimum wage and that the health care subsidy needed to be more substantial, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. When calculating paid time for workers, Proposition 22 only takes into account when they're on a ride or delivery. It doesn't add in when they're waiting to be matched with a customer.

"Over the past years, Instacart has hired so many new shoppers that I often don't get any orders," Ginger Anne Farr, an Instacart shopper, told Human Rights Watch in a paper released Monday. "I would sit in my car waiting for an order to appear, without making any money." 
Final flurry of activity

As Election Day neared, both sides of the Proposition 22 campaign went all in.

Uber, Lyft and the Yes campaign blanketed social media and TV stations with ads, spending a total of $95 million, according to MarketWatch. The gig economy companies also sent in-app messages and emails to riders and drivers asking for their support.

One email Uber sent customers on Monday reminded Californians they could register to vote even on Election Day. It then asked customers to "join the NAACP and California Small Business Association in supporting drivers by voting yes on Prop 22.""We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."
Mike Roth, spokesman for No on Prop 22 campaign

The California chapter of the NAACP endorsed the Yes campaign, as a series of payments totaling $85,000 were made to a small consulting firm run by the chapter's president. The national branch of the NAACP did not endorse the ballot measure.

The Yes campaign has said drivers prefer to remain independent contractors, often citing "independent studies." Many of those studies have been paid for by the gig economy companies or the Yes campaign and others involved informal non-scientific polls. The authors of the studies say their findings are independent and objective.

When asked for comment before the election, Lyft spokeswoman Julie Wood said, "Drivers have consistently said they want to remain independent, and we believe California voters will stand with them."

A spokesman for the Yes campaign reiterated the sentiment. "Drivers are participating in text and phone banking events ... to let voters know that by voting yes they can protect hundreds of thousands of jobs and the app-based services millions rely on," he said.

For its part, the No campaign touted the support of several big-name Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris. Also openly opposing Proposition 22 are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Rep. Barbara Lee and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The No campaign additionally coordinated several events across the state. Drivers opposing the initiative held car caravan protests and dropped "No on Prop 22" banners throughout California's cities. On Monday, California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who authored AB5, worked with drivers to reach out to voters by text banking. The campaign said it reached about 10 million voters as of Monday afternoon.

"Rideshare drivers have been building momentum throughout this No on Prop 22 campaign and they are in overdrive mode now, taking their campaign right up to the finish line," said Mike Roth, a spokesman for the No campaign. "We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."

Uber, DoorDash and Postmates (which Uber acquired in July) didn't respond to requests for comment. Instacart referred CNET to the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign.

First published on Nov. 3, 2020 


Uber-backed gig worker initiative wins in California: US media
California voters put the brakes Tuesday on a law stopping ride share firms such as Uber and Lyft from classifying drivers as independent contractors, according to US media.
Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Some 58 percent of voters backed a proposition that would leave drivers as independent contractors but provide them benefits such as supplemented health care coverage, according to local media and the "Yes on Proposition 22" campaign.

"This is a win for drivers across California," Southern California ride share driver Alfred Porche said in a statement issued by the campaign.

Explore further Uber and Lyft argue in California court over status of drivers

© 2020 AFP

Uber, Lyft shares surge after key ballot win in California


By Noah Manska

November 4, 2020 

AP

Uber and Lyft’s stock prices soared Wednesday after California voters allowed the ride-hailing giants to continue treating their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Uber shares surged 11.5 percent in premarket trading while Lyft’s spiked about 14.8 percent as of 7:54 a.m. after the passage of Proposition 22, which exempts ride-hail drivers from a controversial California law that would have forced tech firms to give gig workers benefits such as a minimum wage and sick leave.

More than 58 percent of Golden State voters cast ballots in favor of the measure, handing Uber and Lyft an important victory in one of their biggest US markets after spending heavily to get out of the state law’s obligations.

