22 Feb 2024

Alabama court ruling on embryos: A sweeping attack on democratic rights and science

Patrick Martin




The exterior of the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Ala., is shown Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024. [AP Photo/Kim Chandler]

The ruling issued Friday by the Alabama state Supreme Court, declaring a frozen embryo to be a person under state law, is a sweeping attack on science, democratic rights and the constitutional separation of church and state. At the same time, the passive, indifferent response of the Biden administration to this ultra-right provocation demonstrates again that no section of the capitalist political elite, including the Democratic Party, will defend democratic rights. This vital political task must be taken up by the working class.

The state supreme court decision came in response to a civil suit for damages by parents whose embryos were accidentally destroyed at the laboratory where they had been stored for in vitro fertilization (IVF). A lower court had rejected the suit, ruling that an embryo was not an “unborn child” as defined in the state constitution. A referendum approved by Alabama voters in 2018 inserted a ban on abortion into the state constitution, which took effect after the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, repealing Roe v. Wade.

The state’s highest court overruled the lower court decision, declaring in Orwellian language that fertilized embryos, clusters of protoplasm as small as 100 cells, were “extrauterine children,” entitled to the same protection under state law as a living, breathing child in a schoolroom. The ruling was outrageous both legally and constitutionally. It purported to use an 1872 state law allowing parents to sue over the death of a “minor child” and apply it to embryos created by IVF, a medical technique only developed in the 1970s, more than a century later.

This will have the practical effect of ending IVF in the state of Alabama, since doctors, clinics and parents would all fear being held liable for the destruction of embryos, a frequent by-product of the fertilization process, during which embryos with genetic abnormalities or those left over after successful implantation are generally discarded, or donated for research. In response to the ruling, the state’s largest hospital system, University of Alabama at Birmingham, halted all IVF procedures out of concern that “our patients and doctors could be prosecuted criminally.”

IVF is one of the most important medical advances of the past half-century, with millions of successful implantations leading to the birth of healthy children. In 2021, the last year with complete data, nearly 100,000 babies were born in the United States through the use of IVF. But even if some fertility clinics manage to survive in Alabama, the court’s decision will drastically increase the difficulty and expense of IVF, which is already $15,000 to $20,000, an enormous burden on working class parents who want children.

RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, described the decision as “a terrifying development for the 1 in 6 people impacted by infertility who need in vitro fertilization to build their families.” And it warned, “this ruling has profound implications far beyond Alabama’s borders. Every American who wants or needs access to family building options like IVF should be deeply concerned about this development and the precedent it will set across the country.”

The Alabama ruling is a direct consequence of the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the watershed 1973 Supreme Court decision which struck down anti-abortion laws across the country. Dobbs also called into question the earlier 1962 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a ban on contraception in Connecticut and for the first time acknowledged a constitutional right to privacy. There were spheres of life, including decisions on reproduction, into which no government, at state or federal level, could intrude. Now it is clear that ultra-right courts will not admit to any limitation on the repressive powers of the capitalist state.

Constitutionally, the ruling is in brazen defiance of the First Amendment, which begins with the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” This prohibition was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment, which incorporated all the amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. But the 138-page ruling is clearly based on Christian fundamentalist religious principles, which will now be imposed on the people of Alabama regardless of their own views. (Even in Alabama, the state with the highest percentage of evangelicals, that figure only comes to 49 percent, according to a recent report by Pew Research.)

The concurring opinion by Chief Justice Tom Parker openly quotes the Bible, including Genesis and the prophet Jeremiah, as the basis of his “legal” opinion. “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself,” Parker wrote. “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.” 

Interviewed on a podcast espousing the fascistic QAnon conspiracy theory, uploaded last Friday, the same day as the ruling, Parker declared, “God created government” and that it’s “heartbreaking” that “we have let it go into the possession of others.” He then invoked the Seven Mountain Mandate, another fascistic trope calling for a takeover of seven key areas of American society: religion, education, family, government, economy, media, and entertainment/arts. He also asserted that “the holy spirit is there” when he takes action as chief justice.

