Thursday, April 29, 2021
COVID outbreak closes Simcoe auto parts plant leaving 1,000 people out of work
More than 1,000 people are off work after Toyotetsu Canada shut down its auto parts plant in Simcoe due to a COVID-19 outbreak.
The company told employees on Monday about 10 active cases at the plant, and on Tuesday Toyotetsu officials decided to suspend operations at the sprawling 530,000-square-foot facility.
“Toyotetsu Canada has agreed to voluntarily shut down operations and close the plant out of an abundance of caution and will reopen when it is safe to do so,” the company said in a media release issued Tuesday evening.
“Toyotetsu Canada will continue to work very closely and co-operatively with public health on any and all necessary outbreak measures to open as quickly and safely as possible.”
The plant — a major industrial employer in Norfolk County — makes a variety of car parts for regional Toyota and Lexus production lines.
Toyotetsu said 25 workers have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began.
The company did not respond to an email from The Spectator Wednesday asking if the affected workers will continue to be paid during the shutdown or will get help accessing employment insurance, and if the 10 workers who have tested positive are currently on paid sick leave.
Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit spokesperson Kyra Hayes said the health unit has been “actively working with Toyotetsu to implement a public health management plan.”
The health unit did not order the closure, Hayes said.
“As per Toyotetsu’s public statement, they voluntarily agreed to cease production,” she said.
Down the road in Port Dover, popular snack shack The Arbor is closed after several staff members were identified as close contacts of confirmed COVID cases.
The century-old eatery closed for at least two weeks as of Monday to give affected employees time to self-isolate.
The temporary closure affects some two dozen employees, who are usually kept busy supplying locals and day-trippers with foot-long hotdogs, French fries and Golden Glow drinks.
The health unit is also monitoring a COVID-19 outbreak at the Hagersville location of gypsum wallboard manufacturer CGC.
There were 285 active cases of COVID-19 in Haldimand-Norfolk as of Wednesday morning.
J.P. Antonacci, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Hamilton Spectator
UNION DRIVES NEVER FAIL FOR WORKERS
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 per hour for 500,000 workers
insider@insider.com (Allana Akhtar) 4/24/2021
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 an hour for 500,000 employees.
The company announced the change in a statement on Wednesday.
Amazon is hiring for tens of thousands of jobs across the US.
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 an hour for 500,000 employees, the company announced Wednesday.
The pay increases, which will range between $0.50 and $3 hourly, will affect workers across four teams: fulfillment, delivery, package sortation, and specialty fulfilment, the company said.
The increases represent an investment of over $1 billion in incremental pay, according to Amazon vice president Darcie Henry.
Henry said the pay increase is to incentivize hiring for tens of thousands of jobs across the US.
"These jobs come with a range of great benefits, like medical, dental, and vision coverage, parental leave, ways to save for the future, and opportunities for career advancement-all in a safe and inclusive environment that's been ranked among the best workplaces in the world," Henry said in a release.
Amazon claims the median worker earned $29,007 in 2020, a $159 increase from the year prior. The e-commerce giant raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018.
Amazon workers in Alabama recently lost their bid to form what would have been the company's first-ever union in the US. Amazon told Insider it already offered "industry-leading pay" the union was pushing for, but labor activists and experts argue collective bargaining can increase wages further.
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 per hour for 500,000 workers
insider@insider.com (Allana Akhtar) 4/24/2021
© Provided by Business Insider Amazon will raise pay by $0.50 to $3 an hour for 500,000 employees. Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 an hour for 500,000 employees.
The company announced the change in a statement on Wednesday.
Amazon is hiring for tens of thousands of jobs across the US.
Amazon will raise pay by up to $3 an hour for 500,000 employees, the company announced Wednesday.
The pay increases, which will range between $0.50 and $3 hourly, will affect workers across four teams: fulfillment, delivery, package sortation, and specialty fulfilment, the company said.
The increases represent an investment of over $1 billion in incremental pay, according to Amazon vice president Darcie Henry.
Henry said the pay increase is to incentivize hiring for tens of thousands of jobs across the US.
"These jobs come with a range of great benefits, like medical, dental, and vision coverage, parental leave, ways to save for the future, and opportunities for career advancement-all in a safe and inclusive environment that's been ranked among the best workplaces in the world," Henry said in a release.
Amazon claims the median worker earned $29,007 in 2020, a $159 increase from the year prior. The e-commerce giant raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018.
Amazon workers in Alabama recently lost their bid to form what would have been the company's first-ever union in the US. Amazon told Insider it already offered "industry-leading pay" the union was pushing for, but labor activists and experts argue collective bargaining can increase wages further.
MORE IMPORTANTLY IS THAT UNIONS GIVE WORKERS WORKPLACE RIGHTS A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE TO LIMIT MANAGEMENTS ARBITRARY ACTIONS
YOU BARGAIN NOT BEG.
The firm roughly tripled its net profit to $6.33 billion and grew sales by 37% - to $96.1 billion - in the last quarter. The COVID-19 pandemic fueled a rise in online shopping and a need for cloud storage on Amazon Web Services as people spent more time at home.
Amazon did not have additional statement to add.
This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
Amazon did not have additional statement to add.
This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
Council hears CUPW call for postal banking, EVs, & wellness
ADELAIDE-METCALFE - A presentation about postal banking and Canada Post service expansion piqued the interest of councillors, but not enough to garner official support during a recent council Twp. council meeting.
Derek Richmond, Ontario Region Coordinator for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), was on-hand to share the union’s vision for the future of postal services in rural communities. He suggests that post office locations could become community hubs in rural centres, complete with drop-in resources for youth and seniors, access to the internet, tourist information, hunting and fishing licenses, and other government services. Postal carriers could provide wellness checks on seniors.
Postal banking is a large part of his vision. As national banks focus on digital services and shutter unprofitable locations - often in rural communities - CUPW argues that reinstating a postal banking system would benefit those in rural communities. For farmers, who are often busy, or seniors, who may be less mobile, banking at a nearby Canada Post may save time and effort. Canada Post provided postal banking until 1968; postal banking systems exist in other countries including France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, and New Zealand.
“We have to look at innovative ways to move forward,” said Richmond. His is a green vision, including the gradual replacement of current delivery vehicles with electric vehicles. He suggested that Canada Post locations could host a country-wide network of vehicle charging stations for public use, facilitating the transition from gas-powered cars to electric.
Despite the ambitious ideas, the township council chose to file the resolution during a Tuesday, 6 April 2021 meeting.
