Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

James Myburgh says the liberals are not the ones in denial about the poisonous effects of 'race' and 'racism'

Over the past few weeks there has been much strange commentary by the transformationists in response to the Democratic Alliances recent pivot back towards liberal non-racialism. One of the strangest claims of all, however, is that liberals pretend that race suddenly doesnt matter or claim that it is irrelevant in understanding where South Africa is today.

The liberal position has always been that race certainly does matter: It is a poison. It is also highly relevant to understanding our current predicament, given the fantastic damage done by the racial policies of the transformationists in pursuit of their ideal of perfect demographic representivity - to the countrys institutions and economic prospects post-1995.

One of the great difficulties of engaging race conscious people in debate is that you are questioning not just a point of view, or an opinion, or even an ideology, but their entire view of the world. This is especially so once their racial ideology is actually put into practice, and then progressively extended into all areas of life. They dont believe, in other words, that their view is just one of many different ways of looking at the world, they believe it is the only correct and legitimate way of looking at the world.

This syndrome whereby race consciousness blinds a person to reality, while making them think their racially distorted view of the world is the only true one, can be best described as racial blindedness. It was certainly characteristic of white attitudes through the apartheid period. As older white South Africans will remember statutory racial preferment is like a free lunch served with the knowledge that someone else has had to go hungry. It is at once both psychologically affirming and morally discomforting.

While people may become quickly very wedded to being on the inside track racially they deal with this moral discomfort by developing this blindedness to the negative effects on others. "One of the most remarkable facts," C.W. de Kiewiet wrote of South Africa in 1964, "is the manner in which the great range of discriminatory laws and the severity of their application to [black] Africans are masked and submerged. They seem to exist at a lower level of comprehension and significance, like automobile accidents.

The great role the liberals performed through this period - in the press, universities, parliament, and in the reports and surveys of the South African Institute for Race Relations for example - was in always bringing to the surface, documenting, and contesting, all the cruelties and absurdities of apartheid-era racial discrimination. The quality of the liberal critique was quite astounding at times. De Kiewiets own Anatomy of South African Misery, published in 1957, is an extraordinary piece of political writing, up there with any of George Orwells essays.

The liberal view was that racial discrimination was destructive not just to those it was applied against, but to the common good as well. Non-racialism meanwhile meant the abolition of racial discrimination. For instance, the 1962 handbook of the Liberal Party stated that it was a non-racial party, with non-racial policies. It believed that non-racialism is the only sure foundation for a multi-racial society of such complexity as ours, and that our problem can only be dealt with by people of all groups working together.

It stated that the colour bar, then entrenched in job reservation laws as well as the practices of white unions, results not only in the exclusion of non-white people from many skilled occupations, but also in the existence of excessive differences between skilled and unskilled rates of pay. In the long run, the colour bar benefits neither black nor white workers. It stifles ability and kills incentive. The partys policy was to abolish the colour bar by repealing existing restrictive legislation and by making discrimination on grounds of colour illegal. Opportunities for advancement must depend on merit alone.

In exactly the same year the emerging ANC/SACP leadership, that took over from Albert Luthuli, adopted a quite different programme in the form of the National Democratic Revolution. This envisaged the imminent seizure of power by armed force, the imposition of a vigorous and vigilant dictatorship, and strong discriminatory measures in favour of black Africans to ensure that all institutions were rapidly made representative of the overall population. Advancement under the NDR would depend on a combination of race and political reliability. If the ANC/SACP had managed to seize power, as they intended, they would have been able to implement this programme back then with the backing of the Soviet bloc. One of the main political models for communists at the time being what Sukarno and his allies in the PKI had achieved in Indonesia with their anti-imperialist policy in 1957/58.

The failure of the ANC/SACP to seize power as planned meant that the liberation movement was only able to come to office through a negotiated settlement, thirty years later. This was after the National Party government itself had abolished the colour bar in the early 1980s, and following the collapse of Communism, and the Soviet Union. As its strategy documents made clear the ANC always remained firmly committed to achieving the objectives of the national democratic revolution once it had finally worked its way into power. The implementation phase, as described here, began in 1996. Since then South Africans have lived under a hegemonic liberation movement fanatically dedicated to a programme of racial transformation the enforcement of pure racial proportionality at all levels and in all fields of life, from childrens sports teams, to the judiciary, to Eskom.

The measure of any government, especially one that has been in power for decades, is not just what the state of the country is, but what it could have been, had different policies been followed. In a February 2000 speech the Democratic Partys finance spokesperson, Ken Andrew, stated that his party believed that sustainable job creation should be the Number One priority of economic policy in South Africa today. South Africa can and must get its economic growth rates up to 6% or more per year, otherwise we will not succeed in reducing unemployment and poverty. We dare not settle for less.

Bottle-necks on our growth path, he noted, are shortages of foreign reserves and skilled labour. Neither are insurmountable obstacles. What we need is more foreign direct investment, growing exports and rapid privatisation to reduce government debt and to increase our foreign reserves by billions of Rands, and a deliberate campaign to increase the supply of skilled people in our country by going out and attracting skilled immigrants and by channelling resources into developing skills within our society ranging from basic literacy through artisan training to tertiary education.

One of the consequences of the colour bar was that it created an unnatural skills shortage in South Africa, that could only be filled through the immigration of skilled workers from Europe. In the late 1970s such immigration dried up and this placed an acute constraint on economic growth, and the ability of the country to provide sufficient employment to a rapidly growing (black) population. The sudden realisation of this was one of the main drivers of belated efforts at reform within the Afrikaner establishment.

Yet the primary yardstick by which the transformationists have measured their success over the past two decades is the degree to which they have rid the state, parastatals and private sector of high level (minority) technical, engineering and managerial expertise. This has resulted in an exodus of skilled people not just from these institutions, but from the country. Not even the ANCs old idols in the German Democratic Republic were this insane when it came to economics. As Markus Wolf notes in his memoirs the reason why his government built an antifascist protective barrier around West Berlin in 1961 was precisely to put a stop to the huge exodus of skilled people from East to West Germany at the time. As he explains the rationale, the GDR was hemorrrhaging its workforce, losing people who had cost money to train and whose contribution living standards would sink further. I felt that we were swimming through mud.