The vote “will send a ripple impact as investors were worried if Prop 22 did not pass this would significantly impact the core DNA of the gig economy and ultimately the revenue model for Lyft and Uber,” Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said in a Wednesday research note.

Tuesday’s vote will allow Uber and Lyft to escape pressure from California officials who had tried to force the companies to treat their drivers as employees under the state law known as AB5, which took effect in January

California sued the companies in May in an attempt to enforce the law, and a state appeals court said last month that they had to provide their drivers with benefits generally afforded to traditional employees. An earlier unfavorable ruling in that case prompted Uber and Lyft to threaten to halt their operations in the state.

Uber, Lyft and similar app-based services spent some $200 million urging voters to support Proposition 22. Other supporters of the measure included food-delivery platforms DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which rely on independent couriers to ferry groceries and takeout to their users.

Uber and Lyft contended that AB5’s requirements would have fundamentally changed their business models and limited flexibility for workers. But supporters of the law pointed out that tech giants poured massive amounts of money into the ballot measure fight.

“The obscene amount of money these multibillion-dollar corporations spent misleading the public doesn’t absolve them of their duty to pay drivers a living wage,” Art Pulaski, a leader at the California Labor Federation, said in a statement.



This Uber driver got COVID-19. With Prop 22, he says, 'I have a lot on the line'
by Avi Asher-Schapiro | @AASchapiro | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Tuesday, 3 November 2020 14:24 GMT


'I worked for Uber for six years full-time, sleeping in my car to work long hours. Then I contracted COVID-19. It's time to call me an employee.'



Nov 3 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – On Tuesday, Californians vote on a ballot measure that would exempt ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft from a law compelling them to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees.

The measure, Prop. 22, could redefine gig work, a key pillar of the U.S. economy with COVID-19 driving up demand for delivery services.

A Reuters analysis found that Uber and Lyft would face over $392 million in annual payroll taxes and workers’ compensation costs if the proposition fails, and they are forced to extend employee status to drivers.

The companies say the majority of drivers do not want to be employees, and work fewer than 25 hours a week.

Uber and other gig firms have spent nearly $200 million to pass Prop. 22, which would extend limited benefits to workers, including a subsidy for drivers to buy private healthcare.

But workers like Orlando Mims, a 50-year-old from Sacramento who’s been driving full-time for Uber for 6 years, worry that without full employee protections like minimum wage guarantees and injury insurance, drivers are primed for exploitation. 

This is his story as told to Avi Asher-Schapiro, Thomson Reuters Foundation Digital Rights correspondent:

I started driving in 2014, and at first it was on the weekends, like a vacation from my regular job as a truck driver.

I’d drive down to San Francisco, stay there -- sleep in my car -- Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. And I’d work long days, and come back with over a thousand dollars.

When they made cutbacks at my trucking company, I left and I started driving Uber full-time -- as much as 60 or 70-hours-a- week on average.

At first I was making good money.

Then all the sudden they started cutting the rates at Uber; at first the drivers got 80% of the rides, then it was 70%. Now it’s not even a percentage, it’s calculated by your mileage and time. It’s just gone down, down, down.

About two years ago, I went into Uber’s office and asked about it. And they told me: 'we have enough drivers now, we can pay less' -- they had the audacity to tell me that.

That impacted my thinking tremendously.

When a friend of mine got shot when she was driving for Uber back in 2017, I started thinking: we are taking all the risks, but they are getting all the money.

And then, at the end of February, right when this pandemic started, I got sick while driving in San Francisco.

I went to the hospital down there, they took my temperature it was 105 degrees Fahrenheit (41 Celsius). Fearing I might have contracted COVID-19, they asked me if I’d been to Wuhan, China.

I hadn’t, but I was driving a lot of people from the airport. I later tested positive for COVID-19, and was told to self-isolate for 14 days; I was sick for longer than that, though.

And when I tried to go back to work in May, after being off for two-and-a-half months, I waited for 10 hours at the San Francisco Airport, and only got one $23 fare.