“I’m not sure that our municipality is big enough that it wouldn’t be covered off by an adjacent municipality, but we should definitely keep it on our radar,” suggested councillor Sue Clarke. Still, the presentation hit home for Mayor Kurtis Smith, who noted that Kerwood once had both a TD Bank, and a Canada Post location (which was located in a home); but now has neither.
McKinley Leonard-Scott, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Middlesex Banner
ADELAIDE-METCALFE - A presentation about postal banking and Canada Post service expansion piqued the interest of councillors, but not enough to garner official support during a recent council Twp. council meeting.
Derek Richmond, Ontario Region Coordinator for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), was on-hand to share the union’s vision for the future of postal services in rural communities. He suggests that post office locations could become community hubs in rural centres, complete with drop-in resources for youth and seniors, access to the internet, tourist information, hunting and fishing licenses, and other government services. Postal carriers could provide wellness checks on seniors.
Postal banking is a large part of his vision. As national banks focus on digital services and shutter unprofitable locations - often in rural communities - CUPW argues that reinstating a postal banking system would benefit those in rural communities. For farmers, who are often busy, or seniors, who may be less mobile, banking at a nearby Canada Post may save time and effort. Canada Post provided postal banking until 1968; postal banking systems exist in other countries including France, Italy, Germany, Brazil, and New Zealand.
“We have to look at innovative ways to move forward,” said Richmond. His is a green vision, including the gradual replacement of current delivery vehicles with electric vehicles. He suggested that Canada Post locations could host a country-wide network of vehicle charging stations for public use, facilitating the transition from gas-powered cars to electric.
Despite the ambitious ideas, the township council chose to file the resolution during a Tuesday, 6 April 2021 meeting.
“I’m not sure that our municipality is big enough that it wouldn’t be covered off by an adjacent municipality, but we should definitely keep it on our radar,” suggested councillor Sue Clarke. Still, the presentation hit home for Mayor Kurtis Smith, who noted that Kerwood once had both a TD Bank, and a Canada Post location (which was located in a home); but now has neither.
McKinley Leonard-Scott, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Middlesex Banner
WE NEED 10 PAID SICK DAYS
Ontario is launching paid sick leave. Should other provinces follow suit?
Emerald Bensadoun and Sean Boynton
Manitoba Finance Minister Scott Fielding said in his own statement that his province is also looking at solutions.
"Many employees in Manitoba receive paid sick leave benefits through their employers or collective bargaining agreements, and we are currently considering ways to address gaps in federal programming and provide options to help Manitobans who aren’t currently covered under employee plans," he said.
Meanwhile, other provinces who responded to Global News made it clear they aren't looking at a provincial paid sick leave program.
A spokesperson for Alberta's labour and immigration ministry instead listed the existing programs that workers can take advantage of, including the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB) and up to three hours of paid leave to get vaccinated.
Alberta also offers up to 14 days of unpaid, job-protected leave for employees who fall ill.
Read more: Labour leaders, NDP call for paid sick and vaccine leave in Manitoba
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Don Morgan, Saskatchewan’s minister of labour relations and workplace safety, said employers are "increasingly fragile" and could see "serious problems" under a paid sick leave program.
He also suggested money from the federal Safe Restart fund could help provinces pay for such a program.
A spokesperson for Morgan's ministry referred to his comments from earlier in the day.
But Mulligan said having employers pay their workers for sick days is a better financial move long-term than suffering through a COVID-19-related shutdown.
Trudeau accuses NDP of being ‘befuddled about division of powers’ over paid sick leave
"We know that employers have been really challenged during COVID, just like everyone has, and so I think the government has been reluctant to ask them to do this," she said.
"But the reality is that it's in the employers' interest to provide these sick days in order to avoid a shutdown ... that's much more costly for them. So really, it makes sense all around."
None of the Atlantic provinces or northern territories answered Global News' requests for comment before publication.
Mulligan says that while Ontario did the right thing by introducing the paid sick leave program, it falls short of what is needed to address self-isolation requirements for COVID-19.
"This is a positive step, but it is not sufficient to meet the public health needs right now," she said, noting those who test positive for the coronavirus must isolate for a minimum of 10 to 14 days.
"(Three paid days) will support people to get tested, to get vaccinated and to stay home with maybe some initial symptoms. But it doesn't help us to control the spread of COVID if people can't stay home for that longer period."
Read more: Sask. government marks National Day of Mourning amid pandemic, calls for paid sick leave
Mulligan says minimum wage workers and "those working in high-risk frontline roles" will feel the most pressure.
"You might decide that after those three days, you don't really have an option if you're making minimum wage and you feel that you don't have what you need to pay the bills between now and the several weeks that go by before you are reimbursed," she said.
"People do live with that level of precarity and those are the people who are not yet fully covered by this program."
Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist with the University of Waterloo, echoed Mulligan's comments.
"What is the objective of this policy? Well, it's to reduce workplace contagion," he said. "And I guess the really big question is whether or not this will do that."
He points to the outbreak at a Canada Post facility in Mississauga, Ont., where around 80 employees have been told to self-isolate after at least 12 workers tested positive.
Trudeau comments on Ontario’s federal benefit top-up for sick leave due to COVID-19
"They've been really struggling with workplace outbreaks and they have one of the most generous paid sick leave policies in Canada," he said.
Skuterud also wonders if the spotlight on paid sick leave has "distracted us from other efforts that might actually be more effective."
Getting COVID-19 vaccines into city hotspots, along with putting rapid tests and rapid antigen tests in the workplace, could be more effective ways to prevent the virus from spreading, he says.
Yet for now, Skuterud says seeing the Ontario government and others listen to people's demands for paid sick days is a positive development.
"It can't do anything but make things better," he said. "It's not going to make things worse — that's for sure."
— with files from Global News' Rachel Gilmore
Ontario is launching paid sick leave. Should other provinces follow suit?
Emerald Bensadoun and Sean Boynton
GLOBAL NEWS
4/29/2021
Following months of public pressure prompted by a surge in COVID-19 cases, the Ontario government has finally announced its paid sick leave program.
Following months of public pressure prompted by a surge in COVID-19 cases, the Ontario government has finally announced its paid sick leave program.
© Provided by Global News Workers manufacture partitions made from cardboard and chipboard material at TEC Business Solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mississauga, Ont., on Wednesday, January 13, 2021. The company has made mask wearing and gloves mandatory along with providing hand sanitizing stations through out the factory. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
The Ontario COVID-19 Worker Income Protection Program is retroactive, beginning April 19 and ending on Sept. 25. It includes access to three paid sick days, and the province has agreed to reimburse employers 100 per cent of the employee’s wage for up to $200 a day.