The efforts to transform the economy meanwhile, by forcing companies to hand over their shares to a politically connected elite, has been a massive deterrence to both domestic and foreign investment. As have recent efforts to accelerate the transformation of property ownership through the push for Expropriation Without Compensation. It goes without saying the ANCs policies to transform education from cadre deployment to right sizing to OBE to Sadtufication - have been a disaster for the quality of schooling for the black and Coloured poor.

How would South Africa look today though if these race denying liberals had got their way and the post-apartheid government had prioritised economic growth, and achieved the goal of 6% economic growth per annum by 2001? Holding all else equal the economy would now be three times the size that it was in 2000, and GDP per capita almost twice what it is today.

According to StatsSA there were 12,3m people in employment in South Africa in 2000. There were 3,7m unemployed, and another 1,5m discouraged work seekers, so 5,3m people unemployed on the expanded definition. Today StatSA estimates that 16,3m people are employed. The number of unemployed though has risen to 6,7m, and the number of discouraged work seekers to 2,7m. There are 9,4m people in other words who would like to work but are jobless. If a rapidly growing economy had generated job growth of 3% per annum since 2000 there would have been 21,6m people in employment today in South Africa, 5m more than there now actually are. If 4% job growth per annum had been achieved the country would be close to full employment.

Transformationists have been in political office in South Africa since 1994, and in control of the state and parastatals since 1996. They have always made up a considerable majority on the Constitutional Court since its establishment, and also managed to elbow their way into dominant positions in the media and the universities. Liberal proposals for positive change have been ignored, and their warnings disregarded. Publicly critiquing transformation has been career limiting, if not career death, in many fields.

Yet somehow racial transformation is like the Schrdinger's catof public debate in the English-language media. On the one hand, it is still said to be a non-negotiable, moral imperative; something that should be extended to all remaining areas of South African existence. To question its utility is to invite violent denunciation. On the other hand, when one examines the lively debate around the causes of the current South African predicament, transformation suddenly disappears. If it is referred to at all it is through cryptic and misleading euphemisms like affirmative action and redress. We are apparently all meant to believe that this totalitarian policy, pursued over two decades by an electorally dominant liberation movement, in control of almost all levers of power, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the current countrys economic or institutional malaise.

This is obviously a ridiculous position, but not quite as ridiculous as then pretending that it is the liberals who are the ones in denial about the effects of race and racism.

Read more:

The extraordinary race-blindedness of the transformationists - OPINION - Politicsweb

Earlier this week, erstwhile culinary icon of Southern-inspired cultural conservatism Chick-fil-A kowtowed to the hectoring bullies of radical LGBT activism and announced that it would henceforth refrain from donating to such deeply polarizing and horrifyingly conservative Christian organizations as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Apparently, a mere organizational affiliation with Christianity in the year 2019 suffices to incite homophobic or transphobic smears from the secularist outrage mob.

Far be it from me to tell a private company that it has made a poor business decision, but the reality is that Chick-fil-A has all but assuredly made a poor business decision. As many in the commentariat class have pointed out, Chick-fil-As business model has only increasingly flourished as the Lefts attacks against it have contemporaneously amplified. The predictable result of Chick-fil-As corporate cowardice will only be the alienation of the companys core supporters and the failure to appease its insatiable foes on the Left.

As Spencer Klavan aptly put it at The American Mind, The attack on Chick-fil-A makes plain that radical leftists are not in this for a compromise, or an equitable live-and-let-live solution. Destruction, not dtente, is the goal. Indeed. And against this backdrop of leftist/secularist cultural hegemony, overly defensive calls for pluralism and procedural tolerance are woefully inadequate responses for those of us on the political Right.

The latest Chick-fil-A imbroglio is, of course, a downstream symptom of an upstream cause: The utterly toxic politicization of all facets of our day-to-day lives. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro argued in his syndicated column this week, this is a deeply pernicious trend. The fraying of the American social fabric, already a years- or decades-long phenomenon, continues to worsen unabated. A nation where warring political tribes not only consume different media, but eat different chicken sandwiches and wear differing clothing lines, is a country destined for bitter strife, at best or internecine violence, at worst.

Americans of good faith all ought to agree that we should notwant to live in a country where such an anodyne institution as a chicken sandwich chain elicits this level of hostility, and engenders this level of politicized passion, due to its Christian-inspired donative proclivities.

The question for conservatives, amidst this debilitating backdrop of politicized bifurcation, a widening economic and cultural chasm between the classes, and metastasizing crises of hyper-individualistic atomism and despondency, is how best to proceed as a political movement. The republic often seems to be falling apart at the seams, and it is incumbent upon all of us in the political and commentariat classes to think very hard about what it is we can do to plot a salutary path forward. Above all else, that path forward must focus on how best to heal our politys fractious wounds and concomitantly re-inculcate a sense of proud Americanism.

It ought to be obvious that live-and-let-live-style classical liberalism a political movement centered around the conservation of certain Enlightenment-era procedural norms, and not around the conservation of substantive moral or cultural norms is bothpolitically wantingand woefully inadequate to confront the crises of our times. Rather, a resurgent, forward-looking conservatism simply must better account for a human nature that, contra Ayn Rand, is inherently inimical to radical individualism. Human nature yearns for communitarianism for inclusion in what Edmund Burke famously called the little platoon[s] of society. Yet the sclerotic and morally bankrupt reality of contemporary American political life presents us, as New York Post Op-Ed Editor Sohrab Ahmari put it this week at First Things, with a bipartisan abolition of solidarity.

Conservatives simply must become more willing to rethink outmoded Reagan-era orthodoxies and to discard the anachronistic bromides of what some now dub Conservatism, Inc. As Ahmari framed it, the human nature reality for both leftists and libertarians/procedure-centric classical liberals is that the longing for solidarity can never be permanently repressed.