There was just no work. The only compensation I got from Uber was $1,400 for that two weeks I was in quarantine.

And that’s when I really started thinking; if this were a regular job, we would get workers compensation.

We are out here doing this work, they are taking the money. And technically, since we are just contractors they aren’t responsible for us.

I have a lot on the line with Prop. 22. I want to be a real employee of Uber; it would give me job security, health insurance and benefits, and I would know I am getting a steady paycheck.

I can’t afford to go to the airport and wait, sitting around for an hour or two and not getting paid. I want to be paid by the hour for my work.

So, when people get in my car and ask me about Prop. 22, I tell all my customers: ‘please vote no.’

It’s really upsetting seeing Uber and Lyft spend all this money on Prop. 22. It’s like they are trying to buy a law; I think it’s wrong, if I get enough money -- can I buy a law?

I got 20,000 trips with Uber! Never a thank you from them; 'we appreciate it; here's a bonus.'

So, you know what? If Prop 22 passes, I won't drive anymore. Why should I? Enough is enough. 

(Reporting by Avi Asher-Schapiro @AASchapiro, Editing by Tom Finn. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit http://news.trust.org)



ABOUT OUR ECONOMIES COVERAGE We report on how to ensure people globally have economic security and a decent standard of living.


Marijuana's 2020 Election Sweep Means Fifteen States Have Legalized
CLARA GEOGHEGAN | NOVEMBER 4, 2020 | 

Four states passed adult-use cannabis laws and two passed medical marijuana initiatives during the 2020 elections. 
Westword archive

With the presidential race still taking the main stage the day after the November 3 election, it's easy to forget about the fate of recreational and medical cannabis ballot initiatives in five states. But the voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota sure remembered, with pot sweeping the polls before the night ended.

Every statewide cannabis legalization measure on a ballot passed last night, as Arizona, New Jersey, Montana and South Dakota voters all approved recreational cannabis possession and sales. Meanwhile, South Dakota and Mississippi votes both approved new medical marijuana programs in their respective states.

Since Colorado and Washington voters lead the way in legalizing recreational pot in 2012, thirteen more states (and Washington, D.C.) have now joined them. And more states legalizing cannabis is good for national cannabis legislation efforts, according to National Cannabis Industry Association media relations director Morgan Fox.

“While state representatives aren’t beholden to representing the interests of their constituents in terms of policies, I think that with every state where you pass one of these laws, there’s that much more potential representation in congress,” he explains.

It will likely take anywhere from one to two years before regulated cannabis will be available to consumers and patients in the newly regulated states, but based on the ballot initiatives, here is what regulated cannabis might look like in Arizona, New Jersey, Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota.

Arizona
Proposition 207, also called the Smart & Safe Act, allows adults 21-and-older to purchase and use regulated cannabis. The Smart & Safe Act passed with 60 percent of voter approval despite open opposition from Governor Doug Doucey.

The Arizona Department of Health Services will hand out marijuana licenses for cultivation, retail and processing facilities; businesses can apply for an early license as soon as January 2021, and established medical marijuana growers will be given application priority. A fiscal analysis released by the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff estimates that the 16-percent sales tax and licensing fees from recreational cannabis would bring in $166 million in revenue per year. Revenue generated from legal cannabis sales will cover administrative costs for cannabis regulation, with remaining revenue to be distributed to district community colleges, firefighters, law enforcement agencies, the Governor's Office of Highway Safety, and the Justice Reinvestment Fund for communities most impacted by the War on Drugs.

Arizona's successful ballot initiative also opens the door for those with prior cannabis crime convictions to expunge their records after July 12, 2021. Individuals convicted with marijuana possession (2.5 ounces or less), cultivation, consumption or transportation can petition Arizona courts to have records of arrests and convictions expunged.

