radiofree.asia

Category: inequality

  • Shell’s latest news confirms what we already knew: it’s a planet-wrecking, p*ss-hole-in-the-snow-making disgrace

    On Thursday 14 March, UK oil and gas giant Shell watered down key targets on cutting carbon emissions, sparking anger from climate campaigners – but still somehow kept its now-nonsense pledge for net zero by 2050. “Piss holes in the snow”, one writer called it. On top of this, Shell also revealed it paid its CEO an eye-watering £8m last year – igniting yet more fury.

    The planet-wrecking company, which is investing heavily in renewables, revealed the news in an energy transition update published alongside its annual report. Shell said it had diluted its climate targets, including on “net carbon intensity”, a measurement of emissions produced by each unit of energy sold by Shell.

    Shell: cutting climate targets when it was doing the bare minimum already

    Shell said net carbon intensity would be cut 15-20% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels. That marked a dilution from its previous 20% target due to a slowdown in electricity sales.

    It similarly reduced a target on curbing customer emissions from the use of Shell oil products.

    Shell added that it would drop a plan to slash net carbon intensity by 45% by 2035 due to “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition”. However, it still targets a 100% reduction by 2050 – if you can believe it.

    In obviously utterly unrelated news, one X user pointed out:

    Climate crisis campaigners lashed out at the company’s latest net zero stance, arguing it was counter to the 2015 Paris climate accord, which seeks to limit the increase in average global temperatures to 1.5°c above pre-industrial levels.

    Environmental activist shareholders’ group Follow This said:

    Shell backtracks on climate targets… [betting] on the failure of the Paris climate agreement. The company wants to stay in fossil fuels as long as possible… [this] not only endangers the global economy by exacerbating the climate crisis but also puts the company’s future at risk.

    However, Shell insisted it sought a “balanced and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy solutions to maintain secure and affordable energy supplies”.

    Barely a ‘piss hole in the snow’

    Shell still aims to halve emissions generated by its own operations – so-called Scope 1 and 2 activities – by 2030 compared with 2016. It achieved 60% of this target by the end of 2023.

    However, this doesn’t include Shell’s Scope 3 activities – the amount of emissions its products create when people/businesses use them. As Clean Technica wrote:

    Shell’s… Energy Transition Progress Report for 2022… speaks in glowing terms of the progress it has made in reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. The problem, however, is that its Scope 3 emissions equal 95% of the total emissions attributable to its business, so those reductions don’t amount to a piss hole in the snow in the overall scheme of things.

    As one X user pointed out in an interesting thread:

    Of course, its CEO seemed immune to this. Wael Sawan said in Shell’s update:

    Today, the world must meet growing demand for energy while tackling the urgent challenge of climate change.

    Easy for him to say when he pocketed £8m last year, as Shell has also just revealed.

    £8m a year for destroying the planet. Thanks, Shell.

    That sparked additional fury at a time when millions of Britons are still struggling under a cost-of-living crisis sparked by elevated domestic energy bills.

    Jonathan Noronha-Gant, senior fossil fuels campaigner at campaign group Global Witness, said:

    Shell’s CEO pay packet is a bitter pill to swallow for the millions of workers living with the high costs of energy.

    Meanwhile, Andrew Speke, spokesperson for the High Pay Centre, a think tank focused on pay, corporate governance and responsible business, has responded to Shell’s latest annual report. He argues that the £8m paid to its CEO alongside the watering down of its climate targets, shows that big energy companies like Shell are working against the interests of people and planet:

    Whether it’s ordinary people struggling with paying their energy bills or the growing threat of catastrophic climate change, what today’s annual report shows is that these are not major concerns for Shell PLC, which is more interested in prioritising the enrichment of their executives and shareholders.

    This is evidence of the urgent need to reform company law, to replace shareholder primacy with a model which places other stakeholders such as workers, consumers and the environment on an equal footing with shareholders, to force companies like Shell to address excessive executive pay and change its practices to support the fight against climate change.

    Featured image via Greenpeace

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Republicans Aren’t Done Threatening the Hungry With Planned Cuts to Food Aid

    As the fiscal 2024 budget battle unfolded, congressional Republicans made their position clear — they wanted spending on anti-poverty efforts to be dramatically slashed. Among the cutback targets were two longstanding nutrition programs: the nearly 50-year-old Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, and the 60-year-old Supplemental Nutrition Assistance…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 16 Million Americans Have Lost Health Care Coverage Since March 2023

    The slang definition of “unwinding” means “to chill.” Other definitions include: to relax, disentangle, undo — all words that, on the surface, appear both passive and peaceful. And yet in Google searches involving such seemingly harmless definitions of decompressing and resting, news articles abound about the end of pandemic-era Medicaid expansion programs — a topic that, for the millions of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • What Haiti Needs Is a Path to Fair Elections — Not More Military Interventions

    The past few days have seen unprecedented violence and an escalated humanitarian crisis in Haiti that has reached unimaginable proportions. De facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who was traveling this past weekend, is unable to return to Haiti as gang leaders threaten to create even more chaos if he returns. Meanwhile according to Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, the U.S.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Applause for Lunar Failure Follows Decades of Space Program Cheerleading

     

    “In a historic lunar accomplishment, the first private spacecraft to land successfully on the Moon touched down on February 22,” the journal Nature (2/23/24) trumpeted the following day.

    That first paragraph of its story began under a photograph of the spacecraft and the caption: “The spacecraft Odysseus passed over the Moon on 21 February before successfully landing on 22 February.” The photo was credited to “Intuitive Machines/NASA CLPS.”

    ABC News: Mission to the Moon

    ABC‘s David Muir (2/22/24): “We have just learned now the landing was a success.”

    ABC News anchor David Muir (2/22/24) opened the network’s evening broadcast the day of the touchdown with news of “the first US attempt at landing on the Moon in more than 50 years.”

    “We have just learned now the landing was a success,” Muir said.

    TV network coverage included celebratory applause in the mission’s control room in Houston, and NASA administrator Bill Nelson (CNN, 2/23/24) declaring: “The US has returned to the Moon. Today is a day that shows the power and promise of NASA’s commercial partnerships.”

    ‘Still a success’?

    NASA paid Intuitive Machines $118 million to design, build and fly Odysseus.

    “Houston, Odysseus has found its new home,” declared Stephen Altemus (USA Today, 2/22/24), the company’s president and CEO.

    But success turned out not to be the best word to describe what happened.

    AP: Private US moon lander still working after breaking leg and falling, but not for long

    AP (2/25/24): “The first private US spacecraft to land on the moon broke a leg at touchdown before falling over.”

    As the Associated Press reported on February 25:

    The first private US spacecraft to land on the Moon broke a leg at touchdown before falling over, according to company officials who said Wednesday it was on the verge of losing power.

    “The lander came in too fast, skidded and tumbled over as it touched down near the Moon’s south pole last week,” said Altemus. The lander, named Odysseus, was still alive and generating solar power but expected to go silent soon. Late Wednesday night, the company said the lander might linger into Thursday.

    AP’s aerospace writer, Marcia Dunn, quoted Altemus saying that flight controllers would “’tuck Odie in for the cold night of the Moon’ so in two to three weeks, once lunar night lifts, they can try to regain contact.”

    But, her piece continued: “Mission director Tim Crain said it’s uncertain if Odysseus will wake up. The extreme cold of the lunar night could crack the electronics and kill the batteries.”

    Still, the headline of USA Today on February 28 was “Odysseus Lander Tipped Over on the Moon: Here’s Why NASA Says the Mission Was Still a Success.” The article began:

    The Odysseus lunar lander came in hot and fast during a dramatic Moon landing a week ago, which appeared to send the spacecraft toppling onto its side. The position of the craft seemed to obstruct some of its antennas from pointing toward Earth, while its solar panels were in far from an ideal position to generate energy from the overhead sun. Flight controllers feared the worst and raced against time to get as much data as they could before the energy-deprived Odysseus heaved its final gasp and went silent. But concerns that the sideways landing spelled doom for the mission have been naught: As of Wednesday afternoon, Odysseus is still beaming back valuable intel.

    On Thursday, February 29, Odysseus fell silent.

    ‘Love affair with space program’

    The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat to Our Planet

    (Common Courage, 1997)

    From the start, much of the media have been highly supportive of the space program—serving, indeed, as cheerleaders. I wrote the book The Wrong Stuff, about the use of atomic power and nuclear material in space, after breaking the story in The Nation in 1986 on how the next mission of the ill-fated Challenger space shuttle would have involved lofting a plutonium-fueled space probe.

    In the book, I cited an article by William Boot, “NASA and the Spellbound Press,” that appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review (7/1/86), of which he was former editor. He found “gullibility” in the press:

    Dazzled by the space agency’s image of technological brilliant, space reporters spared NASA the thorough scrutiny that might have improved chances of averting tragedy—through hard-hitting investigations drawing Congress’s wandering attention to the issue of shuttle safety.

    “US journalists have long had a love affair with the space program,” Boot said. “In the pre-[Challenger] explosion days, many space reporters appeared to regard themselves as participants, along with NASA, in a great cosmic quest. Transcripts of NASA press conferences reveal that it was not unusual for reporters to use the first-person plural,” wrote Boot, with such statements such as, “When are we going to launch?”

    I interviewed John Noble Wilford, space reporter for the New York Times, who acknowledged that

    there’s still a lot of space reporters who are groupies. Some are turned on by rockets and science fiction, and they got into it because of that, and they tend to be the least critical. They go along because it’s fun. But I think the mainline reporters are more skeptical when NASA says this, this and this.

    Still, Wilford said, “some of the things that NASA does are so great, so marvelous, so it’s easy to forget to be critical.”

    In his book Mars Beckons: The Great Mysteries, the Challenges, the Expectations of Our Next Great Adventure in Space (Knopf, 1990), Wilford himself perhaps forgot to be critical. He waxed poetic about how “a fleet of cargo ships, possibly powered by a new kind of rocket using nuclear-electric propulsion,” would provide supplies for a base on the Moon. From there, on a nuclear-powered rocket, Wilford wrote, “people would be ready to make the greater stride, to Mars.”