It is past time to make this pursuit of solidarity a core underlying basis of our conservative political agenda. To be sure, filling out the substantive details of this solidaristic, assimilationist, nationally cohesive conservative agenda what many of us might call national conservatism remains a work in progress. Here is how I briefly outlined parts of the agenda, back in July:

National conservatism means a politics concretely focused on the mutually interdependent bonds of human loyalty upon which a society ultimately depends as opposed to the atomization espoused by hyper-individualistic doctrinaire libertarianism. National conservatism means a politics focused on national solidarity and reinforcing the shared customs, traits, norms, and mores that establish America not merely as an idea but also as a tangible people as opposed to the existential scourge of divisive multiculturalism. National conservatism means viewing America as a nation-state with an economy as opposed to viewing America as but one border-less abstraction within a globalized economy. National conservatism means the articulation and advancement of all domestic and foreign policy alike through the lens of national self-interest as opposed to policy advancement based on transnational considerations or the needs of foreigners. National conservatism means a hardened immigration system that prioritizes cultural assimilation above all else as opposed to a laxer immigration system that prioritizes the cheap labor needs of the Fortune 500. National conservatism means a foreign affairs approach premised on narrow alliances with like-minded, self-sufficient nations who share Americas core national security concerns as opposed to a foreign affairs approach premised on a tendentiously moralistic, sovereignty-undermining transnational agenda. National conservatism means a world order of sovereign nation-states as opposed to the soft tyranny of the unelectable transnational bureaucrats in Turtle Bay and Brussels. National conservatism means a domestic affairs approach that, while undoubtedly market-oriented, resists the vestigial temptation to shirk the levers of political power as a means to advance the conservative cause in the realms of Big Tech, higher education, and other private spheres that increasingly pose just as dire a threat to our way of life as does over-zealous Big Government itself. National conservatism means a conservatism that works for the American heartland and for all rungs of the economic ladder as opposed to a purist anti-regulation agenda that merely speaks for the economic interests of the bi-coastal elite.

There are many erudite conservative critics of this prospective political model. I share some of their concerns. And it is true that policy wonks must dedicate substantial time to fleshing out more of the intricate details. But I also do not see a viable alternative path forward. America will regain its sense of national solidarity its sense of patriotism and of communitarian belongingness in the greatest nation-state in the history of the world or it will eventually wither and die. I, for one, am hoping for the former.

Visit link:

HAMMER: On Chick-Fil-A, Political Tribalism, And The Need For National Solidarity - The Daily Wire

U.S. State Department Special Representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker

But this article is not about Trump, it is about the former State Department special representative Kurt Volker, who recently left his post and is also involved in the impeachment inquiry. Most likely, Volker will no longer be replaced, and his position will be eliminated altogether. The reason for this decision is obvious - work in Ukraine becomes too toxic and jeopardizes the reputation of the politician. This is reported by Foreign Policy.

No Normandy "Five"

"The position of U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, formerly held by Kurt Volker, the first senior official to step down in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, will likely be discontinued altogether, according to current and former U.S. officials," so begins the Foreign Policy article.

"The responsibilities of Volkers role are expected to be taken up by other State Department officials whose portfolios include Ukraine," the article reads. "This move leaves Kyiv without a clearly designated U.S. diplomat to watch its back in talks as new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky pushes for peace five years into a simmering war in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk that has killed more than 13,000 people," journalists wrote.

The magazine quotes the director of the New Europe Center Alyona Getmanchuk, who says that the abolition of the post of special representative is "the signal, to put it mildly, is not encouraging, but quite expected: the U.S. presence in peace negotiations on Donbas is approaching zero."

Further Foreign Policy notes that there simply will not be anyone who wants to take Volkers chair, given how threatening the work on the Ukrainian direction has become. Those who were involved in it and testified to Congress in the case of impeachment were faced with pressure from the lawyers of the Department of State. In addition, their career was damaged or even destroyed.

American journalists recall: Volker was appointed to the post by then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in July 2017. This move, like Volker's newly created position, was seen as a sign that "the US presidential administration is serious about Ukraine and shares the hope that it can activate the peace process just when the Western capitals begin to feel tired of Ukraine."

However, all hopes were dispelled when Volker got into the investigation of Trump case. He himself noted that "can no longer be effective in his role," and voluntarily resigned. Its unfortunate that the US role in the diplomacy of Ukraine and Russia was completely leveled by scandal. This takes the United States off the playing field at a crucial moment on the eve of a possible Normandy Four summit, says Andrew Weiss, vice president of the Carnegie Fund.

How Trumps impeachment put an end to Volkers Ukrainian career

But how is Volker involved in the Trump scandal? In early November, the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled transcripts of testimony from former State Department spokesman Kurt Volker and U.S. ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland. They were involved in the impeachment process of US President Donald Trump.

Volker is charged with the following. Allegedly, "the day after Trumps telephone conversation with Zelensky, which took place on July 25," he went to Kyiv with a very specific mission.

"The mission was to strengthen" the demands of President Trump", that is, the actual blackmail of Ukraine, to which Trump resorted in conversation with Zelensky, according to the World Tribune. It was recalled that Trumps desire for Ukraine was to more actively investigate allegations against Joseph Bidens son in exchange for Americas military assistance.

Volker himself categorically rejects this version of events. He notes that he did not want to return to Ukraine at all until all the electoral passions subsided, and planned his trip not earlier than autumn. And when he nevertheless went to Kyiv, there was only one goal - to congratulate the new government on the victory.

Noting this, Volker turned to the rather unpleasant characteristics of President Donald Trump. He said the Trump administration was "obsessed with dirtying an opponent, not a fight against corruption in general." This is reported by The Guardian.

At the same time, the newspaper notes that its correspondent managed to ask Trump whether "the US military assistance was really tied to the Biden investigation"? And he answered: "No."

And therefore it is obvious that one of the two defendants in the scandal - Trump or Volker - is telling a lie. Moreover, Volker testifies that Trump "showed a very deeply rooted negative look at Ukraine." And that Volker himself tried to do everything possible and impossible to prove to Trump that "the new government of Ukraine is different (from the previous one) and that it is necessary to meet with President Zelensky." Trump gave up reluctantly, but agreed to arrange a meeting," the Liberty Nation wrote.

"All American officials involved in Ukraine sought to see this (changes in domestic politics, ed.) precisely because it would be an important step in convincing Trump that Ukrainians are serious about eradicating corruption that has long plagued their country." Liberty Nation notes.