Read more: Ontario’s COVID-19 paid sick leave program to include 3 days for workers
For some, the announcement marks a victory for employees that has been a long time coming.
"It's a breakthrough to see this happening," said Dr. Kate Mulligan, a professor at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
But many are wondering if it's time for other provinces to follow suit.
Video: COVID-19: Ontarians reacts to paid sick leave announcement
Currently, there are only two other provinces that provide paid sick leave in Canada: Quebec and Prince Edward Island (P.E.I).
Quebec offers two paid sick days per year after a worker has been employed for three months, while P.E.I. provides workers who have been employed for five continuous years with one paid sick day per year.
Canada's federal labour code also states that workers can take five unpaid sick days per year, and that federally-regulated employers must offer at least three days of paid sick leave a year.
Mulligan says it's a bit "mystifying" it took Ontario so long to follow suit.
"It really shouldn't be a big deal," she said. "It's a no-brainer from a public health perspective that people need support to be able to stay home (if they're sick), and that those most essential workers need the most support."
Read more: Paid sick days vs. federal benefit: Why advocates say both are needed to fight COVID-19
The federal government introduced the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit last November, which provides $450 after taxes per week for up to four weeks for eligible workers who fall ill from COVID-19.
Many other provinces without paid sick leave plans have urged Ottawa to double that fund through unspent money from the Safe Restart program — something the Liberals have declined to do.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News earlier this month that it's up to the provinces to fill gaps in the benefit's coverage.
On Wednesday, British Columbia passed legislation that ensures workers get up to three hours of paid leave to get vaccinated against COVID-19, retroactive to April 19.
The province also ensures employees' jobs are protected if they take up to three unpaid days off. But the latest provincial budget made no mention of ensuring any of those days are paid.
"I am disappointed the federal government has not seen the importance of a comprehensive national paid sick leave program," Labour Minister Harry Bains said in a statement to Global News.
"In the light of that, I want to be clear, our government is building a made-in-B.C. program to continue our work in supporting British Columbians through this pandemic," he added, without specifying what that program could look like.
The Ontario COVID-19 Worker Income Protection Program is retroactive, beginning April 19 and ending on Sept. 25. It includes access to three paid sick days, and the province has agreed to reimburse employers 100 per cent of the employee’s wage for up to $200 a day.
Read more: Ontario’s COVID-19 paid sick leave program to include 3 days for workers
For some, the announcement marks a victory for employees that has been a long time coming.
"It's a breakthrough to see this happening," said Dr. Kate Mulligan, a professor at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
But many are wondering if it's time for other provinces to follow suit.
Video: COVID-19: Ontarians reacts to paid sick leave announcement
Currently, there are only two other provinces that provide paid sick leave in Canada: Quebec and Prince Edward Island (P.E.I).
Quebec offers two paid sick days per year after a worker has been employed for three months, while P.E.I. provides workers who have been employed for five continuous years with one paid sick day per year.
Canada's federal labour code also states that workers can take five unpaid sick days per year, and that federally-regulated employers must offer at least three days of paid sick leave a year.
Mulligan says it's a bit "mystifying" it took Ontario so long to follow suit.
"It really shouldn't be a big deal," she said. "It's a no-brainer from a public health perspective that people need support to be able to stay home (if they're sick), and that those most essential workers need the most support."
Read more: Paid sick days vs. federal benefit: Why advocates say both are needed to fight COVID-19
The federal government introduced the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit last November, which provides $450 after taxes per week for up to four weeks for eligible workers who fall ill from COVID-19.
Many other provinces without paid sick leave plans have urged Ottawa to double that fund through unspent money from the Safe Restart program — something the Liberals have declined to do.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Global News earlier this month that it's up to the provinces to fill gaps in the benefit's coverage.
On Wednesday, British Columbia passed legislation that ensures workers get up to three hours of paid leave to get vaccinated against COVID-19, retroactive to April 19.
The province also ensures employees' jobs are protected if they take up to three unpaid days off. But the latest provincial budget made no mention of ensuring any of those days are paid.
"I am disappointed the federal government has not seen the importance of a comprehensive national paid sick leave program," Labour Minister Harry Bains said in a statement to Global News.
"In the light of that, I want to be clear, our government is building a made-in-B.C. program to continue our work in supporting British Columbians through this pandemic," he added, without specifying what that program could look like.
Manitoba Finance Minister Scott Fielding said in his own statement that his province is also looking at solutions.
"Many employees in Manitoba receive paid sick leave benefits through their employers or collective bargaining agreements, and we are currently considering ways to address gaps in federal programming and provide options to help Manitobans who aren’t currently covered under employee plans," he said.
Meanwhile, other provinces who responded to Global News made it clear they aren't looking at a provincial paid sick leave program.
A spokesperson for Alberta's labour and immigration ministry instead listed the existing programs that workers can take advantage of, including the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB) and up to three hours of paid leave to get vaccinated.
Alberta also offers up to 14 days of unpaid, job-protected leave for employees who fall ill.
Read more: Labour leaders, NDP call for paid sick and vaccine leave in Manitoba
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Don Morgan, Saskatchewan’s minister of labour relations and workplace safety, said employers are "increasingly fragile" and could see "serious problems" under a paid sick leave program.
He also suggested money from the federal Safe Restart fund could help provinces pay for such a program.
A spokesperson for Morgan's ministry referred to his comments from earlier in the day.
But Mulligan said having employers pay their workers for sick days is a better financial move long-term than suffering through a COVID-19-related shutdown.
Trudeau accuses NDP of being ‘befuddled about division of powers’ over paid sick leave
"We know that employers have been really challenged during COVID, just like everyone has, and so I think the government has been reluctant to ask them to do this," she said.
"But the reality is that it's in the employers' interest to provide these sick days in order to avoid a shutdown ... that's much more costly for them. So really, it makes sense all around."
None of the Atlantic provinces or northern territories answered Global News' requests for comment before publication.
Mulligan says that while Ontario did the right thing by introducing the paid sick leave program, it falls short of what is needed to address self-isolation requirements for COVID-19.
"This is a positive step, but it is not sufficient to meet the public health needs right now," she said, noting those who test positive for the coronavirus must isolate for a minimum of 10 to 14 days.
"(Three paid days) will support people to get tested, to get vaccinated and to stay home with maybe some initial symptoms. But it doesn't help us to control the spread of COVID if people can't stay home for that longer period."
Read more: Sask. government marks National Day of Mourning amid pandemic, calls for paid sick leave
Mulligan says minimum wage workers and "those working in high-risk frontline roles" will feel the most pressure.