This type of religious claptrap boosts the so-called personhood movement, which seeks to establish legally that human life begins at fertilization. The first step was the definition of the fetus, at every stage of its development, as a human being. Now embryos stored in a laboratory are described as “little people,” according to Parker, and the lab as a “cryogenic nursery,” according to the court opinion. Eleven states have so far adopted personhood legislation.

The Biden administration has not lifted a finger against the deluge of right-wing legislation which has followed the 2022 Dobbs decision, nor has the Democratic Party. They make use of the issue as a vote-getter in elections, appealing to the broad popular support for the right to abortion. But they do nothing in practice to defend it or any other democratic right.

The White House issued no statement on the Alabama ruling, and press spokesman Karine Jean-Pierre devoted only one paragraph to the subject at a press briefing conducted while Biden was making yet another trek through California, shaking the billionaire money tree for his campaign. He made remarks behind closed doors at the home of billionaire Hollywood Zionist Haim Saban Tuesday night, then spoke at several more fundraisers in the Bay Area Wednesday.

This passivity is of a piece with Biden’s response to the open usurpation of federal authority by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has ordered the Texas National Guard and state police to turn back migrants at the US-Mexico border, defying the Constitution, which clearly makes the federal government supreme in all questions relating to borders and immigration.

Biden could federalize the National Guard, removing it from Abbott’s control, and bring other state governments to heel for defying the Constitution and attacking democratic rights. But he does nothing, still seeking bipartisan agreement with congressional Republicans on a huge increase in military spending on the war against Russia in Ukraine. In effect, he is allowing a vast area of the country, ruled by Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures, to carry out the policies espoused by the fascist Republican presidential candidate, ex-President Donald Trump.

The Alabama ruling will resonate with religious fanatics opposed to the separation of church and state and anti-vaccine, anti-science demagogues like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They feel they can run amok with the backing of the US Supreme Court and the spinelessness of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration.

Labour Party’s sordid manoeuvre against Gaza ceasefire motion plunges UK parliament into chaos

Chris Marsden


Last night’s debate in parliament prompted by a Scottish National Party (SNP) motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was plunged into chaos after Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle agreed to a spoiler amendment from Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party to debate alongside the Conservative government’s own counter motion.

This prompted a walkout by the whole of the SNP, joined by many on the government benches. Commons leader and Tory MP Penny Mordaunt announced the government had abandoned its involvement in the Opposition Day debate, denouncing Hoyle for having “hijacked” proceedings. 

Jeremy Corbyn (left) and Sir Keir Starmer at an event during the 2019 General Election when Corbyn was party leader. [AP Photo/Matt Dunham, File]

Hoyle’s decision followed a personal intervention by Starmer. According to the Guardian, Starmer visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. “Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November. With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed.”

Starmer was faced with a possible rebellion by 100 of his MPs, including two frontbenchers, who had stated they would vote for the SNP resolution if Starmer did not shift his position on a ceasefire.

Hoyle, who had absented himself from the first part of the debate run by his deputy, was forced to return and deliver a groveling apology after a rare vote was called on whether the Commons should sit in private for the first time since 2001, which did not pass. He faced demands for his resignation, accused of having colluded with Labour.

Tory MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle which, by Wednesday evening, had been signed by 33 MPs, mostly from the SNP. This has now risen to 60.

With no government or SNP participation, Labour’s amended resolution formally supporting an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” but negated by pro-Israeli caveats was passed without a formal vote. It is non-binding, and the government will not accept it.

SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said in reply to an apology by Hoyle that it was “a disgrace that Sir Keir Starmer and the Speaker colluded to block Parliament voting on the SNP motion”.

Starmer, a barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions, was prepared to risk compromising the supposed “impartiality” of the Speaker to avert a major crisis of his leadership and of the entire Labour Party. After months of boasting of having crushed the “left”, transforming Labour to prepare for government, he was forced to fend off the impact of mass hostility and opposition over his party’s naked support for Israel’s genocide.

On November 15 last year, the SNP had put an amendment to the King’s Speech calling for a ceasefire, prompting Starmer to whip his MPs to abstain. Close to three quarters (142) did so, with just 56 voting for a ceasefire and eight members of Labour’s frontbench resigning.