    CBS reporter Bruce Hall, who covered the space program, had an article in Editor & Publisher (7/12/86) headlined “Could the Media Have Prevented Shuttle Disaster?” Hall wrote:

    We now know that NASA was playing space-age Russian roulette and lost…. We had become lackadaisical. We were being spoonfed by a very good NASA public affairs office. And when we did turn up something, editors and show producers had no interest.

    ‘No second home’

    Discover: What Would a Trip to Mars Look Like For a Tourist?

    Discover (9/8/23) points to “major challenges right now that would largely preclude tourists from visiting Mars, mostly because of the radiation…which can damage the human body and cause all sorts of degenerative diseases.”

    In recent times, there has been some more critical reporting on space issues. In a recent issue of Discover magazine (9/8/23), “Road Trip to the Red Planet,” Sara Novak wrote about “what it would be like to stay or live on Mars.” Putting a damper on billionaire fantasies of Mars colonization, she noted, “Mars is an arid, inhospitable desert, with temperatures reaching minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit regularly.”

    What’s more, the Red Planet would not be “habitable without spacesuits and a completely enclosed environment, because the planet’s air is about 95% carbon dioxide.” Novak added:

    Colonists on Mars would face other challenges, too. For starters, it would be difficult to grow plants in Mars’ regolith, or soil, which contains poisonous compounds of chlorine in molecules called perchlorates. All of the elements that we take for granted on Earth would not exist on Mars.

    Or take the book published last year, A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? (PenguinRandomHouse, 2023). In it, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith wrote:

    The truth is that settling other worlds, in the sense of creating self-sustaining societies somewhere away from Earth, is not only quite unlikely anytime soon, it won’t deliver on the benefits touted by advocates. No vast riches, no new independent nations, no second home for humanity, not even a safety bunker for ultra elites. Yet we find ourselves in a world where space agencies, huge corporations, and media-savvy billionaires are promising something else. According to them, settlements are coming, perhaps as soon as 2050 or so.

    The Weinersmiths provided a reality check: “Even if we thought space settlements would take pressure off of Earth’s seas and lands, they will absolutely not arrive in time to thwart an environmental calamity.”

    Fantasies of escape

    Jacobin: Get These Rich People Off the Moon

    Jacobin (2/23/24) notes that Elon Musk has proposed “an indentured labor package where workers take out a loan to pay for their tickets” to Mars.

    Or consider the article last month in Jacobin (2/23/24), “Get These Rich People Off the Moon”:

    Texas start-up Intuitive Machines has achieved the first Moon landing by a private firm. It’s dumping rich people’s detritus on the lunar surface—a grim sign of how the superrich plan to plant their flag beyond our own planet…. As well as a lot of expensive thing-a-me-scopes, the company dropped off Jeff Koons’ prized marbles…a set of 125 one-inch balls representing the eight phases of the Moon in different colors.

    Author Peter Howson noted that

    Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander had been supposed to dispose of at least 70 dead rich people (and one rich dog) on the lunar surface…. Elon Musk famously sent a Tesla Roadster as the dummy payload for the 2018 Falon Heavy test flight…. Other than allowing billionaires and private companies to benefit from taxpayer-funded pipe dreams and advertising, the value of going to the Moon for all mankind is not at all clear.

    Peregrine’s failed Moon mission in January carried the ashes of science fiction writers Arthur C. Clarke and Gene Roddenberry, along with five NASA experiments. NASA paid Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic $108 million toward that mission, which underwent what was described  by the New York Times (1/18/24) as a “propulsion malfunction” that led to it being aimed back at the Earth. “American Company’s Moon Lander Disintegrates in Earth’s Atmosphere” was the headline of the Times‘ piece, by Kenneth Chang who, the Times noted, “has reported on four failed Moon lander missions, and three successful landings, since 2019.”

    The Times last month also ran a piece (1/19/24) headlined “Racing to Land, or Crash, on the Moon.” One part was headed, “64 Years of Moon Crashes.” It said:

    Robotic spacecraft have made a series of impacts, belly flops and hard landings—some intentional, others unplanned—since 1959, when the Soviet Union’s Luna 2 became the first probe to hit the Moon.

    Space “is one of the most extreme environments imaginable,” as the European Space Agency emphasizes on its website.

    Insert atomic power—and NASA is now again moving ahead with nuclear-propelled rocket projects—and use of nuclear materials into the equation, and the threats to life are many, many times multiplied.

    We reside on this exquisite blue marble in space that sustains life—and we so need to be stewards caring for the Earth, not indulging in dangerous, ultra-expensive and most dubious fantasies of escape.

    The post Applause for Lunar Failure Follows Decades of Space Program Cheerleading appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Sticky floors: only 26% of working-class female professionals have been offered a promotion

    New research has shown that just 26% of professional women from working class backgrounds have received a promotion at their current company – less than half the number of women from upper-middle class backgrounds (59%). Moreover, around 50% of working-class women’s pay is not equal to their peers.

    International Women’s Day?

    In light of International Women’s Day this Friday 8 March, specialist recruitment company Robert Walters releases new figures on the pay and progression of women from working class backgrounds in the UK & Ireland.

    Social Mobility’s 2023 report found that on average, professionals from working class backgrounds are paid 12% less a year – which means they are working one out of every eight days for free.

    However, new research from Robert Walters’ annual Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion report highlights how inequalities are disproportionately impacting working class women’s rates of progression and pay – as they are forced to carry the double burden of both class and gender pay gaps.

    Coral Bamgboye, head of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at Robert Walters UK said:

    We are conscious of the glass ceiling stalling the progression of female professionals however, our research attests to ‘sticky floors’ placing further constraints on female professionals from working class backgrounds.

    Progression obstructed

    Just a quarter (26%) of women from working class backgrounds have received a promotion at their current company – 20% less than their male counterparts and 34% less than women from upper-middle class backgrounds.

    Not only that, but 32% of them report not being at all aware of what they need to do to get a promotion – the highest across gender & socio-economic class.

    Bamgboye commented that:

    The poor promotion rate of working-class women is closely tied in with their limited awareness of the steps necessary to secure one.

    Disparities start to form right from higher education when it comes to career advancement – with working class women struggling to easily access or afford career advice, work experience or unpaid internships at school, right through to mentorship opportunities goal-setting resources and clear pathways upwards at work.

    This has a knock-on impact on progression – leading them to become stuck in junior positions on significantly lower rates of pay.

    Working-class women’s rates of pay lag

    Women from working class backgrounds bear a double burden when it comes to pay – grappling with both the class pay gap of 12% and the gender pay gap which sits at 7.7% for full-time employees in the UK.

    The Robert Walters report found that 52% felt underpaid at work – 17% more than women from upper-middle class backgrounds.

    Whilst 50% of women from working class backgrounds experience a salary ceiling of £21k – twice the rate of men from similar backgrounds (25%) and 32% more than female professionals from upper-middle class backgrounds (18%).

    The gaps are even more pronounced further up pay brackets – just 1% of working-class women are earning between £55-100k (group least likely to be earning in this bracket) – compared to 19% of women and 29% of men from upper-middle class backgrounds.

    The cost of living bites and pay negotiations fall flat

    A recent study by money.co.uk found that on average, women save 35% less than men – so, they have less of a safety net from cost-of-living hikes.

    Robert Walters’ report found that women from working class backgrounds are most likely to either be living paycheque-to-paycheque (31%) or relying on additional streams of income (20%) – 14% more than men from similar backgrounds and over double the number of men from upper-middle class backgrounds.

    Despite being on the lowest rates of pay, over two-thirds (64%) of women from working class backgrounds haven’t negotiated for a raise in their entire career (the highest across all genders and socio-economic groups).

    Factors preventing them from negotiating:

    • 26% did not think their employer would offer them a pay-rise – 10% more than upper-middle class women
    • 22% lacked the confidence to negotiate – 10% more than men from similar backgrounds
    • 12% did not negotiate due to their company’s low profit / cost cuts – twice the amount of men from similar backgrounds

    Of those who did negotiate, 26% received less than half of their desired raise and nearly a third (32%) did not receive any of raise at all. Meanwhile, 64% of men from upper-middle class backgrounds received between 50-100% of what they negotiated for.

    Working-class women still discriminated against

    Bamgboye summed up:

    It’s clear to see why rates of pay for women from working class backgrounds are lagging and the ‘sticky floor’ problem persists – with employees suffering increasing pay instability as the cost of living continues to rise.

    What is more, when this group feel empowered to negotiate for more, they are then faced with diminished chances of success. Therefore, as businesses we have a role to do more than simply advertise that ‘these advancement opportunities exist.

    Featured image via oneinchpunchphotos – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Zarah Sultana came out in support of poverty protesters – while the Hunt in parliament did nothing for them

    Campaigners across the UK have been demanding that the Tories sort out rip-off energy bills. This saw protests from Newcastle to Bristol – with one directly outside parliament featuring Labour MP Zarah Sultana, just as the chancellor was delivering his Budget.

    Energy bills: nothing in the budget

    On Wednesday 6 March, the day of the final Budget announcement before a general election, groups joined together across the UK to protest after years of government policy leaving families struggling to make ends meet and costing lives.

    Participants expressed anger at another feeble budget which offered few crumbs of comfort to those suffering most from high energy bills. The chancellor failed to close the 91% loophole in windfall taxes, and failed to invest in the green jobs that would deliver cheaper home-grown energy for us all, and healthier homes.

    Stu Bretherton, Energy For All campaign coordinator at Fuel Poverty Action said:

    Hopefully today will be the last budget of a government that has driven mass poverty, broken public services, illness and death. But none of the parties are offering the bold changes that we desperately need so today we’re seeing trade unions, pensioners, tenants and health workers Unite for Energy For All.

    The next government’s energy policy should set their goal at ending fuel poverty, not managing it, and the money is there in energy company profits to guarantee a basic supply of energy for all.

    Cold homes kill

    The participants pointed to 4,950 excess deaths during the winter of 2022/23, demanding the next government take action to prevent further loss of life through an Energy For All guarantee, along with a national retrofitting scheme and public ownership of the energy sector. All this would reduce energy bills.