Montana

Two ballot initiatives for recreational cannabis use passed in Montana. Ballot Initiative 190 legalizes recreational cannabis use for adults, and Constitutional Initiative 118 amends language in the state constitution specifying that the legal purchasing age of cannabis for adults will be 21.

I-190 allows adults aged 21 and older to possess 1 ounce of marijuana, and grow up to four cannabis plants in their private residences. Licensing and regulation will be overseen by the Montana Department of Revenue, which will impose a 20-percent sales tax on marijuana products. After covering administrative costs, all revenue generated by regulated cannabis will fund nature conservation programs, substance abuse treatment and prevention efforts, veterans services and health care. The act also allows individuals serving sentences for marijuana-related offenses legalized by I-90 to have their sentences reduced or charges expunged. The Montana Department of Revenue will accept growing, processing and retail applications by January 1, 2022.

Mississippi

Mississippians didn't vote on recreational cannabis this year, but they did pass a constitutional amendment allowing medical marijuana use for patients with “debilitating medical conditions” after voting in rank-style system on competing MMJ initiatives. About 67.9 percent of voters supported medical cannabis legalization overall, with 74 percent of voters preferring Initiative 65 to the alternative amendment 65A. Voters were asked if they supported either initiative or opposed both initiatives, and were then asked which initiative they preferred more; those who opposed both could still specify their preference between the two.

Initiative 65, the winning amendment, specifies 21 qualifying medical conditions for medical marijuana, including cancer, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and AIDS. The new laws also give doctors the discretion to recommend marijuana for equally debilitating medical conditions when “the use of medical marijuana would reasonably outweigh potential health risks,” according to I-65. The medical marijuana program would be overseen by the Mississippi Department of Health, and caps patient marijuana possession at 2.5 ounces every two weeks. Marijuana sales would be taxed at 7 percent or lower, with the MDH set to have regulations in place by July of next year.

The alternative ballot Initiative 65A would have also allowed medical cannabis use for patients with debilitating conditions, but many details about the implementation would've been left up to state legislators to decide. There were no listed conditions to qualify patients for medical marijuana, nor were there other details like the responsible regulatory agency of the program, an implementation timeline or product taxation.

File photo

New Jersey
New Jersey legalized recreational marijuana, passing Public Question 1 in a landslide, with 67 percent of votes in favor.

Public Question 1 Amends the New Jersey state constitution by adding language to legalize cannabis consumption, possession, growth, transportation and processing for adults who are at least 21. The amendment will go into effect January 1, 2021, with pot sales taxed at the current sales rate of 6.25 percent. Individual municipalities may raise the tax rate on sales within their boundaries by up to 2 percent.

The state's Cannabis Regulatory Commission, the same organization that has overseen New Jersey's medical marijuana program since 2010, will lead regulatory efforts, but the extent of its powers will be decided by the state legislature.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy endorsed the amendment earlier this year — the only governor in the five states with cannabis on the ballot to do so. Murphy framed it as a matter of social equity with an added economic benefit. In the Garden State, someone is 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for a marijuana-related crime if they are black than if they are white; in 2018, marijuana made up for 55 percent of all drug related arrests in the state, with a total of 36,050 arrested.

South Dakota

Most states legalize medical marijuana use before introducing recreational use, but not South Dakota. Both recreational and medical cannabis were passed by state voters November 3.

Measure 26 will allow patients suffering from "debilitating medical conditions" to use medical marijuana. The ballot measure received overwhelming support, passing with 69.2 approval. Patient marijuana possession is capped at 3 ounces, and anyone growing cannabis for medical use must have a minimum of three plants.