After months of slaughter, and with a ground assault on Rafah announced by Israel for March 10, Starmer feared that much bigger divisions in his party would trigger a crisis for the entire ruling class. This Tuesday, accompanied by the shedding of crocodile tears by Starmer and other Zionist apologists such as Wes Streeting, Labour announced its “shift”, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” to allow aid into Gaza, rather than its previous “humanitarian pause”, and appealing for Israel to not procced with its planned ground invasion of Rafah.

However, this was made conditional on Hamas agreeing to return the hostages it took on October 7 and lay down its weapons, i.e., surrender and await imprisonment and death, because “Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence”.

Aside from its use of the word “ceasefire”, Labour’s “new” position remains in line with the US, giving Israel veto power over any ceasefire. Labour’s motion was reportedly discussed with Starmer during his attendance at the Munich Security Conference. That conference saw the Biden administration formulate its own spoiler resolution supporting a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable”, to justify blocking an Algerian call for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council Monday, on which the UK abstained.

It was the readiness of reportedly “dozens” of Labour Party “rebels” to accept this transparent fraud and for the rest to do the same when offered the chance by Hoyle, that allowed Starmer to claim victory.

This met no real opposition from the Labour “left”. Jeremy Corbyn issued his usual moral bromides, while refusing again to mention Starmer by name, describing only “an appalling day for British Parliament”. His former shadow chancellor John McDonnell boasted on X/Twitter that he had “used a point of order to record that I would’ve voted for both SNP motion & Labour amendment as they both contain call for immediate ceasefire.”

Hoyle’s intervention also meant that parliament did not have to formally back a Tory motion that could have been written by Benjamin Netanyahu. This called for “negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause” while again explicitly supporting “Israel’s right to self-defence,” condemning “the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence” of October 7 and stating that support for “moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire” depend on both the release of all hostages and the removal of Hamas from power with “the formation of a new Palestinian government.”

There were reports of Tory MPs not supporting the government, and even that its motion might have fallen. Now the government can focus on demands that Hoyle resigns—for breach of a convention that was only established in 1979 and in furtherance of supporting continued genocide in Gaza.

The main lesson to be drawn from the grotesque display of cynicism in parliament yesterday is that it offers no basis through which to oppose the genocide.

Hundreds of thousands of people march through central London in protest at the genocide on Gaza and UK involvement in the bombing of Yemen, January 14, 2024

The SNP complains of being treated with contempt, but this contempt is directed at the millions of workers and youth who have demanded a ceasefire, the tens of thousands of Palestinians already murdered and the hundreds of thousands facing a death sentence in Rafah.

Outside parliament, thousands were gathered in a protest called by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop the War Coalition. Both organisations have sought to corral mass protests behind the Labour Party, with claims it can be convinced to back a ceasefire. The sordid manoeuvres in parliament yesterday demonstrate the opposite.

Loading Tweet ...
Tweet not loading? See it directly on Twitter

The Tory government, the Labour Party, its backers in the trade union bureaucracy and all the institutions of the capitalist state are determined to back Israel as part of a broader effort to redivide the world and its resources through waging war against Russia in Ukraine, against Iran in the Middle East and preparing to take on China.

21 Feb 2024

Czech Academy Researchers At Risk Fellowship 2024/2026

APPLICATION DEADLINE:

29th February 2024.

Tell Me About Award:

The Czech Academy of Sciences (CAS) is announcing a call for the “Researchers at Risk Fellowship” programme from 16 January to 29 February 2024. The programme aims to support researchers’ scientific work which is at risk due to threats of war, persecution, human rights violations, and other life-threatening dangers they may be facing. The RISK Programme enables them to temporarily continue their research in a safe environment at the CAS institutes in the Czech Republic for a maximum of 24 months.

The Researchers at Risk Fellowship (hereinafter “RISK Programme”) is a programme that is focused on researchers whose scientific work is at risk due to threats of war, persecution, human rights violations, and other life-threatening dangers they may face. The RISK Programme enables them to temporarily continue their research in a safe environment at the CAS institutes in the Czech Republic for maximum 24 months.

WHICH FIELDS ARE ELIGIBLE?