"You might decide that after those three days, you don't really have an option if you're making minimum wage and you feel that you don't have what you need to pay the bills between now and the several weeks that go by before you are reimbursed," she said.
"People do live with that level of precarity and those are the people who are not yet fully covered by this program."
Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist with the University of Waterloo, echoed Mulligan's comments.
"What is the objective of this policy? Well, it's to reduce workplace contagion," he said. "And I guess the really big question is whether or not this will do that."
He points to the outbreak at a Canada Post facility in Mississauga, Ont., where around 80 employees have been told to self-isolate after at least 12 workers tested positive.
Trudeau comments on Ontario’s federal benefit top-up for sick leave due to COVID-19
"They've been really struggling with workplace outbreaks and they have one of the most generous paid sick leave policies in Canada," he said.
Skuterud also wonders if the spotlight on paid sick leave has "distracted us from other efforts that might actually be more effective."
Getting COVID-19 vaccines into city hotspots, along with putting rapid tests and rapid antigen tests in the workplace, could be more effective ways to prevent the virus from spreading, he says.
Yet for now, Skuterud says seeing the Ontario government and others listen to people's demands for paid sick days is a positive development.
"It can't do anything but make things better," he said. "It's not going to make things worse — that's for sure."
— with files from Global News' Rachel Gilmore
WE NEED 10 PAID SICK DAYS
Ontario details plan for 3 paid sick days after a year of mounting pressureShanifa Nasser, Lucas Powers · CBC News · Posted: Apr 28, 2021
A man holds up a sign as a group advocating for provincially mandated paid sick days for workers participates in a 'die-in' rally outside Queens Park earlier this year. The proposed Ontario COVID-19 Worker Protection Benefit Program will pay up to $200 per day, and will be retroactive to April 19. (Cole Burston/The Canadian Press)
After months of urgent calls about the need for paid sick leave by medical professionals, labour advocates, political leaders and even top doctors from some of the province's hardest-hit regions, the Ontario government has announced a plan to provide three paid sick days through a temporary program ending in September.
The proposed Ontario COVID-19 Worker Protection Benefit Program would pay up to $200 per day for workers who are sick, have symptoms, have a mental health issue or need to be vaccinated, and will be retroactive to April 19. The sick days would not need to be taken consecutively and no sick note is required.
If the legislation is passed, the program will be administered through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and employers will be reimbursed in full, the province says.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Ontario Labour Minister Monte McNaughton also said the province has offered to cover the cost of doubling the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit payments, adding an additional $500 per week to eligible individuals, for a total of $1,000 per week.
Ottawa earlier this week rejected an offer by the province to top up the program, saying the federal benefit is designed to support workers who don't have a regular employer, or as a stop gap until their province mandates paid sick days.
WATCH | Trudeau responds to Ontario's offer to double sick leave payments:
Ontario calls on federal government to double sick leave payments: Minister of Labour2 days ago 1:35
After months of urgent calls about the need for paid sick leave by medical professionals, labour advocates, political leaders and even top doctors from some of the province's hardest-hit regions, the Ontario government has announced a plan to provide three paid sick days through a temporary program ending in September.
The proposed Ontario COVID-19 Worker Protection Benefit Program would pay up to $200 per day for workers who are sick, have symptoms, have a mental health issue or need to be vaccinated, and will be retroactive to April 19. The sick days would not need to be taken consecutively and no sick note is required.
If the legislation is passed, the program will be administered through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and employers will be reimbursed in full, the province says.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Ontario Labour Minister Monte McNaughton also said the province has offered to cover the cost of doubling the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit payments, adding an additional $500 per week to eligible individuals, for a total of $1,000 per week.
Ottawa earlier this week rejected an offer by the province to top up the program, saying the federal benefit is designed to support workers who don't have a regular employer, or as a stop gap until their province mandates paid sick days.
WATCH | Trudeau responds to Ontario's offer to double sick leave payments:
Ontario calls on federal government to double sick leave payments: Minister of Labour2 days ago 1:35
During Question Period at Queen’s Park Tuesday, Ontario’s Minister of Labour Monte McNaughton said the province is calling on the federal government to double payments under its sick leave program from $500 a week to $1,000 a week, with Ontario picking up the extra cost. Later, during a press conference, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said provinces need to look at delivering sick leave through employers, which he said Ottawa can’t do.
Last week, Premier Doug Ford pledged that Ontario would soon unveil details of a paid sick leave program, claiming it would be "the best program anywhere in North America, bar none."
But as reported by CBC News, the Ford government initially sought to top up the federal program, rather than create its own. On the same day as Ford's emotional news conference, Ontario's finance minister wrote a letter to the federal government detailing the proposal.
Critics have long pointed out the federal benefit pays less than a full-time minimum wage job, involves days, if not weeks, of processing time and doesn't guarantee job security for workers who use it.
Accessible paid leave needed, science advisory table says
Following the announcement, Ontario's science advisory table responded with a brief that outlined the benefits of an effective sick pay program.
"Ontario workers need 10 days of adequate #PaidSickLeave that is easily accessible, immediately paid and supports them in following all public health measures," Dr. Nathan Stall, a member of the table, tweeted on Wednesday.
"In the United States, the introduction of a temporary paid sick leave resulted in an estimated 50 per cent reduction in the number of COVID-19 cases per state per day," the brief points out.
Asked if the province consulted with its own science advisory table on the plan, the labour minister did not answer definitively.
"We certainly had lots of advice from the medical community," McNaughton said, pivoting to the province's disappointment with the lack of additional sick leave measures in the federal budget.
McNaughton was also asked why it took the province so long to respond to the repeated calls for such a measure. On that, he replied, "We moved decisively when COVID-19 hit the province ... We advocated to the federal government to improve this program."
The province has argued repeatedly that the federal program was adequate as a reason not to implement a provincial program, with Ford saying earlier this year he didn't want to double-up on existing measures.
"We aren't going to duplicate and waste taxpayers' money, double dipping into their pockets," Ford told CTV's Your Morning on Feb. 16.
'3 days of paid sick leave will not cut it'
The cost of the proposal announced today was not included in the provincial budget, unveiled in March.
Unlike Quebec and Prince Edward Island, where sick days are in place permanently, Ontario's proposed program ends in just five months. The province has has passed legislation that protects workers' jobs if they can't work due to a COVID-19 diagnosis.