Amendment A legalizing recreational cannabis use also passed, but on a narrower margin, with a 53.44 percent majority. Adults who are at least 21 can now posses up to 1 ounce of marijuana and three cannabis plants. Licensing for cannabis production and sales will be overseen by the South Dakota Department of Revenue, and products will be taxed at 15 percent. Revenue collected by cannabis regulation will cover administrative costs of cannabis legislation, and the remaining income will go to South Dakota public schools and the the state's general fund. However, local governments can opt out of any cannabis license types.
Push to relax drug laws gains big victories on state ballots

A nationwide push to relax drug laws took a significant step forward Tuesday as more states legalized marijuana for adults and voters made Oregon the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of street drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine

.
© Provided by The Canadian Press

The drug measures were among 120 proposed state laws and constitutional amendments that were on the ballot in 32 states. They touched on an array of issues that have roiled politics in recent years — voting rights, racial inequalities, abortion, taxes and education, to name a few.

But none directly dealt with the dominant theme of 2020 — the coronavirus pandemic. That’s because the process to put measures on the ballot began, in most cases, before the virus surged to the forefront.

The Oregon drug initiative will allow people arrested with small amounts of hard drugs to avoid going to trial, and possible jail time, by paying a $100 fine and attending an addiction recovery program. The treatment centres will be funded by revenues from legalized marijuana, which was approved in Oregon several years ago.

“Today’s victory is a landmark declaration that the time has come to stop criminalizing people for drug use,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which backed the measure.

The proposal was endorsed by the Oregon Democratic Party, as well as some nurses and physician associations. The Oregon Republican Party had denounced the drug decriminalization measure as radical, and some prosecutors called it reckless.

Oregon voters also approved a measure making the state the first to legalize the therapeutic use of psychedelic mushrooms.

Voters in New Jersey and Arizona approved measures legalizing marijuana for adults age 21 and older. In New Jersey, the Legislature now will have to pass another measure setting up the new marijuana marketplace. The Arizona measure also allows people convicted of certain marijuana crimes to seek expungement of their records. Passage signalled a change of attitudes, after Arizona voters there narrowly defeated a legal pot proposal in 2016.

Recreational marijuana measures also were ahead in the polls in Montana and narrowly leading in South Dakota. Separate medical marijuana initiatives passed in South Dakota and Mississippi.

A decade ago, recreational marijuana was illegal in all 50 states. Voters allowed it in Colorado and Washington in 2012, sparking a movement that already included 11 states and Washington, D.C., heading into Tuesday’s elections. Supporters hope additional victories, especially in conservative states, could build pressure for Congress to legalize marijuana nationwide.

Two states considered anti-abortion amendments with different results.

Louisiana voters passed a measure asserting there is no state constitutional right to abortion — something that could come into play if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In Colorado, by contrast, voters defeated a measure to prohibit abortions after 22 weeks unless the pregnant woman’s life is endangered. Previous Colorado ballot initiatives to limit abortion also failed in 2008, 2010 and 2014.

Several states also were considering measures affecting voting rights.

Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment taking power away from members of the Democratic-led Legislature to draw voting districts for themselves and members of Congress based on census results. It instead will create a bipartisan commission of lawmakers and citizens to develop a redistricting plan that the Legislature could approve or reject, but not change.

Virginia is the sixth state in the past two general election cycles to pass measures intended to prevent gerrymandering — a process in which politicians draw voting districts to benefit themselves or their political parties. Voters in Missouri, which passed a redistricting reform measure in 2018, voted Tuesday on whether to roll back key parts of it before it can be used next year.

The Missouri measure, which remained undecided in a close vote, would repeal a nationally unique model using a nonpartisan demographer to draw state House and Senate districts to achieve “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness.” Republicans who control the Legislature put forth a new ballot measure this year that would return redistricting duties to a pair of bipartisan commissions and drop “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” to the end of the criteria.

In Florida, voters approved a measure gradually increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026. The measure puts Florida in line with at least seven other states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — and Washington, D.C., which already have enacted laws to gradually boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

In Mississippi, voters approved a proposal for a new state flag with a magnolia design. The vote came after legislators in June ended the use of a flag bearing a Confederate battle emblem. In Rhode Island, whose official name is “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” residents in a close vote were deciding whether to eliminate the final three words, which some say evoke a legacy of slavery.