Research fields: All research fields.

Target groups:

  • Postdocs (less than eight years after receiving Ph.D. as of the start of the candidate´s fellowship),
  • Researchers (eight or more years after receiving a Ph.D. as of the start of the candidate´s fellowship).
    The research experience does not include maternity and parental leave, work disability lasting more than 90 days, compulsory military service, the period during which care is provided to a person who is considered to be dependent on the assistance of another natural person under the Social Services Act.

TYPE:

Fellowship

Who Can Apply?

The proposed candidate must be a citizen of an eligible country as defined in the Call and must not hold dual citizenship, which would allow access to a safe country of residence.

  • The proposed candidate must not have resided outside her/his home country (home country = country of citizenship) for more than one year as of the application submission date,
    Exception: The proposed candidates who were provided the CAS grant within the RISK Programme in 2022 and/or 2023 are also eligible regardless of the residence outside the home country.
  • The proposed candidate does not have to be an employee of the CAS institute at the time the application is submitted.
  • The proposed candidate must have a qualification required for the position at the CAS institute

HOW ARE APPLICANTS SELECTED?

Criteria for evaluation are:

  • threat the applicant is facing in her/his home country,
  • quality of the research project/activities proposal incl. outputs and results,
  • proposed candidate’s professional experience.

HOW MANY AWARDS?

Not specified

What Is The Benefit Of Award?

Eligible costs are personal costs and shall be supported by a grant.

  • The grant is awarded for a maximum of 24 months.
  • The maximum amount of the grant is CZK 720 000 per calendar year if the proposed candidate’s working capacity on her/his fellowship is at least 0.8 full-time equivalent. The amount of the grant shall be reduced proportionately if the researcher’s working capacity on her/his fellowship is less than 0.8 full-time equivalent.

Responsibilities

  • The proposed candidate is responsible for securing her/his entry visa to the destination country.
  • Any changes in the amount of the applicant’s working time, a duration of the fellowship or changes regarding the planned research project/activities at the time of its implementation period are possible, however, these shall be reported via e-mail to the contact person and duly justified in the final fellowship report. Changes may result in a budget adjustment (compared to the original application form).
  • At the end of the implementation period, the CAS Institute is required to submit a final fellowship report. The report is to be completed exclusively in the KIS online application, downloaded in PDF format and sent via data mailbox (the CAS ID fr6adt5) within 30 days after the completion of the fellowship.

HOW LONG WILL AWARD LAST?

max. 24 months

How To Apply:

Apply below

The preview of the application form is available here: Application preview.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Recessionary trends in the world economy strengthening

Nick Beams


Data and statements by government authorities continue to be issued which show that the recessionary trends in the global economy are strengthening at an increasing rate.

In its monthly report issued on Monday, the German Bundesbank warned that the economy was likely to shrink in the first quarter of this year following a decline in output in the last quarter of 2023.

The central bank said “stress factors would probably remain in the first quarter” meaning that “economic output could therefore decline slightly again.” There were few signs of a rebound and “the German economy would be in a technical recession”—defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Last year the German economy contracted by 0.3 percent making it the worst performing of all the major economies.

The Bundesbank warning followed last week’s statement by the economy minister, Robert Habeck, that the government was revising down its already low estimate of growth for 2024 from 1.3 percent to just 0.2 percent and the following year from 1.5 percent to 1 percent. Whether even these lowered estimates will be reached is very much in question.

The Bundesbank noted the worsening outlook for the world economy and its impact on Germany, saying foreign demand for its goods had “recently trended down significantly.”

President of European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, at a press conference after an ECB's governing council meeting in Frankfurt, Germany, on January 25, 2024. [AP Photo/Michael Probst]

It also pointed to the higher interest rate regime which the European Central Bank is determined to keep in place until it sees evidence that wage increases and demands are being sufficiently suppressed. The issue of wages was front and centre of the remarks by ECB president Christine Lagarde following the meeting of the central bank’s governing council on January 25.

The Bundesbank said consumers were “probably still cautious about their spending” and higher borrowing costs were “likely to continue to dampen investments.”