    Dr Isobel Braithwaite, a housing and health researcher at University College London, said:

    So much preventable illness is caused or worsened by living in cold damp homes, and healthcare workers see the impacts of poor housing conditions in clinics and hospitals every day. This government should be doing everything it can to bring down energy costs and upgrade housing.

    But right now, Government subsidies for oil and gas extraction, together with expensive energy bills, are enabling fossil fuel companies to make record profits whilst people struggle to heat their homes.

    A transition to cheap, clean, renewable energy that looks after our health and that of our planet, and retrofitting our homes so they waste less energy and stay warmer in winter, are urgently needed public health interventions that could save thousands of lives each year.

    Events highlighted deaths from cold and damp homes in support of the Unite 4 Energy For All campaign. The campaign was launched by Unite Community in 2023 in support of Fuel Poverty Action’s Energy For All demand.

    Protests across the UK over energy bills

    Unite National Officer for Energy, Simon Coop, said:

    Greedy governments and callous corporations are blighting the lives of millions. Every household must be guaranteed enough energy to cover essential needs. No one should be forced to choose between heating or eating. Last year alone, private firms reported profits of £45 billion from our country’s domestic energy system. It must stop.

    The day kicked off with a ‘Cold Homes Kill’ banner drop during the morning rush hour in Chesterfield:

    Protestors caught the attention of passengers at Birmingham New Street Station, where a die-in was held symbolising those killed by the conditions of their homes and extortionate energy bills:

    Mock funeral processions passed through the Arndale Centre in Manchester:

    One also happened in Leeds, from the bus station to the BBC studios:

    funeral procession in Leeds over energy bills

    Events involved among others members of Fuel Poverty Action, Unite Community, the National Pensioners Convention, Disabled People Against Cuts, Friends of the Earth, and health workers from Medact.

    Meanwhile, locals held outreach and information stalls on energy bills in around 15 towns across England, Wales, and Scotland – including Newcastle:

    Ipswich:

    energy bills stall ipswich

    And Swansea:

    Matthew Knight, a coctor in Bradford who joined the day said:

    As doctors, all through winter we are seeing patients coming into hospital with illnesses that have been caused or worsened by living in cold and damp homes. If this government wants to reduce the burden on the NHS, it should be tackling the determinants of health, in case this by bringing down energy costs and insulating homes.

    We need to transition to cheap, clean, renewable energy that looks after the health of people and our planet, instead of lining the pockets of shareholders.

    Drowning out the Hunt in parliament

    One of the largest demonstrations took place in Westminster itself, where people chanted as the Budget was being read by the chancellor. The crowd were addressed by individuals with direct experience of fuel poverty, rip-off energy bills, and cold homes, as well as organisers and members of parliament including Labour MPs Zahra Sultana and Kim Johnson:

    National Pensioners Convention general secretary Jan Shortt said:

    With a staggering 5.3 million now in debt to their providers due to years of rocketing costs, even a lower price cap on energy bills in April is unlikely to help them pay off what they owe. Worse still, those who have been forced onto pre-payment energy meters (PPMs) will simply be cut off and left in the cold because they cannot afford to top them up. This can only serve to endanger more lives.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary and Fuel Poverty Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Spring Budget can’t mask new analysis showing 20-year low for public sector pay

    New analysis by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has revealed that public sector pay is lower in real terms than it was 20 years ago – with one in four public sector workers saying they have struggled to pay household bills over the last year. The news comes just as chancellor Jeremy Hunt is set to deliver his Spring Budget amid a continued cost of living crisis.

    Spring Budget: against a backdrop of dire public sector morale

    Nearly two-fifths of public sector workers (38%) have already taken steps to leave their profession to get a job in another field, or are actively considering it, according to new TUC polling.

    The poll of more than 1,000 public sector workers – conducted by Opinium – comes as the trade union body warns that public services are facing a “mass exodus” of key workers unless Jeremy Hunt invests in public services and the workforce at the Spring Budget.

    According to TUC analysis, around 2.2 million public sector workers are seriously thinking about quitting their jobs for good.

    The TUC says the recruitment crisis plaguing public services has been compounded by years of “brutal” real-terms pay cuts.

    Brutal real-terms pay cuts

    New TUC analysis shows that 2022 and 2023 was the worst two-year period for public servant pay since records began – with average salaries falling by 7% in real terms.

    The union body estimates that median pay across the public realm is now £42 per week (£2.2k a year) lower in real terms than in 2010 and is still worth less now than in 2004.

    According to today’s poll:

    • Over a quarter (27%) of public sector workers have struggled to pay a household bill over the last year – a number that rises to one in three (33%) for female staff.
    • A fifth (22%) have taken on additional debt to cope with the cost of living.
    • One in eight (13%) have gone without food.
    • One in 10 (10%) have used a foodbank.

    Spring Budget: acting in the national interest?

    The TUC says Jeremy Hunt “must act in the national interest” and invest in public services and the public sector workforce at the Spring Budget.

    The union body said strong public services are essential for economic growth.

    The TUC highlighted that without action to address the pressure on frontline services, economic inactivity would continue to grow.

    Nearly three million people in the UK are currently economically inactive due to long-term sickness.

    Public services at breaking point

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    Years of underfunding and mismanagement have left our public services and their workforce at breaking point.

    Every month experienced and dedicated public servants are quitting in droves because they are burned out, feel downtrodden, undervalued and are struggling to pay their bills.

    If the Chancellor does not invest in our public services the staffing crisis will only get worse and communities across Britain will continue to suffer.

    That means dealing with issues like pay and intolerable workloads.

    The idea that the public sector can do more with less has been tested to destruction over the last 14 years.

    The fastest way to get public sector productivity rising is to pay people fairly and invest in the equipment and technology they need to do their jobs.

    Strong public services are vital for growth and for the well-being of the country. Jeremy Hunt must act in the national interest and provide the funding local services desperately need.

    Spring Budget must NOT starve public services

    UNISON general secretary and chair of the TUC’s Public Services Liaison Group Christina McAnea said:

    The government has consistently starved public services of resources. Most are now in a perilous state, with too few staff to deliver a quality service.

    Across health, education, local government, police forces and social care, workers feel guilty they can’t do more to help those needing help and support because services are so stretched.

    Everything feels broken and no longer functioning as it should. No wonder so many key workers are leaving their jobs.

    The public wants good, properly resourced, well-staffed essential services. Yet more cuts will simply push services to point of collapse.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rural women are bearing the socioeconomic brunt of the patriarchy-led climate crisis

    On Tuesday 5 March, the United Nations’ (UN) food and farming agency published a report highlighting the gendered impacts of the climate crisis in poor agrarian communities. The UN Food and Agriculture Agency’s (FAO) “The Unjust Climate” study detailed the financial disparity between men and women in rural households in light of climate-fueled extreme weather.

    Specifically, it expressed how the climate crisis intensifies existing gender inequalities. As a result, heatwaves and floods inflict greater economic pain on rural women than men.

    Climate crisis harming poorest households most

    Scientists say the effects of rising temperatures are already harming the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet most acutely. The UN FAO analysed data from 109,341 households in 24 low and middle-income countries. It cross-referenced these with rain, snow, and temperature data over a 70 year period.

    In rural areas, poorer households have limited access to resources, services and jobs. Given this, they can find it harder to cope with climate crisis impacts. Notably, on average, they lose 5% more income than wealthier households due to heatwaves and 4% more due to floods.

    What’s more, the UN FAO report found that women-led households are even harder hit. Compared to men-led households, they lose around 8% more of their income due to excessive heat. During floods they would lose 3% more relative to men.

    This amounts to an average drop in income per person of $83 due to heat stress, and $35 due to floods. Extrapolating this across all developing countries, these losses totalled $37bn and $16bn respectively.

    UN FAO: it’s worse for women

    The UN FAO report said that:

    Failure to address the unequal impacts of climate change on rural people will intensify the already large gap between the haves and have-nots, and between men and women

    Crucially, it explained that rural, women-led households in low and middle income nations already face more financial burdens than men when disaster strikes. The UN FAO attributed this to deep rooted “social structures, and discriminatory norms and institutions”.

    For instance, the report highlighted that women are bearing a much larger domestic and childcare burden than men, limiting their opportunities to study and find a job. Additionally, this also makes it harder for them to migrate or make money from non-farming activities when the climate crisis affects their crops.

    On top of this, the UN FAO report suggested that if these “significant existing differences” in wages are not addressed, the gap will worsen. Notably, it calculated that if average temperatures increase by just 1°c, women would face a 34% greater loss in total income compared to men.

    The perfect storm of patriarchy and climate crisis

    Already, scientists have estimated that current global temperatures are around 1.3°c hotter overall than they were in the late 19th century. Moreover, multiple studies have linked the climate crisis with the relentless increase in destructive extreme weather such as floods, storms and heatwaves.

    Ultimately, the study illustrated that a perfect storm of patriarchy and the climate crisis are pushing women in land-based communities into further poverty. Importantly, it shows that gender justice must be front and centre of efforts to tackle the climate crisis and the work to mitigate its impacts.

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse.

    Feature image via Lomoraronald/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1200 by 900, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Parliament is facing more protests – this time over our rip-off energy bills

    Parliament will be the scene of yet more protests – after chronically ill and disabled people blocked a major road in the area over benefit cuts and deaths. This time, the focus is fuel poverty, energy companies profiteering, and the Tory government’s failure to act.

    Fuel Poverty Action demanding #EnergyForAll

    On Wednesday 6 March campaign group Fuel Poverty Action is joining the national Unite 4 Energy For All‘s day of action. This is alongside not only Unite Community but groups representing pensioners, tenants, health workers, chronically ill and disabled people, and more:

    The actions are in support of the Energy For All campaign. Launched by Fuel Poverty Action in 2022, it demands that every household is guaranteed enough energy for safe and adequate levels of heating, lighting, cooking as well as protecting additional needs like medical and mobility aids. It would be paid for by ending fossil fuel subsidies, redistributing energy company profits, and higher tariffs on household energy use beyond necessities.