WATCH | Ontario announces plan for 3 paid sick days at up to $200 per day amid pandemic:
Ontario announces plan for 3 paid sick days at up to $200 per day amid pandemic
1:50 The Ontario government has announced a plan to provide three paid sick days through a temporary program ending in September. Lorenda Reddekopp has the details — and reaction to the announcement.
Speaking to reporters after the announcement, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said, "Three days of paid sick leave will not cut it."
"I don't know where the premier thinks this is the best program in North America. It certainly is not."
Horwath also said that with just three days of sick leave proposed, she fears workers may not be able to self-isolate for the required amount of time if exposed to the virus.
The NDP leader said her party will have to look at the details of the bill before committing to voting to pass it.
Liberal MPP John Fraser also said his party will need to see the legislation before deciding whether to support it.
"For 400 days people had to make the decision between going to work sick or putting food on the table. The government didn't have their backs and I would argue that they don't now," he said.
The Liberals had asked for Ontario to institute 10 paid sick days, Fraser said.
On Monday, the provincial government voted down a Liberal bill that would have required employers to provide workers with 10 paid days for medical emergencies.
According to the Opposition NDP, the vote marked the 25th time the Ford government has voted down a proposal for paid sick days in 2021 alone.
In a statement reacting to the announcement, CUPE Ontario president Fred Hahn said the Ford government had "chosen chaos and confusion" over delivering the type of program Ontarians truly need.
"Everyone engaged here needs to keep fighting for real paid sick days we need: permanent, universal, employer-paid, and accessible. That demand did not let up today. Today's announcement only makes it clearer we must fight to get what every worker so desperately needs."
DEFUND THE POLICE
NYPD cancels use of robotic dog after backlash
The New York Police Department (NYPD) will no longer be using the controversial "robot dog" following mounting uproar against the machine's use, officials confirmed Wednesday.
"People had figured out the catchphrases and the language to somehow make this evil," Miller said.
The NYPD official did not rule out the possibility of the robot, dubbed Digidog, returning in the future.
"But for now, this is a casualty of politics, bad information and cheap sound bytes," he told the Times. "We should have named it 'Lassie.'"
Bill Neidhardt, spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), told the newspaper he was "glad the Digidog was put down," describing it as "creepy" and "alienating."
A spokesperson for Boston Dynamics stated Wednesday that the robot dogs were not designed to be used as weapons and were not meant to intimidate people, the Times reported.
"We support local communities reviewing the allocation of public funds, and believe Spot is a cost-effective tool comparable to historical robotic devices used by public safety to inspect hazardous environments," the spokesperson said.
NYPD cancels use of robotic dog after backlash
The New York Police Department (NYPD) will no longer be using the controversial "robot dog" following mounting uproar against the machine's use, officials confirmed Wednesday.
© Getty NYPD cancels use of robotic dog after backlash
John Miller, NYPD deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, told The New York Times that the leasing contract valued at around $94,000 with the robot dog's maker, Boston Dynamics, had been ended early on April 22.
The action was taken in response to a subpoena issued by New York City Councilman Ben Kallos (D) and Council Speaker Corey Johnson (D) for records relating to the device.
Miller told the newspaper that the robot's lease had initially been scheduled to end in August, but the contract had been terminated earlier because it was being improperly used to fuel arguments about race and surveillance, saying it had become a "target."
John Miller, NYPD deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, told The New York Times that the leasing contract valued at around $94,000 with the robot dog's maker, Boston Dynamics, had been ended early on April 22.
The action was taken in response to a subpoena issued by New York City Councilman Ben Kallos (D) and Council Speaker Corey Johnson (D) for records relating to the device.
Miller told the newspaper that the robot's lease had initially been scheduled to end in August, but the contract had been terminated earlier because it was being improperly used to fuel arguments about race and surveillance, saying it had become a "target."
"People had figured out the catchphrases and the language to somehow make this evil," Miller said.
The NYPD official did not rule out the possibility of the robot, dubbed Digidog, returning in the future.
"But for now, this is a casualty of politics, bad information and cheap sound bytes," he told the Times. "We should have named it 'Lassie.'"
Bill Neidhardt, spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), told the newspaper he was "glad the Digidog was put down," describing it as "creepy" and "alienating."
A spokesperson for Boston Dynamics stated Wednesday that the robot dogs were not designed to be used as weapons and were not meant to intimidate people, the Times reported.
"We support local communities reviewing the allocation of public funds, and believe Spot is a cost-effective tool comparable to historical robotic devices used by public safety to inspect hazardous environments," the spokesperson said.
In February, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) denounced the use of the robot, saying it was being used to target low-income communities of color. The congresswoman also took issue with the funds being used to keep the machine, arguing it should instead go toward schools or other issues."Please ask yourself: when was the last time you saw next-generation, world class technology for education, healthcare, housing, etc consistently prioritized for underserved communities like this?" Ocasio-Cortez tweeted at the time.
#UBI IS #GBI IN CANADA
Kawartha Lakes asking for a federal conversation on basic income
CANADIAN PRESS 4/28/2021
KAWARTHA LAKES: The City of Kawartha Lakes is encouraging the federal government to have a conversation about a possible Guaranteed Basic Income program.
At a meeting on Tuesday, April 20th, councillors saw correspondence from Kawartha Lakes Food Coalition Chair Heather Kirby, Kawartha North Family Health Team Executive Director Marina Hodson and Point in Time Centre for Children, Youth and Parents Executive Director Marg Cox in support of Bill C-273, which is a private members bill. The bill would create a national strategy for the government to enact a guaranteed basic income
One of the letters stated “poverty is not solely an individual’s responsibility; it is systemically rooted in inadequate and insecure income, and the inability to meet the basic needs of life (i.e. housing, clothing, and food).”
“This problem has unquestionably become worse with the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a February 2020 Statistics Canada report, there were approximately 3.2 million Canadians living below Canada's Official Poverty Line–people who do not have enough money to pay rent, buy clothing or put food on their tables. At 13.1 per cent, 9,625 of Kawartha Lakes households are considered low-income,” the letter continued.
A Guaranteed Basic Income is a social welfare system meant to ensure all citizens can afford the basic necessities.
Ward 3 Councillor Doug Elmslie made a motion to have the City send a letter to MP Jamie Schmale and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in support of Bill C-273.
According to the motion, this “would provide much needed answers about how a Guaranteed Basic Income could work in partnership with the Provinces, what effect it would have on the efficiency of Government, how it could support entrepreneurship and job creation in a new economy, how it would impact labour market participation and civic action, and how it would impact recipients and their communities at large.”
Councillor Elmslie explained his motion would be used to simply “get a conversation going.”