But the aforementioned Gordon Sondland changed his previous testimonies and at a Congressional hearing de facto confirmed that blackmail by the American president had taken place. "I now recall that I spoke separately with Mr. Yermak (Andriy Ermak - Zelenskys assistant), and I said that the resumption of US assistance is unlikely to happen until Ukraine makes a public anti-corruption statement, which we discussed in for weeks, "the BBC quotes Sondland.

Thus, it turns out that the truth is still on the side of Kurt Volker. But, despite this, the former special representative is twice injured. He lost not only job in Ukraine, but also the leadership of the McCain Institute analytical center in the USA. McCain's widow asked him to leave the Institute. Kurt is a good person, said Cindy McCain. But what happened "cast a shadow on the Institute and cast a shadow on what we are doing and what we are working for. So, the time has come," Mrs. McCain said.

Thus, a clash with Ukrainian realities turned out to be fatal for Kurt Volker. Even if he did not play up to Donald Trump in his attempt to push the leadership of Ukraine, but, on the contrary, stopped him in every possible way.

Insidious "Javelins"

However, the same American media claim that Kurt Volker also has his sins. At one time, he did not play the good and bad cop with Trump, but was on the same team with him, according to Politico.

Its article says Volker could influence Trump when it came to the supply of Javelin missiles to Ukraine. The US president did not immediately agree to such a supply, but in the end gave the go-ahead. Not without the help of Volker, who was actively pressing on him. And its clear why. After all, Volker at that time held positions in the BGR Group, large lobbying firm as well as in the above-mentioned McCain Institute. These structures had financial ties with Raytheon, which manufactures Javelin systems and which earned millions on Trump's decision.

At one time, the Ukrainian editorial office of Radio Liberty asked the Javelins question to former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst. Journalists were interested, in particular, whether the contract for the supply of weapons could be disrupted due to an investigation by Politico. "I think some interesting details may come up here, but on the whole it will not transfer into a big topic that could somehow affect Ukrainian events and policies regarding Ukraine," Herbst replied.

He regretted that Kurt Volker had completed his activities in Ukraine, but at the same time added that there is someone to replace Volker, even not officially.

"I think its not good that Volker left. I would like him to keep this position. I would like him to do his job, as before, because he was really in his place. But, you know, in Kyiv there is a temporary attorney, a very talented person - William Taylor, and Ukraine will be able to share its concerns with him. William is constantly on the phone with Secretary of State Pompeo. There are good people who are the curators of Ukraine in the Department of State, and they can convey information to Secretary of State. Knowledgeable people work in the US Security Council. Therefore, I think there will be no problems. But then again, of course, it would be better for everyone if Kurt retained this position, "Herbst said.

Who is William Taylor?

Formally, the post of special representative of the US State Department in Ukraine was founded in 2017. But its prototype existed before. In fact, Victoria Nuland - the former Commissioner of the US State Department for Europe and Eurasia - played the role of Volker when he himself was "not yet in the project." She did not went to the front. But there was Euromaidan.

Everyone remembers how, in early February 2014, a telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Payette appeared on YouTube. The interlocutors discussed the situation around the protests in Ukraine and the possibility of resolving the political crisis. On the record you can hear how a voice similar to the voice of Nuland, commenting on the role of the EU, says: Fuck the EU.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was very offended by this "Fuck" on Nuland. (It will take some five years, and Merkel will have a new reason for resentment - already because of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky, where the role of Europe was also exposed in a rather unsightly light.)

It is also interesting that, talking with Payette, Nuland noted that she did not see Vitali Klitschko (at that time the leader of the presidential ratings) in the "Ukrainian government." Actually, he didnt get there, because after the famous coffee party in Vienna with the participation of oligarch Dmitry Firtash it was decided to promote Petro Poroshenko as president.

Did Americas reluctance to see Klitschko in the top of Ukrainian leaders influenced such a situation? All this is a long and complicated story, which, at first glance, has nothing to do with Kurt Volker, but perfectly illustrates the significance of a person delegated by the United States to look after Ukraine.

As for William Taylor mentioned by Herbst, now he holds the position of US Charg d'Affaires in Ukraine. Taylor, 72, was once the US ambassador to Ukraine (2006-2009). And he perfectly oriented in the annoying Ukrainian realities. Recently, his correspondence with Kurt Volker appeared on the web. There are Taylors rather serious doubts: should he return to Kyiv again?

Taylor says deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs George Kent warned him that there are "two snake nests: one in Kyiv, the other in Washington." And judging by the context of the conversation, Taylor does not express any disagreement with this assessment.

True, not the current power, but the previous one was meant under the Ukrainian "snake nest". That is, we still do not know what assessment Taylor would give to the current situation in Ukraine. But in any case, he now works in Kyiv. "Good man" and "curator" of Ukraine in the State Department, as John Herbst would say. That is, the story to be continued? ..

Here is the original post:

First and last: Why there won't be a replacement for Kurt Volker? - 112 International

This is based on a recent report.

According to the Special Eurobarometer produced by the European Commission, almost one in ten Europeans struggles with mental health issues. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that the costs related to mental health in the workplace for the European economy can go up to USD 140 billion per year.

According to the Belgian HR provider Securexs yearly analysis, the number of employees being absent in Belgium has significantly and systematically increased every year starting from 2001. During 2018, out of 100 employees, seven were sick on an average workday. It is mainly long-term sickness (i.e. illness or incapacity lasting more than one year) that has led to this worrying evolution. This increasing problem of long-term sickness is caused by the aging of the Belgian workforce due to the abolition of early pension schemes and burnout and mental health problems.

Despite these figures, it has taken a long time for mental health at work to get the attention it deserves. Not so, however, in Belgian law.

As early as 2002, the Belgian legislator acknowledged that the wellbeing of employees is not just derived from physical health and safety measures and introduced the concept of psychosocial wellbeing in the so-called Act on the Wellbeing of Employees in the Workplace. A chapter was included in this act that focussed on three forms of so-called psychosocial risks: violence, harassment and sexual harassment at work.