    Fuel Poverty Action said:

    With the final budget before an election, we’re fed up of being punished with low incomes and high bills!

    #ColdHomesKill so we’re demanding the next government end deaths from fuel poverty by delivering the demands of our #EnergyForAll Manifesto along with democratic control of our energy system.

    The group has also signed an open letter calling on the government to act:

    Parliament protest and across the UK

    So, protests and actions are happening around the UK as follows:

    • Barnsley – Meet 12pm at Tower Centre Precinct near Coffee Boy.
    • Birmingham – Meet 12pm New Street Station.
    • Bristol – Meet 11.30am at Tony Benn House, Victoria St, BS1 6AY.
    • Exeter – Meet 1pm at Exeter Central Train Station.
    • Glasgow (8th March) – Meet 12pm at The Platform Cafe, Easterhouse.
    • Halifax – Meet 12pm at Southgate, above Market.
    • Ipswich – Meet 11am outside Boots, Tavern Street.
    • Leeds – Meet 11.30am outside Leeds Bus Station (John Lewis End).
    • Manchester – Meet 1pm outside Boots, Market Street.
    • Newcastle – Meet 11am at Grey’s Monument.
    • Newport – Meet 12pm John Frost Square outside Kingsway Centre, NP20 1ED.
    • Portsmouth – Meet 12pm outside Civic Offices.
    • Sheffield – Meet 12pm outside the Moor Market.
    • Southampton – Meet 11am outside Poundland, Above Bar Shopping Precinct.
    • Swansea – Meet 11am outside Quadrant Shopping Centre.

    The national protest will be focused on parliament. People can join it at 12pm on 6 March, opposite parliament on College Green.

    Stuart Bretherton, Fuel Poverty Action’s Energy For All campaign coordinator, previously told the Canary:

    Last winter [2022/23] energy bills were at the forefront of headlines and people’s minds. But while the news cycle has moved on, energy bills are still double what we paid two years ago and over 5 million households were in energy debt before this winter even began. We’re not accepting mass poverty as the new norm. The UK Government is passing the buck when there’s concrete policies they can adopt today to reduce poverty and save lives, so direct action is the obvious step for us to push them to do so.

    Spring may be on the way, but the effects of fuel poverty during winter can be long term – or even deadly. Moreover, energy companies and the government working hand-in-hand to rip us off is a year-round issue. So, if you can please join a Fuel Poverty Action protest near you – because cold homes do literally kill.

    Featured image via

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Not that you needed telling, but UK families’ budgets have fallen more than most 37 OECD countries

    UK household spending has fallen more than almost every other OECD country since the pandemic, according to new Trades Union Congress (TUC) analysis published on Friday 1 March.

    The analysis shows the amount UK households spent in their local economies fell by 1.4% between the end of 2019 and third quarter of 2023 – the equivalent of £20bn annually.

    During this period only Germany and the Czech Republic experienced a bigger fall among 37 OECD nations.

    UK household spending: an international outlier

    The TUC says that had UK household spending kept pace with the OECD average, the UK economy would now be at least £84bn a year bigger.

    In the UK households have cut spending by £700 a year, on average, since Covid struck.

    But had spending risen in line with the OECD average, UK households would be spending £2,900 a year more than before the pandemic.

    Tories’ failure to grow the economy

    The TUC blamed the fall in household spending on the government’s failure to deliver growth since the pandemic and on years of economic stagnation.

    The UK economy is just 1% bigger than before the pandemic – compared to 8.2% in America and 4.5% in Canada.

    And the UK is the only G7 country currently in recession – after two successive negative quarters of growth.

    The TUC says this had a huge knock-on impact on living standards.

    The UK is only G7 economy where real household disposable income per head hasn’t recovered to its pre-pandemic levels.

    The union body estimates that if real disposable income in the UK had risen in line with the G7 average since the end of 2019, UK families would be £750 a year better off.

    Years of economic stagnation

    The TUC says family budgets have also been shredded by the last 14 years of stagnating living standards.

    Real wages in the UK are still worth less than in 2008.

    And separate analysis published by the union body at the end of December revealed that unsecured debt (credit cards, loans, hire purchase agreements) is set to rise by £1,400 per household, in real terms, this year.

    A ‘serious economic plan needed’

    The union body warned that without a “serious” long-term economic plan the UK faces endless “stagnation and decline.”

    The TUC urged the chancellor to invest in public services and green infrastructure at the forthcoming Budget to jump-start growth and set living standards on a positive course over the longer-term.

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    People need to be able to spend on their local high streets. But household budgets have been shredded.

    Falling living standards have been both a cause and consequence of poor growth.

    While families in other countries have seen their disposable incomes rise, many here are struggling to cover even the basics.

    This is bad for households and bad for our economy. Lower spending is depressing growth and starving our public services of much-needed revenues.

    UK household spending needs a serious plan

    On the need for an economic reset, Nowak added:

    We can’t carry on like this.

    It’s time for a serious long-term economic plan – not sticking-plaster policies.

    That means a proper industrial strategy and investment in public services and green infrastructure.

    That’s the best way to revive our economy and sustain growth into the future.

    Featured image via Gajus-Images – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Biden Peddles the Myth That Spending More on Weapons Is Good for the Economy

    Joe Biden wants you to believe that spending money on weapons is good for the economy. That tired old myth — regularly repeated by the political leaders of both parties — could help create an even more militarized economy that could threaten our peace and prosperity for decades to come. Any short-term gains from pumping in more arms spending will be more than offset by the long-term damage caused…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New Survey of Early Childhood Educators Finds a Sector in Crisis

    A survey of early childhood educators and caregivers released Sunday shows the post-pandemic collapse of federal funding is fueling a national crisis for young children and their families as centers suffer and out-of-pocket costs soar. The findings of the survey — titled “We Are NOT OK” and put out by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) — resulted from questions…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • You can thank the Tories that banks’ profits are once again out of control

    Banks’ profits soared in 2023 to eye-watering levels, as Lloyds and HSBC announce a bonanza of bungs for their executives and shareholders. Of course, all this is partly thanks to Conservative Party government policy – while the rest of us grappled with the so-called cost of living crisis (or ‘class war’, if you prefer).

    Lloyds: surging profits

    First, on Thursday 22 February Lloyds Bank announced a surge in its profits. Its profit after tax jumped 46% to £4.9bn in 2023 compared with 2022. Chief executive Charlie Nunn was laughing all the way to the bank – saying:

    The group delivered a robust financial performance in 2023, meeting our guidance. Income growth has been supported by a higher banking net interest margin and good momentum in underlying other income. We continued to manage costs tightly despite ongoing inflationary pressures.

    That is, Lloyds has made a huge amount of money off the back of the government and Bank of England’s mismanagement of the economy – and the resulting cost of living crisis for the rest of us.

    Banks in the UK and elsewhere are gaining from higher interest rates as central hiked borrowing costs substantially from late 2021 through to the second half of last year in a bid to cool soaring inflation. Retail lenders have in turn raised their own rates, benefitting savers but also hugely increasing banks’ returns on loans such as mortgages.

    Lloyds is not the only bank to reap the rewards of Tory policy, though.

    HSBC: encapsulating the banks’ profits scandal

    HSBC said on Wednesday 21 February it achieved “record profit” in 2023. Its pre-tax profits soared by nearly 80% to $30.3 billion, up from $17.1 billion in 2022. Profit after tax increased by $8.3 billion, to $24.6 billion. Its chief executive Noel Quinn was also laughing, saying

    Our record profit performance in 2023 enabled us to reward our shareholders with our highest full-year dividend since 2008. This reflected four years of hard work and the strength of our balance sheet in a higher interest rate environment

    “Hard work” would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sick – because the only people benefitting from HSBC windfall off the backs of the rest of us are shareholders – to the tune of $2 billion, on top of $7 billion in share buybacks in 2023.

    Of course, these banks’ profits are a direct result of Tory government policy.

    Banks’ profits: ‘eye-watering’

    The Trades Union Congress (TUC) noted that:

    Cutting the banking surcharge from 8% to 3% last April has allowed banks to make huge profits from rising interest rates and cushioned them from the increase in corporation tax rates that came in this year.

    While other businesses have seen their corporation tax rates rise by up to 6%, banks have seen an extremely modest rise of 1% thanks to the cut in the surcharge.

    The TUC estimates (based on the latest OBR forecasts) that Treasury will lose £10bn over the next five years as result of the banking surcharge being cut.

    The decision to cut the surcharge was taken by Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor.

    Its general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    These eye-watering profits will be met with disbelief – especially when millions are struggling to make ends meet.

    The government has allowed banks to cash in on sky-high interest rates and to benefit from people’s mortgage misery.

    Rishi Sunak’s decision to slash the banking surcharge has been a huge gift to the City.

    Instead of fixing our crumbling schools and hospitals the PM has handed banks a monster tax break.

    This is an act of folly.

    Of course, this is exactly what the Tories knew would happen – and wanted to happen. Aside from them being the party of the rich, it’s also a general election year. Courting banks is the preserve of the Conservative Party – and it’s always at the expense of the rest of us.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via pexels

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Gender pay gap means women work first two months of the year unpaid – so today is Women’s Pay Day

    New Trades Union Congress (TUC) analysis reveals Women’s Pay Day – the day when the average woman stops working for free compared to the average man – is today, Wednesday 21 February. In some industries and in some parts of the country where the gender pay gap is wider, women effectively work for free for even longer

    Women’s Pay Day: 52 days of working for free

    New TUC analysis published on 21 February reveals that the average woman effectively works for free for nearly two months of the year compared to the average man. This is because the gender pay gap for all employees currently stands at 14.3%.

    This pay gap means that working women must wait 52 days – nearly two months – before they stop working for free on Women’s Pay Day today.

    And the analysis also shows that at current rates of progress, it will take 20 years – until 2044 – to close the gender pay gap.

    Industrial gender pay gaps

    Gender pay gap reporting was introduced back in 2017. However, the TUC analysis shows that – some seven years later – there are still big gender pay gaps in many industries. And this gap persists even in jobs dominated by female workers like in education and care.