“We are writing a letter and asking that a conversation take place, and that a study [be] done to see if this is something worthwhile,” Councillor Elmslie said.
However, Ward 2 Councillor Kathleen Seymour-Fagan questioned council’s jurisdiction in this matter.
“It’s just not our business, and I think we should stay out of this, as we’ve stayed out of the other federal-provincial business,” she said.
Ward 5 Councillor Pat Dunn doesn’t think this is something the federal government can realistically do at this time because of the current deficit.
“The federal government doesn’t have any money. They’re just going into debt and destroying the economic prospects for generations to come,” he stated.
But, after hearing the comments, Councillor Elmslie felt this was still a worthwhile initiative.
“All we are asking here is [to have] a conversation take place, [have] somebody look at it and see if there are merits to it,” he explained.
Councillor Elmslie added he feels this is council’s business “because we look after our citizens.”
Council later voted to approve the motion.
Dan Cearns, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Standard Newspaper
Kawartha Lakes asking for a federal conversation on basic income
CANADIAN PRESS 4/28/2021
KAWARTHA LAKES: The City of Kawartha Lakes is encouraging the federal government to have a conversation about a possible Guaranteed Basic Income program.
At a meeting on Tuesday, April 20th, councillors saw correspondence from Kawartha Lakes Food Coalition Chair Heather Kirby, Kawartha North Family Health Team Executive Director Marina Hodson and Point in Time Centre for Children, Youth and Parents Executive Director Marg Cox in support of Bill C-273, which is a private members bill. The bill would create a national strategy for the government to enact a guaranteed basic income
One of the letters stated “poverty is not solely an individual’s responsibility; it is systemically rooted in inadequate and insecure income, and the inability to meet the basic needs of life (i.e. housing, clothing, and food).”
“This problem has unquestionably become worse with the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a February 2020 Statistics Canada report, there were approximately 3.2 million Canadians living below Canada's Official Poverty Line–people who do not have enough money to pay rent, buy clothing or put food on their tables. At 13.1 per cent, 9,625 of Kawartha Lakes households are considered low-income,” the letter continued.
A Guaranteed Basic Income is a social welfare system meant to ensure all citizens can afford the basic necessities.
Ward 3 Councillor Doug Elmslie made a motion to have the City send a letter to MP Jamie Schmale and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland in support of Bill C-273.
According to the motion, this “would provide much needed answers about how a Guaranteed Basic Income could work in partnership with the Provinces, what effect it would have on the efficiency of Government, how it could support entrepreneurship and job creation in a new economy, how it would impact labour market participation and civic action, and how it would impact recipients and their communities at large.”
Councillor Elmslie explained his motion would be used to simply “get a conversation going.”
“We are writing a letter and asking that a conversation take place, and that a study [be] done to see if this is something worthwhile,” Councillor Elmslie said.
However, Ward 2 Councillor Kathleen Seymour-Fagan questioned council’s jurisdiction in this matter.
“It’s just not our business, and I think we should stay out of this, as we’ve stayed out of the other federal-provincial business,” she said.
Ward 5 Councillor Pat Dunn doesn’t think this is something the federal government can realistically do at this time because of the current deficit.
“The federal government doesn’t have any money. They’re just going into debt and destroying the economic prospects for generations to come,” he stated.
But, after hearing the comments, Councillor Elmslie felt this was still a worthwhile initiative.
“All we are asking here is [to have] a conversation take place, [have] somebody look at it and see if there are merits to it,” he explained.
Councillor Elmslie added he feels this is council’s business “because we look after our citizens.”
Council later voted to approve the motion.
Dan Cearns, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Standard Newspaper
UBI is the Economic Response to Climate Change
| Opinion
Daniel Lehewych
LikeComments
Each day on my way to work, I walk past the Metronome's digital clock in Union Square. As of September 19, 2020, this clock has been re-programmed to show the time remaining until our planet's carbon budget has been used up due to us accelerating climate change. Roughly speaking, we have about six years left to reduce our carbon emissions enough to prevent irreversible damage to our planet—damage which could have devastating consequences regarding the very survival of our species.
Daniel Lehewych
LikeComments
Each day on my way to work, I walk past the Metronome's digital clock in Union Square. As of September 19, 2020, this clock has been re-programmed to show the time remaining until our planet's carbon budget has been used up due to us accelerating climate change. Roughly speaking, we have about six years left to reduce our carbon emissions enough to prevent irreversible damage to our planet—damage which could have devastating consequences regarding the very survival of our species.
© Justin Sullivan/Getty Images U.S. money is pictured.
I have my good days and bad days with respect to my own response to the clock. I often wonder: What will the economy look like when the effects of climate change begin to make some jobs impossible to do?
Generally speaking, I have more bad days than good. The clock does not account for many tipping-points which we are rapidly approaching. With continued increases—rather than the ideal decreases, or at least neutrality—of greenhouse emissions, we truly cannot afford to waste any more time combating climate change.
It is predicted that sufficient responses to climate change will, in the long-term, result in greater innovation, job creation and economic growth. A nuanced discussion is warranted. In the short-term, massive job losses in carbon-centric sectors will occur and it is not obvious how to accommodate those who will lose their jobs. Hence the "learn to code" internet meme, illustrating the callus notion that, after decades in a profession, workers can simply be re-trained to do a very different task.
What is the appropriate reaction to job losses that have nothing to do with the person who lost their job? What is the appropriate reaction to a deepening abyss of fewer jobs because of climate change?
An option that has been growing in popularity is known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is when a government regularly gives its constituents enough money to meet their basic needs, like buying food and securing shelter. The proposal here is quite straight forward: When and if climate change makes obtaining basic needs a common and salient struggle, the government ought to provide those basic needs. Early research indicated that UBI improved educational attainment, lowered the cost of health care, increased the rate of entrepreneurial success and pursual and marked of self-reported well-being progress.
UBI ANDREW YANG
How will this be paid for? The tax bracket is going to decrease as the job market thins out, but those who are still in the tax bracket are very likely to be wealthy. Corporations will continue to horde the majority of the wealth and this will only deepen as companies begin to develop complex artificial intelligence, along with other technological advances.
Their tax revenue is what will pay for this. Having a system in place where people's basic needs are met, in theory, allows for a form of capitalism where everyone doesn't start at zero. The hope under that reality would help prevent the inertia that is all but certain to manifest if we fail to implement any economic solution to the threat of climate change. And in place of this inertia is room for people to explore what actually matters to them and to be capable of making a living based on these explorations—something which is incredibly difficult to do under our current economic system.