Since then, employers have been obliged to implement measures to prevent violence, harassment and sexual harassment occurring in the workplace. Every employer must appoint a special prevention counsellor, specialised in psychosocial issues in the workplace and implement a global (five-year) and yearly action plan including internal reporting procedures. As the special prevention counsellor is usually an external expert, many companies will also appoint an internal person of trust.

Victims of violence, harassment or sexual harassment can also bring a complaint before the employment court to obtain an injunction to stop the unacceptable behaviour or claim damages from the harasser and/or the employer who did not take sufficiently effective measures.

In 2014, the scope of the Act on Wellbeing was extended, and employers now have to ban any type of psychosocial burden at work.

This means prevention plans should also focus on measures to improve mental health at work and the internal reporting procedures and legal remedies are also accessible for employees suffering from health problems following stress or burnout.

In view of the increasing number of employees with mental health problems, it was anticipated that this legislative change would lead to an increase in court cases. But this is not the case: after five years the number of cases on psychosocial risks at work is still rather limited and mainly deal with harassment at work.

However, we have seen an increase in cases on discrimination. Belgian law not only protects against discrimination based on disability but also on the employees health circumstances. Under general employment law, an employee can be validly dismissed during a period of sickness or health problems. Employees will, however, increasingly go to court to claim damages based on discrimination or for a manifestly unreasonable dismissal when they are dismissed during a period of sickness or during a period of reinstatement after sickness.

Although Belgian courts are still quite reluctant to grant damages on these grounds, employers should be careful. In general, Belgian courts will accept that employers can have valid reasons to dismiss an employee who suffers from mental health problems, such as the need to deal with organisational problems resulting from the absence or the need to replace an employee who is not motivated and not performing well. However, they should be able to provide clear evidence of the justification.

There is no case law yet on the question of whether a long-term mental problem such as burnout could qualify as a disability, leading to an even stronger protection for employees. However, we expect this to follow soon for mental health in the workplace.

Swiss employers can, in principle, validly terminate an employees contract during a period of sickness or health problems (after a certain period of time has expired). However, employers also have the obligation to take the necessary measures to safeguard the safety and health (both physical and mental) of their employees, including an obligation to prevent harassment and sexual harassment.

In this context, case law has ruled that a dismissal motivated by an absence resulting from illness or a reduction in the employees performance or motivation may be considered as unfair (leading to the payment of an indemnity) if this absence or performance reduction is caused by a breach of the employers own above-mentioned obligations. Employers are not entitled to invoke the consequences of their own breach of contract as a justification for termination.

In the UK, all employees who have a disability are protected by discrimination law. A disability covers serious long-term health conditions and includes mental health conditions and illnesses that are controlled by medication or treatment. Stress is not in itself a medical condition but prolonged exposure to unmanageable stress is linked to psychological conditions such as anxiety and depression, as well as physical effects such as heart disease, back pain and migraines (which can be protected).

In addition, there is a risk of a personal injury claim where an employee suffers from a recognised psychiatric illness (for example, clinical depression) as a result of the employers negligence, and that psychiatric illness was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employers negligence. Reputedly stressful jobs do not qualify for special treatment, although they do put the employer on notice that a problem may be more likely to arise.

According to Italian law, employers have the obligation to employ a certain quota of disabled employees proportionally to their workforce. This quota also includes employees with psychosocial or mental health issues. Italian law provides that there is a legal obligation on employers in Italy to ensure a healthy and safe work environment in general, but there are no specific provisions relating to mental health. However, burnout and stress-related conditions are considered in risk evaluations at work. There is increased focus and attention from scholars, the media and in general discussions about quality life at work.

Contributing members to this article include:

Inger Verhelst of Claeys & Engels in BelgiumPascal Giorgis of Schneider Troillet in SwitzerlandLucy Lewis of Lewis Silkin in The United KingdomLea Rossi of Toffoletto De Luca Tamajo e Soci in Italy

Editor's Recommended Articles

Excerpt from:

The issue of mental health in the workplace - Open Access Government

ByIngerVerh Firm:Claeys & Engels

How doesBelgian law safeguard mental health in the workplace? This article describes the law and provides some guidance for employers.

The issue of mental health in the workplace

According to the Special Eurobarometer produced by the European Commission, almost one in ten Europeans struggles with mental health issues. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that the costs related to mental health problems for the European economy can go up to USD 140 billion per year.

According to the Belgian HR provider Securexs yearly analysis, the number of employees being absent in Belgium has significantly and systematically increased every year starting from 2001. During 2018, out of 100 employees, seven were sick on an average workday. It is mainly long-term sickness (i.e. illness or incapacity lasting more than one year) that has lead to this worrying evolution. This increasing problem of long-term sickness is caused by the aging of the Belgian workforce due to the abolition of early pension schemes and burnout and mental health problems.

Despite these figures, it has taken a long time for mental health at work to get the attention it deserves. Not so however in Belgian law.

The Act on the Wellbeing of Employees in the Workplace

As early as 2002, the Belgian legislator acknowledged that the wellbeing of employees is not just derived from physical health and safety measures and introduced the concept of psychosocial wellbeing in the so-called Act on the Wellbeing of Employees in the Workplace. A chapter was included in this act that focussed on three forms of so-called psychosocial risks: violence, harassment and sexual harassment at work.

Since then employers have been obliged to implement measures to prevent violence, harassment and sexual harassment occurring in the workplace. Every employer must appoint a special prevention counsellor, specialised in psychosocial issues in the workplace and implement a global (five-year) and yearly action plan including internal reporting procedures. As the special prevention counsellor is usually an external expert, many companies will also appoint an internal person of trust.

Victims of violence, harassment or sexual harassment can also bring a complaint before the employment court to obtain an injunction to stop the unacceptable behaviour or claim damages from the harasser and/or the employer who did not take sufficiently effective measures.

Wider-ranging obligations for employers

In 2014, the scope of the Act on Wellbeing was extended and employers now have to ban any type of psychosocial burden at work.

This means prevention plans should also focus on measures to improve mental health at work and the internal reporting procedures and legal remedies are also accessible for employees suffering from health problems following stress or burnout.