    The union body says this is partly because women are more likely to work part-time, where working fewer hours means they earn less overall. And also, because women tend to be employed in lower-paid roles than men:

    • In education the gender pay gap is 21.3%, so the average woman effectively works for free for nearly a fifth of the year (78 days) until St Patrick’s Day, 17 March 2024.
    • In health care and social work, where the gender pay gap is 12.6%, the average woman works for free for 46 days until Valentine’s Day, 14 February 2024.
    • The longest wait comes in finance and insurance. The gender pay gap (27.9%) is the equivalent of a whopping 102 days, meaning women work for free until Wednesday 10 April 2024.

    Gender pay gap by age

    The TUC analysis shows that the gender pay gap affects women throughout their careers, from their first step on the ladder until they take retirement.

    The gender pay gap is widest for middle aged and older women:

    • Those aged 40 to 49 have a gender pay gap of 17%, so work 62 days for free until Tuesday 2 March 2024.
    • Women aged between 50 and 59 have the highest pay gap (19.7%) and work the equivalent of 72 days for free, until Monday 11 March 2024.
    • Those aged 60 and over have a gender pay gap of 18.1%. They work 66 days of the year for free before they stop working for free on Wednesday 6 March 2024.

    The TUC says the gender pay gap widens as women get older, due to women being more likely to take on caring responsibilities. And that older women take a bigger financial hit for balancing work alongside caring for children, older relatives and/or grandchildren.

    Regional gender pay gaps

    The analysis shows that in some parts of the country gender pay gaps are even bigger, so their Women’s Pay Day is later in the year:

    • The gender pay gap is largest in the South East of England (18.9%). Women in this region work 69 days for free and they work for free until Friday 8 March 2024.
    • Women in the East of England (17.7% pay gap) and the East Midlands (17.4%) also work for free until next month (Monday 4 March and Sunday 3 March 2024).

    The TUC explains that regional variations in the pay gap are likely to be caused by differences in the types of jobs and industries that are most common in that part of the country, and gender differences in who does these jobs.

    Women’s Pay Day: consigning another generation to inequality

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    Everyone should be paid fairly for the job that they do.

    It’s shameful that working women don’t have pay parity in 2024. And at current rates of progress, it will take another two decades to close the gender pay gap.

    That’s not right. We can’t consign yet another generation of women to pay inequality.

    It’s clear that just publishing gender pay gaps isn’t working. Companies must be required to publish and implement action plans to close their pay gaps. And bosses who don’t comply with the law should be fined.

    Featured image via YuriArcursPeopleimages – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • To Democratize Finance, We Must Take the Banks Away From the Bankers

    Our current banking and financial system has transformed politics in favor of the rich, debilitating democratic institutions, destroying the common good and hurting the poor in the process. In this context, the challenge we face is to end plutocracy and restore democracy. It is this challenge that world-renowned progressive economist Gerald Epstein brilliantly elucidates in his pathbreaking book…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • To Democratize Finance, We Must Take the Banks Away From the Bankers

    Our current banking and financial system has transformed politics in favor of the rich, debilitating democratic institutions, destroying the common good and hurting the poor in the process. In this context, the challenge we face is to end plutocracy and restore democracy. It is this challenge that world-renowned progressive economist Gerald Epstein brilliantly elucidates in his pathbreaking book…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • What will generative AI mean for the racial wealth gap? 

    Two men work at a restaurant cooking burgers on a grill and at a prep station. Generative AI has the potential to eliminate their jobs.
    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    Kelcey Gibbons, a doctoral student who studies African Americans in technology and the Black middle class, is not quite sure what she makes of generative artificial intelligence and how it might impact the racial wealth gap. 

    Gibbons anticipates that generative AI will force organizations to rethink which skills matter in the workplace, aggravating existing inequalities without a strong emphasis on access and education. 

    It could also become a scapegoat for why disadvantaged groups struggle with upward mobility. Whether it narrows the racial wealth gap will depend on participation from the bottom up, Gibbons said.

    Generative AI is a broad term for artificial intelligence that can create new content, such as art, audio, code, music, text and videos. It uses machine learning, another form of artificial intelligence that gleans patterns from data and algorithms that help to process new and more information.

    The technology can increase productivity by automating tasks now done by humans. For example, chatGPT is a tool trained to produce text and code. It can provide detailed responses to questions, translate languages, identify errors in code and provide copywriting in the voice of a brand.  

    Other generative AI tools and platforms can create interactive virtual learning or gaming environments. Professional sports leagues like the NBA and NHL are using generative AI to provide more detailed sports content to their consumers and better understand their audiences.

    Workers fear generative AI will replace human jobs, which will affect Black people, who have the highest unemployment rates in the nation. 

    In other words, generative AI is just the latest version of the old saying: “When America catches a cold, Black people get pneumonia.” In this case, it’s because Black people are disproportionately in the jobs that technology is likely to replace. And it could mean, once again, that fewer Black people will have decent jobs. 

    According to a recent report by the McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility, part of the business management and consulting firm McKinsey & Co., generative AI has the potential to widen the racial wealth gap between Black and white Americans by $43 billion annually over the next 20 years. 

    But if generative AI is applied with equity in mind, it could instead help close the racial wealth gap and remove barriers to Black economic mobility, the report says. 

    Not so fast, said Amy Slaton, a professor of history at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Despite discourse around inclusion and a “tremendous faith in the idea of merit,” the systems in which people of color and marginalized groups operate seldom change.  

    “Generative AI comes in with a high-tech promise for the economy, but it’s not,” Slaton said. “Nothing is changing for the communities that make up that economy.”

    Big technological shifts have a history of keeping Black people at or near the bottom already.

    During the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, global trade networks yielded tremendous profits from buying and selling human beings. As global trade, including cotton and sugar production, grew, so did regimes of enslavement.

    Slavery ended. Agriculture became more mechanized. New industrial opportunities popped up in cities amid a massive scale-up in manufacturing and consumption.

    Black people exercised agency in their lives by migrating from the rural South to economic opportunities in urban areas in the North. But as companies developed assembly lines, new managerial techniques and later automation, reducing jobs, they did so in service to white capitalists, Slaton said. 

    “Capitalism in America is racial capitalism,” Slaton said.

    To be sure, the Civil Rights era and integration ushered in sweeping changes for disadvantaged groups. “Individuals’ lives are drastically changed,” Slaton said. “But it’s a hierarchical economy, and people of color are historically at the bottom. AI will exacerbate that.” 

    According to the McKinsey report, Black workers are overrepresented in four of the top five occupations most at risk of automation. They include office support, production work, food services and mechanical installation and repair. Roughly three in four Black workers lack a college degree. 

    But in the past five years, one in every eight Black workers without a four-year degree has moved to a job that rewards experience, offers annual salaries above $42,000 and provides a path of upward mobility. These jobs include training and development specialists, and sales managers. 

    The problem is that these paths are likely to disappear, too. Between 2030 and 2060, the report says, generative AI is expected to replace about half these jobs that don’t require college degrees. 

    To avoid being displaced, the report argues that workers should gain skills that machines cannot do. Those “future-proof skills” include “socioemotional understanding” and “comfort with ambiguity.” Occupational health and safety specialists and special education teachers are two examples of occupations that use those skills.

    In the tech industry, workers should not merely know how to use a “specific coding language to code formulaically,” but should instead understand “computational and statistical principles in order to troubleshoot and solve problems with machine-generated code,” the report says.

    “Capitalism in America is racial capitalism.”

    Amy Slaton, a professor of history at Drexel University in Philadelphia

    That’s true for any technological development, said James Pristas, professor in the department of computing and information technology at the College of Southern Nevada in North Las Vegas. Pristas teaches an introduction to artificial intelligence course at the school, a public community college where more than half the student body is Latino, Asian or Black. 

    It’s too soon to know how generative AI will shape the workforce, he said. The immediate impact, though, is how students are using it to complete their assignments, which makes it difficult for professors like him to assess them. 

    “It’s a major step change that is going to change the way we teach and the way kids learn,” Pristas said.

    So can generative AI be deployed in a way that narrows the racial wealth gap? 

    “I think that’s a question of power and access,” said Gibbons, a PhD student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Who gets to say what generative AI is, and for whom?”

    Generative AI tools are already used to evaluate job candidates through keyword requirements, multiple choice exams and even voice or video analysis. They risk engaging in employment discrimination by excluding people based on race, religion, gender identity and other protected classes, according to the ACLU.

    Last fall, President Biden signed an executive order on developing AI safely and responsibly. And in January, the administration said that major AI companies must now report their safety tests to the government. “My Administration cannot — and will not — tolerate the use of AI to disadvantage those who are already too often denied equal opportunity and justice,” Biden’s executive order says.  

    Congress has yet to enact legislation on generative AI. Meanwhile, state and local governments are writing their own rules.

    According to McKinsey, generative AI can be used with an equity lens by establishing regulatory guardrails, training it on unbiased and “authentically representative” datasets, growing “diverse tech talent,” engaging all stakeholders in the design of new products and encouraging leaders to use the technology only where it can make unbiased decisions. 

    The goal is to “have all people and communities — including Black communities, previously left behind by seismic shifts in tech — benefit from this amazing technology transformation,” the report says in closing. 

    “The time to act is now, using the foresight of past transformations as a guide.”

    The post What will generative AI mean for the racial wealth gap?  appeared first on Center for Public Integrity.

    This post was originally published on Center for Public Integrity.

  • Media That Benefit From Inequality Prefer to Talk About Other Things

     

    Inequality has increased more rapidly in the US than Europe

    Chart: Washington Center for Equitable Growth (12/9/19)

    One of the defining features of contemporary US capitalism is rampant inequality. Though there is some scholarly debate about its precise extent, even conservative estimates suggest a rise in income inequality of 16% since 1979 (as measured by the Gini coefficient). Moreover, of the 38 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of mainly high-income countries, the US currently ranks dismally as the sixth-most unequal.