The more time we wait, the less likely it will be that this sort of system will have these intended effects. What use is freeing a society to explore its true interests if where people live becomes uninhabitable? In light of this, UBI and its related changes ought to be implemented before we reach points of no return with respect to climate change. As we learned with COVID-19, scrambling to implement massive economic policy after attempting to resolve something after the fact is too late to actually fix anything in any real sense.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari, in response to the prospect of automation radically overhauling our economy, referred to this state-of-affairs as consisting of a brand-new economic class: namely, the "useless class." It is conceptually possible that, what is now understood as "working class" or "lower-middle class" work, will become a relic of the past.
Under automation, it will be because technology has overtaken the load of such work. But under climate change, it will be because geographic places of civilization will become less and less inhabitable overtime. The International Labour Organization predicted that as soon as 2030, "2.2 per cent of total working hours worldwide will be lost because of higher temperatures, a loss equivalent to 80 million full-time jobs. This is equivalent to global economic losses of US$2,400 billion." One can only begin to imagine what this will look like past 2030 if nothing changes.
The loss of jobs as a result of the negative effects of climate change is not a hypothesis or dystopian philosophical thought. Right now, in places where climate change's effects have already been particularly vicious, excess job losses have been reported—though they've generally been underreported.
Africa saw an acceleration in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters over the past few years, and the economic implications of this new trend have been damaging. Here in the United States, the massive wildfires on the west coast have forced thousands of people from their homes, with no shelter to return to; not to mention the massive economic cost of these wildfires, including hospital costs, the cost of lost days at work, the closure of businesses due to their being destroyed by the fires, partially-functioning businesses and even the long-term loss of work due to severe health complications.
Aside from the necessity of having conversations about climate change's short-term consequences, if humanity is to continue to survive and flourish, we must keep the long-term future in mind.
With the potential for climate change to irreversibly escalate, what economic plans have been tangibly put into place to accommodate for mass job losses, with the potential for large-scale losses of basic needs like food and shelter? What plans have been conceived of to deal with these economic issues?
President Joe Biden's climate plan is to transform the economy into a clean energy powerhouse, effectively transferring all of the U.S.' energy sources to clean sources by 2030. But by 2030 it will be too late. This isn't to say we shouldn't have such a shift in our energy sources, but what are we to do on the occasion that, when this new infrastructure is finished being built, we were too little too late?
What about the Paris agreement's economic plan? Their key economic proposals are based on the assumption of global cooperation and adaptation to the looming concern of climate change. This—in part due to an increase of nationalism across the world—is profoundly unlikely to happen.
Think about the world's response to COVID-19. While there was an impressive level of cooperation, it was nowhere near enough to mitigate the negative consequences of the pandemic. Former President Donald Trump was not the only world leader who publicly denied the existence of climate change. The policy decisions of many who publicly acknowledge climate change indicate just as much negligence as those who publicly deny it. And there is an astonishing number of current members of Congress—those who play a massive role in determining U.S. climate policy—who deny the existence or significance of climate change.
What hope, then, is there for true cooperation globally? The Paris climate plan needs to account for the extreme unlikelihood of global cooperation. The U.N. does not have the power to force Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping to cooperate with reducing the problem of climate change, nor does any single country.
I am not convinced that enough of the human population has enough empathy or care to give up their lifestyle of excess consumption of commodities in time to mitigate the risk of climate change. It is truly a rose-colored glasses notion to expect people to give up eating meat, using their phones and continuing to purchase the latest gadget in the name of saving the planet. Most of us already know about the risks of this lifestyle with respect to climate change, so if the change was going to happen, it already would have happened. Our immersion in market culture and the mindset of viewing the world as having resources to exploit is too deep to pull out from in time.
In light of the growing existential threats of climate change and automation—not to mention cyber warfare and nuclear proliferation—we can no longer afford to treat these threats as if they're mere science fiction. These threats are actual at this point, not potential. Real solutions must be implemented.
At the moment, there has been little progress in our ability to come up with such solutions. UBI is important because it is the only thoroughly thought out plan to face these challenges. Implementing it is worth the shot—it is surely better than doing nothing.
Daniel Lehewych is a graduate student of philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center, specializing in moral psychology, ethics and the philosophy of mind. He is a freelance writer, powerlifter and health science enthusiast.
I have my good days and bad days with respect to my own response to the clock. I often wonder: What will the economy look like when the effects of climate change begin to make some jobs impossible to do?
Generally speaking, I have more bad days than good. The clock does not account for many tipping-points which we are rapidly approaching. With continued increases—rather than the ideal decreases, or at least neutrality—of greenhouse emissions, we truly cannot afford to waste any more time combating climate change.
It is predicted that sufficient responses to climate change will, in the long-term, result in greater innovation, job creation and economic growth. A nuanced discussion is warranted. In the short-term, massive job losses in carbon-centric sectors will occur and it is not obvious how to accommodate those who will lose their jobs. Hence the "learn to code" internet meme, illustrating the callus notion that, after decades in a profession, workers can simply be re-trained to do a very different task.
What is the appropriate reaction to job losses that have nothing to do with the person who lost their job? What is the appropriate reaction to a deepening abyss of fewer jobs because of climate change?
An option that has been growing in popularity is known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is when a government regularly gives its constituents enough money to meet their basic needs, like buying food and securing shelter. The proposal here is quite straight forward: When and if climate change makes obtaining basic needs a common and salient struggle, the government ought to provide those basic needs. Early research indicated that UBI improved educational attainment, lowered the cost of health care, increased the rate of entrepreneurial success and pursual and marked of self-reported well-being progress.
UBI ANDREW YANG
How will this be paid for? The tax bracket is going to decrease as the job market thins out, but those who are still in the tax bracket are very likely to be wealthy. Corporations will continue to horde the majority of the wealth and this will only deepen as companies begin to develop complex artificial intelligence, along with other technological advances.
Their tax revenue is what will pay for this. Having a system in place where people's basic needs are met, in theory, allows for a form of capitalism where everyone doesn't start at zero. The hope under that reality would help prevent the inertia that is all but certain to manifest if we fail to implement any economic solution to the threat of climate change. And in place of this inertia is room for people to explore what actually matters to them and to be capable of making a living based on these explorations—something which is incredibly difficult to do under our current economic system.
The more time we wait, the less likely it will be that this sort of system will have these intended effects. What use is freeing a society to explore its true interests if where people live becomes uninhabitable? In light of this, UBI and its related changes ought to be implemented before we reach points of no return with respect to climate change. As we learned with COVID-19, scrambling to implement massive economic policy after attempting to resolve something after the fact is too late to actually fix anything in any real sense.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari, in response to the prospect of automation radically overhauling our economy, referred to this state-of-affairs as consisting of a brand-new economic class: namely, the "useless class." It is conceptually possible that, what is now understood as "working class" or "lower-middle class" work, will become a relic of the past.