Tax proposals were on the ballot in more than a dozen states. Tobacco tax hikes passed in Colorado and Oregon. Colorado voters also approved a slight income tax cut. Still undecided were a proposed property tax increase on California businesses and higher income taxes on the wealthy in Illinois and Arizona. The additional tax revenue in Arizona would fund pay raises for teachers and other school personnel.

Another of the many California ballot issues would repeal a 1996 initiative that prohibits affirmative action programs granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Selsky contributed to this report.

David A. Lieb, The Associated Press
It's Official: The US Is Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement


THE US IS THE SECOND-BIGGEST CARBON EMITTER IN THE WORLD. 




By Tom Hale 04 NOV 2020,


Today, the US officially exited the Paris Climate Agreement, leaving the world’s biggest climate change accords to go ahead without the participation of the planet's second-biggest carbon emitter.

The Trump administration formally submitted notification to the United Nations to officially start the US withdrawal process from the Paris Agreement in November 2019, after making the decision to leave in July 2017. Now, the paperwork has gone through and the US has exited the Paris Agreement as of November 4, 2020.

In accordance with the Agreement, a country cannot issue a notice of its withdrawal before three years after its start date, which was November 4, 2016, for the US, meaning November 4, 2020, was the earliest possible date the US could leave. This date coincidentally falls on the same day as the US Presidential election, although the move will remain regardless of the outcome of the election. That said, Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Agreement if elected.

The central aim of the Paris Agreement is to keep global rising temperatures from climate change “well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels” with the hopes to limit this to just 1.5°C (2.7°F). It sets out to achieve this by peaking greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and undertaking rapid reductions thereafter, primarily through each country setting voluntary and nationally determined emission targets. Of the 195 signatories (194 states and the European Union) that initially signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, 189 have now ratified the agreement. Along with the US, other countries that have not completed the formal process are Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, South Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen.

Without the US on board, the task of cutting global emissions will become substantially harder to achieve. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions after China, producing around 15 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emission.

"The formal withdrawal of the US today from the #ParisAgreement comes amidst a shifting tide of public support for urgent and far-reaching action to stop the climate crisis," the Climate Action Network tweeted on Wednesday. "Regardless of the current US administration's exit from the #ParisAgreement, it cannot undo the powerful movement for #climatejustice built by millions of people in the US and across the world, empowered by a renewed sense of international solidarity for a safe & just future."

President Trump’s argument for leaving the Agreement was that it was a “bad deal” for the US. Contributions are proportional and for the US, as one of the richest nations and the biggest emitters, it would prove costly. In July 2017, he said: “The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair to the United States. It is transferring coal jobs to foreign countries.”

However, a number of studies throw doubt on the claim that the Agreement is economically damaging, especially in the long run. Research has found
Add caption
that the economic ramifications of climate change – from shortened life spans to increased natural disasters like storms and wildfires – could see the global economy shrink 7 percent by the end of the century if we allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue business as usual. Other studies have shown that acting on climate change, rather than ignoring it, could save the world an estimated
$20 trillion by 2100.

China, which is responsible for 26 percent of the world's carbon emissions, has announced it is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060.


US formally exits Paris pact aiming to curb climate change


The move, long threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, further isolates Washington in the world

The Associated Press
November 4, 2020

BERLIN (AP) — The United States on Wednesday formally left the Paris Agreement, a global pact forged five years ago to avert the threat of catastrophic climate change.

The move, long threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, further isolates Washington in the world but has no immediate impact on international efforts to curb global warming.

There are 189 countries that remain committed to the 2015 Paris accord, which aims to keep the increase in average temperatures worldwide “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), ideally no more than 1.5C (2.7 F), compared to pre-industrial levels. A further six countries have signed, but not ratified the pact.

Scientists say that any rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius could have a devastating impact on large parts of the world, raising sea levels, stoking tropical storms and worsening droughts and floods.