Mental health issues and the courts

In view of the increasing number of employees with mental health problems, it was anticipated that this legislative change would lead to an increase in court cases. But this is not the case: after five years the number of cases on psychosocial risks at work is still rather limited and mainly deal with harassment at work.

However, we have seen an increase in cases on discrimination. Belgian law not only protects against discrimination based on disability but also on the employees health circumstances. Under general employment law, an employee can be validly dismissed during a period of sickness or health problems. Employees will, however, increasingly go to court to claim damages based on discrimination or for a manifestly unreasonable dismissal when they are dismissed during a period of sickness or during a period of reinstatement after sickness. Although Belgian courts are still quite reluctant to grant damages on these grounds, employers should be careful. In general, Belgian courts will accept that employers can have valid reasons to dismiss an employee who suffers from mental health problems, such as the need to deal with organisational problems resulting from the absence or the need to replace an employee who is not motivated and not performing well. However, they should be able to provide clear evidence of the justification.

There is no case law yet on the question of whether a long-term mental problem such as burnout could qualify as a disability, leading to an even stronger protection for employees. However we expect this to follow soon.

Read this article:

Belgium + Comments from other countries - Mental health at work: how healthy is the law? - Lexology

President Trumps best-laid plans sometimes turn out to be little more than slogans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi memorably called his bluff in a meeting between Trump and congressional leaders on the Syria situation.

The House had just voted, 354-60, on a rare and overwhelming bipartisan rebuke of the presidents announced withdrawal of U.S. troops. That action opened a door for Turkey to attack Syrian Kurds who have been fighting the Islamic State with American support.

Like earlier meetings between Trump and congressional leaders, this one turned contentious, according to media reports. At one point, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer intervened in an argument between Trump and Pelosi, a California Democrat, to ask the president, Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?

To which Trump replied, Our plan is to keep the American people safe.

Thats not a plan, Pelosi said. Thats a goal.

Bingo. Thank you, Madam Speaker. My biggest complaint about Trump since he first entered the 2016 race was his wealth of wishes with no visible path to achieve them.

That trickery, or fakery, began with his slogan, Make America Great Again. Thats an easy goal to achieve if you never reveal what you mean by great. Its hard to hold people accountable if they avoid being specific about their plans. Now Trump has updated his slogan to Keep America Great for his reelection campaign, while Im still wondering what he meant the first time.

But thats just me. Before Trump defenders warm up their word processors to tell me how great they feel these days, despite the fast-moving impeachment inquiry haunting the presidents plans, I hasten to add that being long on goals but short on plans is not limited to any one party.

A striking example showed itself at the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio the night before the White House meeting. Former Vice President Joe Biden was holding on to his lead. But breathing down his neck was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has made a campaign slogan of Ive got a plan for that.

As her rivals put that slogan to the test, a dilemma soon became apparent. Warren has been catching up to Biden by adopting more aggressively progressive positions. But moving too far left to impress Democratic primary voters could cost her support from the moderate swing voters who ultimately have decided close elections.

Perhaps it was with that in mind that Warren seemed to be inching toward the middle. For example, instead of promising to confiscate assault-style rifles like former Rep. Beto ORourke of Texas does, she supported more achievable gun laws.

But on the big issue of Medicare for All, she stuck with her earlier endorsement of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders call for the abolition of all private insurance for basic health care.

She also ruled out the possibility of pivoting to a voluntary plan that would allow us consumers to choose for ourselves whether we want to move to government insurance or keep our private insurance.

All of which makes me wonder whether Democrats, particularly on the progressive wing, learned nothing from the fights President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats struggled through in order to get the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, passed or to get its website to work.

In April, Sanders reintroduced his proposed Medicare for All Act for a single-payer system to replace all current public and private coverage, which, according to an Urban Institute study of his original 2016 campaign proposal, would ultimately raise federal expenditures by about $3 trillion a year. Most Americans would save money in the long run, but it would raise income taxes on most in the short run.

No wonder politicians are so reluctant to even bring up the details of how such grand plans are to be financed. Trump, by contrast, promised as a candidate to repeal and replace Obamacare with something that will be cheaper and give better coverage. Were still waiting for that to happen.

Watching how effectively Pelosi has flummoxed the homework-averse Trump with her interest in such details makes me wish she was on that candidate debate stage. Thats not likely to happen, but those who are can learn a lot from her insistence not just on a lofty goals but also on practical ways to achieve them.

Continued here:

They Could Learn Something From Pelosi - Lynchburg News and Advance

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez successfully grabbed another headline last week by tweeting that Americans should have a real conversation about abolishing prisons. Though she did later walk back this bone-toss to her far-left supporters, the prison abolition movement isnt as niche as youd think.

At their annual meeting this year, theDemocratic Socialists of America passed a resolutionto start a working group on the topic. In April,the ACLU told the New York Timesit wants to defund the prison system.

The idea behind this radical proposal is this: If we could just get our systems right our healthcare system, our education system, our welfare system we wouldntneedany prisons. If everyone just had proper healthcare, great teachers, and all the money they could want or need, no one would commit any crimes.

Its a bit like suggesting we should abolish doctors; because if all had equal access to leafy greens and the flu shot, no one would ever get sick.

Obviously, part of the prison abolition movements strategy is to shock and turn heads toward these other issues. But such a proposal is also a particularly obtuse expression of Utopianism.

Chuck Colson defined Utopianism as the myth that human nature can be perfected by government. Utopianism has at least two core flaws: First, it completely misunderstands the human condition. Because human beings are corrupted by sin, we gravitate toward greed, selfishness, and pride without the redirection of the Holy Spirit. In fact, we do this without help of any kind our sin is not societys fault or caused by poverty. You cant educate us out of our sinful natures.

In fact, even the most devoted prison abolitionists cant make it through a single morning without falling short of their own standards, much less Gods standards. And neither can we.

Todays prison abolitionists fail to acknowledge the scores of men and women who had every conceivable privilege and went on to commit crimes anyway. Wealthy Wall Streeters commit white-collar crimes. Americas Ivy League campuses arguably the veryseatsof privilege are plagued by sexual assault. Even some perpetrators of mass shootings came from stable, affluent families.