    In 2013, then–President Barack Obama described inequality, alongside a lack of upward mobility, as the “defining challenge of our time” (CBS, 12/4/13). This declaration spurred a brief moment of interest in inequality on cable news channels, which proved fleeting. During the two-month window of December 2013 through January 2014—Obama made his statement during a speech on December 4—the cable news channels Fox, CNN and MSNBC aired about a tenth of the total mentions of the term “inequality” that they would air from the start of 2010 through the beginning of 2024, a 14-year period.

    Overshadowed by a hypothetical problem

    The rapid rise in inequality over recent decades might have been expected to generate a deep sense of alarm in news media. But on cable news, there’s little sign of distress.

    Compare cable coverage of inequality to coverage of other economic topics, such as inflation, recession and government debt. The following chart shows the number of mentions of various terms across Fox, CNN and MSNBC over the course of 2023:

    Can you make out the bottom bar? That depicts combined coverage of four terms: “income inequality,” “wealth inequality,” “class inequality” and “economic inequality.” Those four together got less than 1% of the coverage of inflation during 2023.

    The skew was evident but less extreme at text-based outlets. Searches of the New York Times archives for the year of 2023 deliver 1.5 times as many articles for “debt ceiling” as for “income inequality,” 2.5 times for “recession” and 7 times for “inflation.” Searches of the Washington Post archives for the same period return a more disproportionate 18 times for “debt ceiling,” 14 times for “recession” and 34 times for “inflation.”

    Note that, although inflation and a debt ceiling battle were both issues in 2023, there was no recession. The reason there was so much coverage of the topic was that economists overwhelmingly forecast a recession—and utterly whiffed—and media signal-boosted their inaccurate predictions. Fears of recession, a fantasy problem, consequently overshadowed discussion of the very real problem of inequality.

    Redirecting the conversation

    Pew: Fewer than half see economic inequality as a very big problem

    Chart: Pew Research (1/9/20)

    For media outlets owned by the wealthy, there’s obvious utility in directing the conversation away from inequality and toward other concerns. For instance, if the public’s attention can be directed toward a debt ceiling battle, corporate media outlets can hype fears about unsustainable deficits. In turn, the public can be primed to see government debt as a leading challenge, whether or not this actually makes much sense.

    Public opinion data suggests that this has worked—53% of Americans see the federal budget deficit as a very big problem, whereas only 44% view economic inequality the same way.

    Media hyper-fixation on inflation and a potential recession over the last couple years, meanwhile, has persistently distorted the economic evaluations of the general population, whose satisfaction with the economy remained at historically low levels last year amidst the strongest economic recovery in decades (FAIR.org, 1/5/24). In a recent poll, asked whether wage growth outpaced inflation over the past year, a full 90% of Americans said that it hadn’t, when in reality it had.

    In each case, whether media are fearmongering about deficits, inflation or a potential recession, they have been able to steer the conversation away from progressive policies and toward a more centrist approach.

    Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, during last year’s debt ceiling battle, directed attention towards Social Security and Medicare, amplifying arguments for cutting these programs (FAIR.org, 5/17/23, 6/15/23). During the recent bout of inflation, both papers cheered on the Federal Reserve’s campaign to “cool” the labor market (read: reduce workers’ bargaining power) and potentially hike unemployment (FAIR.org, 1/25/23, 6/27/23).

    Promotion of recession fears likewise functioned to sow doubts about the sweeping stimulus packages implemented in response to the pandemic, legislation that produced the most rapid recovery in decades and a substantial reduction in inequality. After all, if the inevitable result of an enhanced safety net is inflation and a downturn, why bother?

    A focus on the fundamental issue of inequality, which has significantly exacerbated the effects of real but temporary issues like elevated inflation, would not serve these same ends. Rather, its likely effect would be to delegitimize centrist policies and point towards a more radical approach.

    Consider these findings from a 2014 study: Asked what they view as an ideal pay ratio between CEOs and unskilled workers, Americans pointed to a ratio of 7-to-1. The real ratio at the time? 354-to-1. Meanwhile, Americans thought that the actual ratio was more like 30-to-1, about an order of magnitude off from reality.

    There’s no way to get to Americans’ preferred level of equality without a massive redistribution of income. But is the public going to push for this sort of redistribution if media distract them from the topic, or if a lack of coverage results in them not even recognizing the extent of inequality in the first place?

    Toward a less unequal media

    CJR: Let’s make journalism work for those not born into an elite class

    CJR (4/18/22) noted that “only a handful of select schools feed the mastheads of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.”

    At the heart of the issue is that news media don’t just structure conversations about inequality; inequality also structures the media. The dominant news outlets are major corporations owned by the wealthy. The flow of information is far from democratically controlled. Instead, a billionaire can pick winners among media outlets by, for instance, boosting the circulation of a staunchly centrist publication like the Washington Post.

    Within prominent news outlets, journalists are drawn disproportionately from privileged backgrounds and top schools. They may come in with blinders about issues like inequality that are felt more viscerally by lower-income folks.

    Even more worrisome is the personal advantage that on-screen personalities on top TV networks derive from ignoring inequality, which may explain why cable news is so much worse at covering inequality than a paper like the New York Times. Popular anchors at Fox, CNN and MSNBC make millions of dollars a year, putting them easily in the top 1% of earners nationwide. Is it at all surprising when they opt for an obsession with the deficit over an interest in inequality?

    What can be done about this state of affairs? Calls for journalists to do better may get us somewhere, but more fundamental change is needed. As scholars Faik Kurtulmus and Jan Kandiyali have argued, getting media to pay more attention to issues affecting working-class and poor people requires a different funding model, one where the upper class doesn’t hold all the power.

    One option would be a voucher system in which

    everyone would be provided with a publicly funded voucher, which they would then get to spend at a news outlet of their choice, with the revenue going to that news outlet…. Coupled with a more representative and diverse pool of journalists, this could lead to a marked improvement in the media’s coverage of issues of poverty and inequality.

    A complementary set of reforms are advocated by Thomas Piketty in his recent book A Brief History of Equality:

    The best solution [to media concentration in the hands of the wealthy] would be to change the legal framework and adopt a law that truly democratizes the media, guaranteeing employees and journalists half the seats in the governing organs, whatever their legal form might be, opening the doors to representatives from the reading public, and drastically limiting stockholders’ power.

    Ultimately, it’s going to take an attack on inequality within media to get media to take inequality seriously.

     

    The post Media That Benefit From Inequality Prefer to Talk About Other Things appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • A Growing Number of Economists Are Joining the Fight to Rein In the Big Banks

    The fortunes of the five richest men in the world have “shot up by 114 percent since 2020,” according to a January 2024 Oxfam report on global inequality, while “nearly five billion people have been made poorer.” This most recent gross increase in wealth and income inequality builds on global trends that took hold in the early 1980s, with the decades-long increase in inequality being particularly…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 2024 Will See Wave of Minimum Wage Hikes — But the Impacts Won’t Be Felt Evenly

    On January 1, 2024, the minimum wage increased from coast to coast. Indeed, 22 states and more than 40 cities and counties experienced wage increases in 2024 — most of them approaching $15. More states will follow with minimum wage increases later in the year. Undoubtedly, this is mainly the result of underpaid workers organizing and fighting for a decent living wage over the past decade…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Slow applause for the billionaires on the Sunday Times Tax List for doing the BARE MINIMUM

    The Sunday Times has published its latest “tax list”. It’s a Who’s-Who of very rich people who pay a lot of tax – or, if you prefer, don’t break the law and declare their income as they’re supposed to. So, enter think tank the High Pay Centre not only to give some slow applause to these million-and billionaires, but also point out what is obvious to most of us – except the Sunday Times, clearly.

    Sunday Times Tax List: sorry, the what…?

    As News UK reported:

    The 100 wealthy individuals or families revealed in this year’s Sunday Times Tax List were liable for a total of £5.181 billion of UK tax last year.

    The fifth edition of the Tax List — released as millions of people race to meet the self-assessment deadline — features figures from the worlds of music and the arts, as well as billionaire aristocrats and rags-to-riches entrepreneurs.

    Well-established companies dominate the list with few firms founded in the 21st century making the cut, highlighting the challenge for the chancellor and his successors as the economy moves further online.

    Published after a challenging year for the exchequer, the research found:

    • 100 individuals and families have each paid at least £10.7 million of tax either personally or through their businesses.
    • The highest taxpayers in Britain include a scrap metal dealer, an athleisure tycoon from Bromsgrove, JK Rowling, the boss of Wetherspoon, Sting and the Duke of Westminster.
    • The top ten taxpayers delivered £2.333 billion to the government — up nearly 14 per cent on a year ago, continuing the surge in £100 million-plus taxpayers.

    The problem isn’t obvious to everyone…

    The capitalist media dutifully lapped-up the list. However, campaign group Tax Justice UK had a different response:

    Robert Watts compiled the Sunday Times Tax List. He hinted at the problem – but couldn’t quite bring himself to say it with his chest:

    You will find celebrities on the Tax List but many of the entries are people who quietly run largely unheralded businesses that have been creating jobs and paying millions of tax for decades or even centuries.

    So-called ‘unicorn’ tech firms may dominate the headlines, but they often aren’t cash cows for the Treasury because they don’t employ large numbers of people or show big profits. It’s the long-established retailers, pub groups and other bricks-and-mortar businesses that often contribute more.

    There lies the challenge for the chancellor and his successors. As our economy inevitably shifts further and further online, how do we continue to fund the public services we all want?

    Tax avoidance: a very British problem

    Well, Rob – the government could start by properly taxing these unicorn tech firms. For example, many of us will have heard of the online fashion retailer SHEIN. However, what you may not know is that the company is based out of tax haven Singapore. Moreover, as City AM reported, SHEIN doesn’t seem to pay much tax in the UK:

    The company made £1.1bn of turnover and £12.2m in profit in the 16 months to December 2022, but incurred a tax bill of only £2.3m, according to a report in The Sunday Times which cited company accounts.

    The newspaper reported that the sales figure was equivalent to £80m for each of its 14 UK employees.