The Paris accord requires countries to set their own voluntary targets for reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The only binding requirement is that nations have to accurately report on their efforts.

A makeshift globe burns in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2020. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

The United States is the world’s second biggest emitter after China of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and its contribution to cutting emissions is seen as important, but it is not alone in the effort. In recent weeks, China, Japan and South Korea have joined the European Union and several other countries in setting national deadlines to stop pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he favors signing the U.S. back up to the Paris accord

The German government said it was “highly regrettable” that the United States had left the pact.

“It’s all the more important that Europe, the EU and Germany lead by example,” said government spokesman Steffen Seibert, citing the EU’s goal of becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050.

While the Trump administration has shunned federal measures to cut emissions, Seibert noted that U.S. states, cities and businesses have pressed ahead with their own efforts.

Cooperation vs. Competition: What Do You Want in Your Mutual Fund?

30-Oct-2020 by University of Virginia Darden School of Business


INSIGHTS FROM: Richard B. Evans

WRITTEN BY: Simon Constable

Newswise — Veteran investor Charlie Munger once quipped, “Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome.” Put simply, what metrics an employer uses to determine performance pay will likely have a profound effect on the way employees behave. In turn, that impacts how companies perform.

A recently published study of mutual fund managers’ performance shows how Munger’s thought comes to life in the real world of finance. And it demonstrates that significantly different outcomes occur when employees get paid to compete against each other — versus when they are compensated for cooperating.

SO WHAT’S THE BEST METHOD?

The best answer will depend on the goals of the company, says Darden Professor Rich Evans, who recently co-authored a paper on the matter in the Journal of Financial Economics. The overall findings of the research have far-reaching implications that go beyond the world of finance.

Mutual fund companies that encourage competition between employees tend to have a higher portion of star funds, according to the paper “Competition and Cooperation in Mutual Fund Families.” Evans conducted the research with Melissa Porras Prado of the Nova School of Business and Economics and Rafael Zambrana of the University of Notre Dame.

Not only did the competitively minded firms have more star funds, they had higher average fund performance. The overall fund performance in a family of funds would be higher when fund managers were pitted against each other in a competition to perform the best.

However, encouraging competition between employees came with a downside. There was a higher variation in fund returns: The difference in investment returns between the best and worst performers was wider than when companies encouraged cooperation between employees.

The research also showed that firms that fostered cooperation had more cross-trading and cross-holdings of securities, and they tended to have more stable cash flows, the study explains.

A SLEW OF DATA

To make these findings, the authors analyzed a slew of data. They looked at returns on five distinct types of mutual funds over the period 1992 to 2015. Specifically, those types of funds were: those that managed domestic stocks, non-U.S. stocks, domestic bonds, non-U.S. bonds and balanced portfolios with multiple asset classes held. They then dug deep into how the portfolio managers got paid. Statistics on expenses, fund returns and portfolio turnover were analyzed, as was the level of cross-holdings between mutual funds in the same fund family.

The authors also constructed a competitive index, which measures how the incentives encouraged higher or lower levels of competition. The authors found that higher competitive indexes correlated with higher performance of the funds, and vice versa.

SO WHY COOPERATE?

With Wall Street’s reputation for fierce competition, why would a finance leader choose a cooperative approach rather than a competitive one?

“If the objective is to maximize the overall value of an investment adviser, coordinated action among fund managers may be an important tool to accomplish this objective,” the report states. The study found that “cooperative incentives were associated with lower volatility,” in advisory fees. These fees form the revenue of the company. And investors tend to view stable cash flow favorably.


So which compensation system is better? “That question is valid for any organization,” Evans says. “Do you want everyone competing or do you want them cooperating?” In the case of fund companies, Evans says the questions come down to who the clients are and how big the organization is.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT INVESTORS

Evans notes that for institutional clients, a competitive approach makes sense because sophisticated institutional investors are interested in gaining access to the skill and acumen of an individual fund manager. For instance, a pension fund might want to invest with a particular fund because its manager has a history of superior performance. Institutional investors have the expertise to be able to discern which managers are better than others, Evans explains.