A second problem with Utopianism is that any attempt to create this fantasy world where no one commits a crime means advocating for government control on an unprecedented scale. Any government with that much power would quickly end any illusion of utopia. After all, governments are still made up of fallen human beings.

Every utopian project that has been tried so far has failed. Many were led by characters like Stalin and Mao and Castro international revolutionaries who turned almost cartoonishly fast from men of the people into tyrants. History teaches it best: Presuming to create a perfect system will ultimately degrade into power grabs and human misery.

Because of the accurate way the Bible describes the human condition, we can expect prisons to continue as a necessary part of society until Christ makes all things new. In Matthew 25, Jesus instructs his followers tovisitthose in prison. An effective prison system will keep people safe, communicate the consequences of wrong-doing to the larger culture, and work to return the imprisoned to our community with better means and accountability by which to govern their own fallen impulses.

And let me add this: Because we believe the incarcerated are human beings made in the image of God and that restoration is possible, the Colson Center stands with Prison Fellowship and others who support criminal justice reforms that address the very real problems of over-incarceration and sentencing disparity.

But, the idea of abolishing prison is an unrealistic, and yet very real, distraction from the necessary conversations we need to be having about how to handle crime in our communities. Not to mention, its a poster child of Utopianism.

Download MP3 Audio Here.

BreakPointis a program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. BreakPoint commentaries offer incisive content people can't find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion. Founded by Chuck Colson (1931 2012) in 1991 as a daily radio broadcast, BreakPoint provides a Christian perspective on today's news and trends. Today, you can get it in written and a variety of audio formats: on the web, the radio, or your favorite podcast app on the go.

John Stonestreetis President of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and radio host ofBreakPoint,a daily national radio program providing thought-provoking commentaries on current events and life issues from a biblical worldview. John holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (IL) and Bryan College (TN),and is the co-author ofMaking Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview.

Read more:

Should We Abolish All Prisons? - Human Fallenness, the Role of Government, and the Myth of Utopia - Christianheadlines.com

There are plenty of familiar metaphors for politics a swamp, a circus, a schoolyard but John Kass, an opinion columnist at the Chicago Tribune, has come up with a new one. In a recent column, Kass describes the Democratic party as an organization of singing derelicts in an edible fantasy land. He writes that hearing Democratic presidential candidates discuss their platforms is like staring from a distance at the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

The Big Rock Candy Mountain is a well-known and well-loved folk song, written at the turn of the 20th century by songwriter and poet Harry Haywire McClintock and sung from the point of view of a wandering hobo. The hobo imagines a world less harsh than our own, where instead of sleeping on the street and riding the rail he rests in an idyllic utopia. Kass quotes part of the first verse, which goes:

Kass calls this an encapsulation of Democratic economic policy, a program he sees as being written for modern Americans whove been trained to despise the freedom offered by capitalism, while yearning for free stuff promised by the federal masters. But our intrepid pundit is not so easily lured in. I concentrated on what the candidates were saying, Kass writes, and it completely harshed my mellow. The Big Rock Candy Mountain is just a fantasy.

In the technical sense, this is true. But even a fantasy comes from somewhere. In the case of the Big Rock Candy Mountain, it came McClintock, a man who did indeed live as a hobo and also wrote the song Hallelujah, Im a Bum! But there was more to McClintocks story. He was a union organizer who worked on oil fields in West Texas, and a lifelong member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a labor union founded at the turn of the century. It was not a politically neutral organization, and its revolutionary orientation was summarized in its constitution, which called for abolition of the wage system. Setting out to become One Big Union, the IWW included miners, textile workers, and farmworkers alike. Its founders included Eugene V. Debs and Mother Jones. Members were colloquially referred to as Wobblies, a fitting sign of irreverence and humor that characterized the organizations rhetoric.

One of the IWWs greatest legacies is its songs, of which The Big Rock Candy Mountain is an unofficial example. The core canon, meant to be sung on shop floors during strikes and streets during marches, is collected in a pamphlet called The Little Red Songbook, first published in 1909. Its influence is wide and varied a young Leonard Cohen, at Jewish community camp, learned to write songs from studying its contents, and its best-known song, Solidarity Forever, remains the anthem of the American labor movement. Those unfamiliar with this body of work should immediately seek out Utah Phillipss recording of IWW songs, We Have Fed You All for A Thousand Years.

For the songs to function effectively for a multiethnic, multilingual labor movement, they had to be easy to understand and sing. So they were plagiarized from more familiar melodies; as Phillips puts it, the wobblies liked to steal the hymn tunes because they were pretty, and change the words so they made more sense. But they were more than propaganda; many of them, like Bread and Roses or McClintocks work, deal with less straightforward questions of what makes a good life.

Many of the most famous songs in the collection were written by Joe Hill, a Swedish immigrant and itinerant worker who was executed in 1915 for the murder of a policeman. He was almost certainly falsely accused, and the trial was so corrupt that even President Woodrow Wilson opposed his verdict. One of Hills songs, The Preacher and the Slave, is the origin of the expression, pie in the sky. The song was first performed by McClintock and some co-conspirators, under circumstances Utah Phillips describes on record:

Pie in the sky has become an expression often used to malign political programs that seek to provide for the working class and the poor; the kind of politics John Kass dismisses as a fantasy. But the song itself describes quite the opposite. Joe Hill mocked the promise of religion, that a life of poverty would lead to redemption and comfort in heaven after death. Work and pray, live on hay; you'll get pie in the sky when you die, says the preacher, all the while collecting money from working people. But the song ends with the workers of the world uniting. Rebuilding society, they enlist the grifting preachers to serve the workers instead, cooking and chopping wood. As IWW founding member Big Bill Haywood put it, nothings too good for the working class. Perhaps John Kass should grab a pot and pan.

Shuja Haider is a writer-at-large at The Outline.

Excerpt from:

The pundit and the hobo - The Outline

The housing market poses big policy challenges for every government and chief among them is the private rental sector. Ensuring adequate supply at affordable rates, in a way which works for both the landlord and the tenant is no small feat; there are competing interests to weigh and innumerable adverse consequences to consider. Tenants understandably demand greater security and affordability, while landlords despair over anti-social renters and rent arrears, and the risk to their portfolio. Governments of all stripes have grappled with the difficulties and proposed their own fixes.