    Then, you have the huge dictatorial tech firms like Amazon. One part of its UK operations paid NO corporation tax last year or the year before, despite sales of over £6bn.

    Plus, as one particularly wry Twitter account pointed out, there’s a discrepancy in the Sunday Times‘s own reporting:

    Sunday Times Tax List: rich people must still pay more

    Luke Hildyard, executive director of the High Pay Centre – a think tank focused on pay, corporate governance and responsible business – has responded to the Sunday Times Tax List. He argues that we urgently need to increase taxation of the super rich in order to save our collapsing public services:

    Even the biggest cheerleaders for the super-rich must find it surprising that at a time of collapsing public services with most of the population struggling with painful cost of living increases, the government has been unable to meaningfully increase the tax paid by Britain’s richest taxpayers.

    Clearly, billionaires who pay taxes in line with the law like everybody else should be applauded but given the extraordinary fortunes they enjoy even after tax and the needs of our hospitals, schools, police and local government services, it doesn’t seem like we are taxing this group as effectively as we could.

    So, the Sunday Times Tax List wants us to think that we should be grateful to whiny singer Ed Sheeran and Gammon-in-Chief Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin. In reality, though – the UK’s tax system is little more then a ‘get-richer-quicker’ scheme for the already super rich.

    Featured image via LightFieldStudios – Envato Elements

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • More Than Half of Americans Don’t Have Enough Savings to Cover $1,000 Expense

    A new survey highlights how most Americans would be unable to use their savings in order to pay for an unexpected expense. While the poll from Bankrate acknowledged the country’s falling inflation numbers and strong employment trends, it added that “many Americans still don’t have enough savings for a rainy day.” The annual survey, which Bankrate has conducted for the past 13 years…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Only Solution to “Wealth Supremacy” Is a Democratic Economy

    The extraction of wealth is a pathology of late capitalism and is defined by the cultural and political processes by which the rich establish themselves as the dominant class. Social theorist and organizer Marjorie Kelly labels this phenomenon “wealth supremacy” which is also the title of her latest book. But as she points out in this exclusive interview for Truthout, wealth supremacy…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bipartisan Tax Bill Offers Generous Corporate Tax Relief, Inadequate Poverty Aid

    On January 16, congressional leaders announced that a bipartisan agreement had been reached on a far-ranging, $78 billion tax package. The proposed legislation is not only bipartisan but bicameral: It was negotiated between Jason Smith, a Republican representative from Missouri and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who is a senator chairing the Finance…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Women more than twice as likely as men to miss out on statutory sick pay

    New analysis from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has revealed 1.3 million people do not earn enough to qualify for statutory sick pay – and 70% of those are women. The union body has also said that zero-hours contract workers are eight times more likely than those on secure contracts to miss out on it as well – fuelling calls for the government to act.

    Black and brown women: institutionally discriminated against over sick pay

    The TUC analysis of the latest official statistics shows 6.5% of women do not earn enough to qualify for statutory sick pay, compared to 2.8% of men.

    The lower earnings limit of £123 a week – which is the threshold of income to ensure someone qualifies for statutory sick pay – means that 1.3 million nationwide are ineligible for it.

    The vast majority (70%) of those who don’t meet the income threshold are women.

    Black and brown women (7%) are most likely to miss out on statutory sick pay – and are more than twice as likely compared to white men (2.7%).

    TUC head of economics and rights Nicola Smith gave evidence to a Work and Pensions Select Committee hearing on Thursday 18 January.

    Smith reaffirmed the TUC’s longstanding call for decent sick pay for all workers.

    Insecure and low-paid work

    Zero hours contract workers are eight times more likely than those on secure contracts (30.3% compared to 3.6%) to miss out on statutory sick pay because they don’t earn enough to qualify, according to the TUC analysis.

    Workers on zero hours contracts have to contend with irregular hours which may not result in them earning enough to meet the income threshold.

    Sales and customer services (11.9%) and the elementary occupations (18%) have the highest proportion of workers who miss out on statutory sick pay as a result of the lower earnings limit.

    The TUC says the lower earnings limit means that those who desperately need it are being forced to choose between going without any financial support when they are sick, or working and potentially spreading illnesses to others while risking their own health.

    ‘Paltry’

    As well criticising statutory sick pay for not being available to all, the TUC says it is “paltry” and not enough to live on. The rate is £109.40 per week – equivalent to just 18% of average earnings.

    There is also a three-day waiting period before those eligible start getting the benefit.

    This brings the amount for the first week for someone working a typical five-day week to £44, which is just 7% of average weekly earnings.

    This is less than what the average household spends on food each week (£56.50) and less than a quarter of median weekly rent in England (£190.38).

    A broken system

    The TUC says the UK’s statutory sick pay system is “broken”.

    The lack of decent sick pay massively undermined the UK’s ability to deal with the pandemic, according to the union body.

    It has come under scrutiny in the Covid public inquiry – in which Matt Hancock said statutory sick pay was “far, far too low” and “far lower than the European average”.

    The former health secretary added this “encourages people to go to work when they should be getting better” and aids the spread of viruses.

    The UK went into the pandemic with the lowest rate of statutory sick pay in the OECD.

    Enough is enough (again)

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    Our sick pay system is broken. It’s a national scandal that so many low-paid, insecure workers up and down the country – most of them women – are forced to go without financial support when sick. And for those who do get it, it’s not nearly enough to live on.

    Ministers could have boosted sick pay and made sure everyone got it, but they chose to turn a blind eye to the problem during the pandemic.

    The failure to provide proper financial support was an act of self-sabotage that left millions brutally exposed to the virus – especially those in low-paid, insecure work.

    Enough is enough – it’s time for a new deal for workers…

    Amanda Walters, director of the Safe Sick Pay campaign said:

    Women already suffer disproportionately from low pay. To add insult to injury these new figures show that many working women are also losing out when they need time off ill.

    The UK’s statutory sick pay system is unequal, unfair and ripe for reform. By paying a higher weekly amount to every worker from day one, we’ll all see the benefits of a happy healthy workforce.

    Featured image via Prostock-studio – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ofgem and Tories under increasing pressure to stop cruel energy standing charges

    New research shows overwhelming support for scrapping the flat-rate daily standing charge on our energy bills, as thousands share their experiences of the energy crisis. It comes energy suppliers have hiked the fixed charges to around £300 – leading one campaign group to say they are causing “widespread energy starvation”. However, will the regulator Ofgem listen?

    Standing charges: a rip off if ever there was one

    As Ofgem itself wrote:

    The standing charge is a cost that is included in each electricity and gas bill. It is a cost set by your supplier. It is also included in the energy price cap that we review and set every three months. Your supplier will charge you this cost each day, even if you do not use any energy on that day. The amount you pay will depend on your supplier and where you live within England, Scotland or Wales.

    The charge covers the cost to maintain the energy supply network, take meter readings, and support government social schemes, for example helping people that cannot afford energy, and environmental schemes.

    Of course, what standing charges also do is help energy firms make huge profits while leaving millions in poverty. However, people are growing wise to this effective con – as a new survey shows.

    Campaign website Organise surveyed 45,000 of its members on standing charges. The results revealed the tough reality that many people across the UK are facing due to the energy crisis, compounded by unfair standing charges that disproportionately affect low-income households.

    Leaving millions in fuel poverty

    Organise’s research showed that standing charges impact adequate heating for 90% of people, with:

    • 84% forced to cut heating, showers, baths, washing, and drying.
    • 72% left in debt or unable to top up a prepayment meter.

    Those on prepayment meters are one group hit hard by standing charges.

    534,462 electricity customers and 269,351 gas customers were cut off between January and March 2023. However, this Ofgem data only covers 4% of households, so ignores millions of other low income struggling households. This includes the two million homes without gas supply that pay the higher electricity standing charges and unit costs.

    Ofgem data shows low Economy 7 users suffering energy deprivation of only 2200 kWh per year versus 9300 kWh total for dual fuel.

    Moreover, energy companies also use the standing charges from poorer households to effectively fund their own operating costs. This is a further kick in the teeth, given the poor standards of customer service companies provide and their marketing and advertising spend which is often wasteful.

    The real-world impact of standing charges

    Organise member Joan said:

    I am having to be extra careful with my consumption, even though I have a disability which is made worse by the cold due to spasms. The standing charge on top of the crippling cost per unit of energy means I have no choice but to cut back.

    Another member of Organise, Jack, said:

    I do anything to keep the costs down, I’m disabled and housebound most of the time. I therefore do not put my heating on and spend most of my time in bed with an electric blanket on as it is the cheapest way of keeping warm. I also eat mainly microwavable meals as it’s cheaper than putting the oven on. Standing charges soon add up eating into what money I’ve put aside for fuel bills.

    Standing charges also undermine energy efficiency by punishing low users and subsidising energy waste. This conflicts with government policy and Ofgem’s new statutory net zero duty.

    Ofgem has previously resisted calls to reduce or remove standing charges, instead increasing them to pay the £2.7bn bill from supplier failures that many blame on poor Ofgem regulation. But increasing public pressure and a report from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has forced it to do a review of standing charges.

    This is how you can get involved – but you only have a matter of days to do so.

    Tell Ofgem to sort it out

    Ofgem is coming under mounting pressure to scrap the charge, and has asked for input from consumers and other stakeholders to help them decide what to do.

    The consultation closes on Friday 19 January. However, campaign group Fuel Poverty Action has organised an online template for you to complete. It will then send it to Ofgem on your behalf. You can fill the letter out here. Alternatively, Organise has a pre-composed letter you can sign here.

    Fuel Poverty Action spokesperson Stu Bretherton told the Canary:

    Standing charges bear a huge cost on families and individuals, at around £300 a month that’s wiping out the income of someone on Universal Credit. But that money doesn’t even buy you any energy, it’s a poll tax on something that’s an essential need and a human right. And we’re all forced to pay them even if cut off from your energy supply or forced to switch off the heating and everything else due to mounting energy debt.

    Fuel Poverty Action says this is causing “widespread energy starvation”.