Contrast that with a financial advisory firm whose clients are individuals. “Cooperative [fund] families ... are more likely to manage retail investor assets,” the research paper says. The demand for mutual funds from individual investors is less sensitive to the performance of the investment. Instead, other characteristics, such as the relationship with a financial adviser, may hold more sway.

Size matters also when it comes to which compensation system to use. In smaller companies, there is less to be gained by cooperation. The individual fund managers may each have investment specialties that do not overlap. And therefore the scope for gains for working cooperatively are lessened. However, with larger organizations, there are certainly gains to be had from cooperation, Evans explains. That's because even what may seem like a small advantage in performance with one manager may mean a gain that can multiply many times over when a company has a large array of fund offerings.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings are also relevant outside the mutual fund world. The competition element is relevant in the sales world in which individuals’ skills can make a big difference in how many dollars they bring in from customers. A good example might be a real estate sales professional with specific knowledge of a local market.

The size element is also applicable to other industries. A massive automobile company spanning multiple continents would surely benefit from cooperation between departments. Even small efficiency gains in one factory can quickly be shared across the company and benefit the entire organization, ultimately boosting profits significantly. “Cooperative incentives work when you are big, because you have so many sources for possible improvement that can be shared widely across the organization,” Evans says.


Richard B. Evans co-authored “Competition and Cooperation in Mutual Fund Families, which appeared in the Journal of Financial Economics, with Melissa Porras Prado of the Nova School of Business and Economics and Rafael Zambrana of the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.







Teens who participate in extracurriculars, get less screen time, have better mental health
3-Nov-2020 12:10 PM EST, by University of British Columbia
favorite_border


A new study from UBC researchers finds that teens, especially girls, have better mental health when they spend more time taking part in extracurricular activities, like sports and art, and less time in front of screens.


The study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, found that spending less than two hours per day of recreational screen time (such as browsing the internet, playing video games, and using social media) was associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, especially among girls, the researchers found. Similarly, extracurricular participation was associated with better mental health outcomes.

"Although we conducted this study before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are especially relevant now when teens may be spending more time in front of screens in their free time if access to extracurricular activities, like sports and arts programs is restricted due to COVID-19," says the study's lead author Eva Oberle, assistant professor with the Human Early Learning Partnership in the UBC school of population and public health. "Our findings highlight extracurricular activities as an asset for teens' mental wellbeing. Finding safe ways for children and teens to continue to participate in these activities during current times may be a way to reduce screen time and promote mental health and wellbeing."

Data for this study was drawn from a population-level survey involving 28,712 Grade 7 students from 365 schools in 27 school districts across B.C. The researchers examined recreational screen time such as playing video games, watching television, browsing the internet, as well as participating in outdoor extracurricular activities such as sport and art programs after school. They then compared its association with positive and negative mental health indicators.

Highlights of the study's findings include the following:

Adolescents who participated in extracurricular activities were significantly less likely to engage in recreational screen-based activities for two or more hours after school

Taking part in extracurricular activities was associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms
Longer screen time (more than two hours a day) was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms

Differences among boys and girls, with longer screen time negatively affecting girls' mental health more significantly than boys

Among both boys and girls, however, mental health was strongest when teens both participated in extracurricular activities and spent less than two hours on screen time



Oberle says further research is needed to examine why the negative effects of screen time were more detrimental for girls than for boys. She also hopes to focus future research on the effects of different types of screen time.

"We do know that some forms of screen time can be beneficial, like maintaining connections with friends and family members online if we cannot see them in person, but there are other types of screen time that can be quite harmful," she says. "There are many nuances that are not well understood yet and that are important to explore."

SEE ORIGINAL STUDY