To discuss the way forward Prospect and the National Landlords Association (NLA) convened a panel at Conservative Party conference in Manchester on 30th September. In attendance were Chris Norris, Director of Policy and Practice at the NLA; John Fuller, leader of south Norfolk council and deputy leader of the Conservative Party in local government; Greg Beales, Campaign Director at Shelter; and Dawn Foster, a freelance journalist with a specialism in housing. The panel was chaired by Prospects Deputy Editor Steve Bloomfield.

The background to the discussion was a significant change in regulation published earlier in the year: the abolition of no-fault evictions as laid out in Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This currently allows landlords to seek eviction of renters on assured shorthold tenancies with two months notice, after the expiry of an initial fixed term (typically six to 12 months). This is at the landlords discretion and legal whether the tenant has done anything wrong or not, in contrast with Section 8 notices which require proof of a ground for possession, such as rent arrears and anti-social behaviour.

Explaining what recent changes mean for the sector, Norris kicked off the conversation, arguing that new uncertainties are causing real problems for Britains 2m landlords. Owing not just to uncertainty around Section 21 but other changes to things like mortgage relief and capital gains tax, they cant plan their futures, they cant plan their investments, they often cant plan their retirements. In his view this isnt just bad for the landlord but for everybody: landlords cant offer the range of households the homes that theyve been asked to offer, meaning that youve got an industry that has money to invest, that wants to provide something and doesnt feel able. Landlords need to have an exit mechanism if things go wrong or [their] plans change. Section 21 provides this.

Headlines might focus on security for the tenant but you could argue security for the landlord is crucial. Fuller was just as keen to stress the rights landlords require to provide the homes we all need. The government must give them an opportunity to make a reasonable return on a responsible basis, and also recognise that sometimes their circumstances do change. Managing local housing markets as we do in south Norfolk, weve got to be respectful of that fact, with certain policiesarguably the abolition of section 21creating challenges in this regard. It is not fair if just because someone becomes a landlord in the first place, theyre handcuffed to the system in perpetuity.

The overarching consequence of making the situation less appealing for landlords, is that you could end up with a reduction in supply, and that doesnt help anybody.

Of course vulnerable tenants can find themselves on the sharp end of the market and Fuller stressed that his local authority provides the backstop of support in that event. Its not just the tenants, its not just the landlords, our job is to help run the middle.

There is no question that tenants can face immense uncertainty too. For Beales, the governments commitment to abolishing Section 21 is welcome. Section 21 gives landlords the power to evict children who then have to move school, they might have to change their doctors, might change all the public services that go with that and be uprooted. In its research Shelter has come across examples of elderly people being evicted on the basis that the landlord doesnt want to pay for the adaptations that are necessary for that person staying in the home. For Beales, the landlord certainly needs the right to turf out problematic tenants, but they should pursue it through section 8 if it is anti-social behaviour or similar. Young people and the elderly should not be at the whim of a system that gives them no protection and no right of recourse.

Foster, meanwhile, explained that she herself was in the private rental sector like most in the millennial generation and had often suffered from unjust practices. Over six years she lived in ten properties because we kept being evicted. There is a huge amount of uncertainty for tenants. There have been some improvements, particularly with the recent abolition of letting agents fees, but the fact remains that if you are a private renter, you are completely at the mercy of your landlord. Section 8 means that its quite straightforward to evict problem tenants, people who arent paying their rent or keeping the property in good condition. That means section 21 is not necessary and arguably that abolition is defensible.

However this position was questioned, with landlords challenging the characterisation of section 8 as straightforward. Norris said, I dont have a problem losing section 21 in theory if we can get the rest of the system to work. Beales agreed that it was worth twinning court reform with the abolition of section 21.

The wide-ranging discussion went on to cover the idea of rent controls, regulation in comparable democracies like Germany, and other recent reforms to the housing sector. The theme though remained the balance of responsibility between the tenant and the landlord. There can be a lot of antagonism between the two sides. But all have an interest in getting this right. And as Beales said, usually when markets work well there is not so much antagonism between the user and provider of the service.

Lessor and Lessee were suggested by the audience as new terms: a way to break the mindset that has set in around the words tenant and landlord. Most panellists, despite urging their own policy reforms, agreed that might be a good start.

Follow this link:

The evolving role of the landlord - Prospect

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) The erstwhile acting mayor of Kaohsiung and Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate, Han Kuo-yu (), doubled down on his proposal to abolish recent labor reforms at a rally in Chiayi County on Monday (Oct. 21).

At a campaign event in Pingtung on Oct. 16, an audience member called for the abolition of "one fixed day off, one flexible day off" () labor reforms, and Han responded he would review it. While visiting a temple in Pingtung's Neipu Township on Oct. 17, claiming widespread dissatisfaction with the formula, he pledged he would abolish it once he takes office as president on Jan. 11.

Han, who is on a three-month sabbatical from his post as mayor, claimed, "Since the implementation of the one fixed day off, one flexible day off policy, business owners and laborer friends have complained. So, I repeat that if I have the opportunity to be president of the Republic of China, I will take the initiative to abolish one fixed day off, one flexible day off."

At an election rally in Chiayi County on Monday, Han said that "framing it all under one decree no longer meets the current needs of the diversified labor environment," reported ETtoday. He stressed that, "Laborers want to make more money and bosses want to be able to ask employees to work overtime together," and called for it to be both "reviewed and abolished."

Revised just last year, the formula stipulates that employees must have one mandatory day off and one flexible day off per seven days, but has been unpopular both with business groups and labor activists. The government has defended the measure as a balanced way of protecting workers interests.

On Oct. 17, the Ministry of Labor responded by saying the measure had improved the quality of life by giving workers two days off per week, while still maintaining their right to work overtime. The ministry demanded Han explain whether he wanted to return to the previous system where workers might only get one day free per week, or whether he wanted to force employees to take two days off without the possibility of overtime.

Read more here:

Han says he will end Taiwan labor reforms to allow 'bosses to ask for more overtime - Taiwan News