Under automation, it will be because technology has overtaken the load of such work. But under climate change, it will be because geographic places of civilization will become less and less inhabitable overtime. The International Labour Organization predicted that as soon as 2030, "2.2 per cent of total working hours worldwide will be lost because of higher temperatures, a loss equivalent to 80 million full-time jobs. This is equivalent to global economic losses of US$2,400 billion." One can only begin to imagine what this will look like past 2030 if nothing changes.
The loss of jobs as a result of the negative effects of climate change is not a hypothesis or dystopian philosophical thought. Right now, in places where climate change's effects have already been particularly vicious, excess job losses have been reported—though they've generally been underreported.
Africa saw an acceleration in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters over the past few years, and the economic implications of this new trend have been damaging. Here in the United States, the massive wildfires on the west coast have forced thousands of people from their homes, with no shelter to return to; not to mention the massive economic cost of these wildfires, including hospital costs, the cost of lost days at work, the closure of businesses due to their being destroyed by the fires, partially-functioning businesses and even the long-term loss of work due to severe health complications.
Aside from the necessity of having conversations about climate change's short-term consequences, if humanity is to continue to survive and flourish, we must keep the long-term future in mind.
With the potential for climate change to irreversibly escalate, what economic plans have been tangibly put into place to accommodate for mass job losses, with the potential for large-scale losses of basic needs like food and shelter? What plans have been conceived of to deal with these economic issues?
President Joe Biden's climate plan is to transform the economy into a clean energy powerhouse, effectively transferring all of the U.S.' energy sources to clean sources by 2030. But by 2030 it will be too late. This isn't to say we shouldn't have such a shift in our energy sources, but what are we to do on the occasion that, when this new infrastructure is finished being built, we were too little too late?
What about the Paris agreement's economic plan? Their key economic proposals are based on the assumption of global cooperation and adaptation to the looming concern of climate change. This—in part due to an increase of nationalism across the world—is profoundly unlikely to happen.
Think about the world's response to COVID-19. While there was an impressive level of cooperation, it was nowhere near enough to mitigate the negative consequences of the pandemic. Former President Donald Trump was not the only world leader who publicly denied the existence of climate change. The policy decisions of many who publicly acknowledge climate change indicate just as much negligence as those who publicly deny it. And there is an astonishing number of current members of Congress—those who play a massive role in determining U.S. climate policy—who deny the existence or significance of climate change.
What hope, then, is there for true cooperation globally? The Paris climate plan needs to account for the extreme unlikelihood of global cooperation. The U.N. does not have the power to force Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping to cooperate with reducing the problem of climate change, nor does any single country.
I am not convinced that enough of the human population has enough empathy or care to give up their lifestyle of excess consumption of commodities in time to mitigate the risk of climate change. It is truly a rose-colored glasses notion to expect people to give up eating meat, using their phones and continuing to purchase the latest gadget in the name of saving the planet. Most of us already know about the risks of this lifestyle with respect to climate change, so if the change was going to happen, it already would have happened. Our immersion in market culture and the mindset of viewing the world as having resources to exploit is too deep to pull out from in time.
In light of the growing existential threats of climate change and automation—not to mention cyber warfare and nuclear proliferation—we can no longer afford to treat these threats as if they're mere science fiction. These threats are actual at this point, not potential. Real solutions must be implemented.
At the moment, there has been little progress in our ability to come up with such solutions. UBI is important because it is the only thoroughly thought out plan to face these challenges. Implementing it is worth the shot—it is surely better than doing nothing.
Daniel Lehewych is a graduate student of philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center, specializing in moral psychology, ethics and the philosophy of mind. He is a freelance writer, powerlifter and health science enthusiast.
MPs pass back-to-work bill to end Port of Montreal strike
BACK TO WORK ORDERS VIOLATE THE ILO BILL OF LABOUR RIGHTS
Duration: 03:26
Duration: 03:26
7 hrs ago
The House of Commons approved legislation early Thursday morning to put an end to a strike that has shut down the Port of Montreal, one of Canada's busiest.
The House of Commons approved legislation early Thursday morning to put an end to a strike that has shut down the Port of Montreal, one of Canada's busiest.
AFTER PASSING IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE SENATE FOR THEIR APPROVAL TODAY.
In more than 100 countries, including Canada, Apr. 28 is the day set aside to honour and remember workers who have suffered injuries, disabilities, suffer occupational diseases or were killed on the job.
The origins of the day go back almost 100 years, when Ontario first announced the Workers Compensation Act in Canada on Apr. 28, 1914. Later, in 1984, the Convention of the Canadian Labour Congress adopted a resolution declaring the day as a national day of mourning in honour of those workers.
Labour organizations around the world began recognizing the day of mourning, also known as the workers memorial day.
The Canadian labour movement lobbied for legislation to identify April 28 as a National Day of Mourning and in February 1991, the federal government passed the Workers Mourning Day Act, Bill C-223. Similar legislation was passed in New Brunswick in 2000.
Day of Mourning monuments have been erected across Canada, and on Apr. 28 on Parliament Hill, the Canadian flag flies at half-mast. Workers observe the day by lighting candles, wearing ribbons and black armbands and laying wreaths at the foot of monuments.
Many of the monuments carry the inscription “Fight for the Living, Mourn for the Dead”.
It is a day to honour the dead, and a reminder to protect the safety of all workers.
“Mourn for Dead and Fight for the Living is the phrase that has embraced the annual Day of Mourning since its inception over 30 years ago,” said Dave Trumble, vice president of the Grey Bruce Labour Council. “Never forgetting those that died, were injured or made ill for a paycheque is an eternal sign of respect. Rededicating ourselves to stop workplace carnage is how we honour those that have gone before us and how we say to those yet to come that work is not a place where you will suffer or die to support your family and yourself.”
According to 2018 statistics, 1,027 people died of work-related causes in 2018 in Canada. That’s nearly three people every day. (source: Ontario Health and Safety Magazine Canada)
In Ontario, according to WSIB , the Ministry of Labour and the Chief Prevention Office, 190 people died from a work-related injury or illness in Ontario in 2019. (source: wsibstatistics.ca)
Trumble estimates there are approximately 300,000 injuries reported annually in Ontario and “any injury or fatality is one too many.”
Tammy Lindsay Schneider, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Kincardine Independent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)