    Outrageous and a scandal

    Bretherton noted that:

    It’s outrageous that people living in tiny flats pay the same as someone heating a mansion and swimming pool. This isn’t just unfair but goes against economic and environmental imperatives to invest in energy efficient housing and heating systems.

    Fuel Poverty Action has long campaigned for standing charges to be abolished and replaced with a national Energy For All guarantee to ensure everyone has their essentials covered according to each household’s needs. Winning change on standing charges is a key step to fixing our upside-down energy pricing system, we’ve pressured Ofgem into this review, so we want to build as much engagement as possible with the consultation while the option is there.

    So, if you’re quick you can get your views on standing charges into Ofgem. Energy companies are ripping us all off, but hitting the poorest the hardest. So, we must take action over this scandal.

    Feature image via Rawpixel – Envato Elements

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The government is doing nothing about the lies manufacturers sell to us about UK radiators – and it costs us billions

    A documentary video produced by supplier UK Radiators has revealed the financial and ethical implications of misinformation in the heating industry, impacting consumers across Britain. The boss of the company is urging for immediate action against what he calls these “deceptive practices” – because it’s costing consumers billions.

    UK Radiators: exposing the great British heating rip off

    UK Radiators is, on the face of it, a radiator supplier. However, the company has now branched out into campaigning. It has launched a short video documentary called The Lies Costing Britain £Billions – EXPOSED. It looks at the regulations surrounding radiators in the UK and whether manufacturers and retailers are adhering to them. Spoiler alert: they’re not.

    Rob Nezard is the managing director of UK Radiators. He noted in the documentary that:

    In order to comply with British standards, and to be sold legally in the UK, a radiator’s heat output must be tested by a notified body and the heat output advertised for the radiator backed by the test results. The unfortunate truth is that there are millions of radiators sold every year that have not been tested, and the heat outputs being advertised are overstated.

    Why does this matter? Because it affects the efficiency of your heating system, and ends up costing you money in higher heating bills.

    As part of the investigation, tests were conducted on five radiators purchased from five prominent retailers. The results were shocking.

    Given the size of the retailers in question, the number of radiators sold per year and the lifetime of each radiator spanning over a decade, the unnecessary costs being put onto the heating bills of the British public are estimated to be in the billions.

    As an example, the investigation found that manufacturers and retailers were exaggerating the heat output of one radiator by a staggering 38%.

    Watch the full documentary below:

    “We cannot allow these practices to go unchecked”

    This situation highlights a critical failure in regulatory enforcement, allowing suppliers to operate without accountability. It’s not just about financial loss; it’s about consumer trust and industry integrity.

    Nezard said:

    As an industry leader, it’s our responsibility to advocate for transparency and consumer protection. We cannot allow these practices to continue unchecked. The documentary video aims to raise awareness of this issue and gain support for a petition that calls on the relevant government ministers to begin enforcing the regulations that are already in place.

    UK Radiators is calling on the government to “do its job” – which currently it’s not.

    Given we have been in a cost of living crisis for what seems like years, part of which has been spiralling energy costs thanks to the lack of action by government and energy companies – it’s a kick in the teeth to all of us that manufacturers and retailed are kicking us again by ripping us off with radiators.

    You can sign UK Radiators petition calling on the government to act here.

    Featured image via UK Radiators – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Spineless Ofgem has just allowed energy firms to restart forcing people onto prepayment meters

    The energy regulator Ofgem has just agreed that three energy firms can start forcing vulnerable customers onto prepayment meters again. It comes after the government put a quasi ban in place in February 2023. One campaign group has hit back at the move – saying Ofgem is once again putting “energy company profits” before customers. And overall, it shows just how spineless the energy regulator is.

    Ofgem prepayment meters: an ongoing scandal

    As the Canary reported back in February, energy companies in the UK could obtain court warrants that allowed them to enter people’s homes and fit the pay-as-you-go (‘prepayment’) meters. This was when customers had fallen into arrears with their energy bills. They were then at risk of companies cutting their gas supply off if they fail to top them up.

    However, an undercover investigation by the Times newspaper looked into this. It found that contractors working for British Gas sent debt collectors to “break into” homes and “force-fit” meters. This prompted uproar from the public and politicians – even though the practice had actually been going on since 1954.

    So, the energy regulator Ofgem and courts stopped energy suppliers from forcing customers to have prepayment meters. However, as the Morning Star reported:

    Ofgem introduced a self-regulating code of practice for energy providers enabling them to resume forced break-ins and installations.

    Scottish Power has now reportedly secured warrants and broken into the homes of mothers with young children to force them onto prepay meters using the code. But the firm claims it was unaware of the customers’ circumstances and would not have installed a meter forcibly had this become clear.

    Now, Ofgem has looked at how companies are dealing with that self-regulating code. It’s decided that three are suddenly so responsible that they can start forcing prepayment meters onto customers.

    Ofgem: spineless AND not fit for purpose

    As the energy regulator itself wrote on its website:

    Ofgem confirmed today (Monday 8 January 2023) that EDF, Octopus and Scottish Power have been given permission to restart involuntary PPM installations after meeting the regulator’s set of conditions, which include conducting internal audits to identify wrongfully installed PPMs and committing to reinstating non-prepayment methods and offering compensation. Suppliers must also provide regular monitoring data to Ofgem, so that concerning trends on involuntary PPM practices can be identified early.

    The regulator also announced that if suppliers install a PPM in a property occupied by someone in the ‘do not install’ category set out in Ofgem’s Supplier Licence Conditions, and have not followed the rules in full set out by the regulator to make sure a prepayment meter is appropriate, they are expected to reinstate a credit meter within 24 hours and compensate their customers appropriately.

    Ofgem is reminding supplier CEOs that the rules must be followed to the letter to avoid a re-run of some of the practices seen last year where vulnerable customers in energy debt were being moved onto PPMs without their consent.

    But who exactly does Ofgem consider a “vulnerable” customer?

    Vulnerable who?

    The energy regulator says vulnerable customers are those with:

    • A continuous supply needed for health reasons, including dependence on powered medical equipment.
    • An older occupant (aged 75+), without support in the house.
    • Children aged under two years old.
    • Residents with severe health issues including terminal illnesses or those with a medical dependency on a warm home (for example due to illness such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis, sickle cell disease).

    So, if you’re a lone parent with a child aged two years and one month – then you can freeze. If you’re aged over 75, but your council will not provide support workers for you due to funding cuts – then you can freeze. Oh, and so can anyone else who doesn’t meet Ofgem’s wafer-thin criteria of vulnerability.

    But it’s OK! Ofgem has said energy firms have to make at least 10 attempts to contact a customer before they can force their way into their home and install a prepayment meter. That means that if you live with enduring mental distress which restricts your ability to deal with the authorities, strangers, or companies – then you can freeze too.

    Happy new year from Ofgem

    For his part, the director general for markets at Ofgem Tim Jarvis (we don’t know what his bullshit job is but we’re confident he’s never been on a prepayment meter) said:

    Protecting consumers is our number one priority…

    While nobody wants to see the practices uncovered last year repeated, we also know that allowing households to build up unsustainable amounts of debt isn’t the right thing to do either. Many households value the control that these pay as you go meters offer over bills and how they can help with budgeting, and suppliers must also be able to recover debt to make sure those costs don’t end up on everyone else’s bills.

    ‘Protecting customers’ is demonstrably NOT Ofgem’s priority – otherwise it wouldn’t allow energy companies to ever forcibly install prepayment meters.

    Stu Bretherton from campaign group Fuel Poverty Action told the Canary:

    Energy firms have proven time and again that they can’t be trusted with this dangerous practice. Just two months ago, Scottish Power was granted warrants impacting families with newborn babies. We need an outright ban but Ofgem continually puts energy company profits first, even when doing so will put lives at risk this winter.

    So, it’s a new year but the same old story from Ofgem. The poorest people in the UK can freeze so long as private energy companies’ profits are protected.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK families are suffering the ‘worst decline’ in living standards in the G7

    The UK is only country in the G7 where household budgets have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. That’s the verdict of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), as its analysis reveals that British families would be £750 a year better off if real disposable income had grown in line with other leading economies

    UK living standards: lagging behind the rest of the G7

    The UK is suffering the worst decline in living standards of any G7 country – according to new TUC analysis published on Monday 8 January. The analysis shows the UK is only G7 economy where real household disposable income per head hasn’t recovered to its pre-pandemic levels:

    Real household disposable incomes in the UK were 1.2% lower in the second quarter of 2023 than at the end of 2019. But over the same period they grew by 3.5%, on average, across the G7.

    The TUC estimates that if real disposable income in the UK had risen in line with the G7 average UK families would be £750 a year better off.

    More pain ahead for households budgets

    The union body warned that the contraction in UK household budgets is going to get worse – despite falling inflation.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts that real house disposable income per head in Britain will fall by an additional 3.4% by the end of the first quarter of 2024.

    And according to the same forecasts household budgets won’t even recover to their pre-pandemic levels until the end of 2026.

    The OBR said in November that UK households are suffering the worst period for living standards since modern records began in the 1950s.

    Households in debt

    The TUC says the Conservatives’ failure to grow the economy and deliver healthy wage growth has pushed many households further into debt.

    Analysis published by the union body at the end of December revealed that unsecured debt (credit cards, loans, hire purchase agreements) is set to rise by £1,400 per household, in real terms, this year.

    The TUC says working people have been left brutally exposed to rising costs and decimated household budgets after years of pay stagnation.

    UK workers are on course for two decades of lost living standards with real wages not forecast to recover to their 2008 level until 2028.

    The TUC estimates that the average worker has lost £14,800 since 2008 as a result of their pay not keeping up with pre-global financial crisis real wage trends.

    The Tories’ damning record is to blame

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    The UK is the only G7 nation where living standards are worse than before the pandemic. While families in other countries have seen their incomes recover – household budgets here continue to shrink.

    This is a damning indictment on the Conservatives’ economic record. Their failure to deliver decent growth and living standards over the last 13 years has left millions exposed to skyrocketing bills – and is pushing many deeper into debt.

    We can’t go on like this. Britain cannot afford the Tories for a day longer.

    Featured image via formatoriginal – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.