It is a measure of the overall decline in the world economy that Germany, weakened as it is, has become the world’s third largest economy in US dollar terms. It has taken the place of Japan, which has also entered a technical recession after its growth contracted 0.3 percent in the fourth quarter following a shrinkage of 3.4 percent in the third.

Stefan Angrick, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics in Tokyo, told the Financial Times the two consecutive quarterly contractions added to a “string of disappointing data releases.”

A report on Bloomberg underscored his assessment.

“Private consumption retreated by 0.2 percent, as households contending with rising costs of living tightened their budgets. Household spending fell 2.5 percent in December versus a year earlier, a 10th straight month of declines, as wage gains lagged inflation. Business spending was also sluggish last quarter, falling by 0.1 percent,” it said.

The Japanese economy was given a small boost by an increase in exports. But this is not going to last. In its quarterly outlook published last month, the Bank of Japan said the economy “is expected to be under downward pressure stemming from a slowdown in the pace of recovery in overseas countries.”

One of the key overseas countries for Japan and many others is China, which functioned as the most important source of growth in the global economy in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008.

Growth in China last year was 5.2 percent, the lowest in three decades, and there are doubts it will attain even this level in 2024. All eyes will be focused on the National People’s Congress starting on March 5 at which the Xi Jinping regime will lay out its economic plans for the coming year.

This is particularly the case in Southeast Asia. This week Malaysia announced that its economy had contracted 2.1 percent in the final quarter compared to the previous three months.

A statement issued by the central bank said growth had “moderated amid a challenging external environment” due to slower global trade, a global tech downcycle, geopolitical tensions and tighter monetary policies.

The worsening situation saw the Malaysian ringgit fall almost to the record low it hit during the Asian financial crisis of 1998. Other countries in the region, including Indonesia and the Philippines, are also experiencing a slowdown.

The decisions in China will be closely watched but what they might bring is another question.

So far Chinese authorities have only taken minor measures aimed at trying to boost the important real estate and construction sector, reducing some interest rates, as well as seeking to halt the stock market slide, but nothing which could provide a real boost to the economy.

On Sunday, premier Li Qiang told a cabinet meeting there had to be “pragmatic and forceful” action to boost confidence in the economy. According to the official Xinhua News Agency, he said officials had to “do more things that are conducive to boosting confidence and expectations and ensure policymaking and execution are consistent and stable.”

However, no concrete measures were announced as all the data continue to point to worsening economic conditions amid ongoing deflation that is the worst for 15 years.

In the past, China has been the recipient of major foreign investment, boosting its growth. But the latest data from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange issued on Sunday show a precipitous decline.

They revealed that the inflow of foreign capital for 2023 was around $33 billion, an 82 percent decline on the previous year and the lowest annual figure since 1993.

The steep fall is a result of two factors: the ever-escalating economic warfare measures directed against China by the US, especially in the area of high tech, where the Biden administration continually adds bans and restrictions on vital components, and the worsening outlook for the Chinese economy.

US measures against China may well be intensified as the slump gathers pace. In an on-the-record interview with the FT this week, two senior Treasury officials said the US and its allies would take action if China tried to solve its industrial overcapacity problems by putting cheaper goods, such as electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, on the world market.

“We are worried that Chinese industrial support policies and macro policies, that are more focused on supply rather than thinking about where the demand will come from, are both careening towards a situation where overcapacity in China … is going to wind up hitting world markets,” Jay Shambaugh, the undersecretary for international affairs said.

According to the report, the issue will be a “major part” of the agenda when US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visits China later this year.

The US threats are a signal that it is prepared to intensify the kind of disastrous policies of the 1930s when tariffs and other restrictions played a key role in deepening the global depression and preparing the conditions for World War 2.

These measures were irrational and reactionary then and even more so today in the era of integrated globalised production. As has been noted, last year one third of the exports of electric vehicles, one of the commodities about which the US has expressed concern, came from the Shanghai factory of the American firm Tesla.

Winter COVID wave of mass infection continues across the US

Benjamin Mateus




This undated, colorized electron microscope image made available by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in February 2020 shows the Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, indicated in yellow, emerging from the surface of cells, indicated in blue/pink, cultured in a laboratory. [AP Photo/NIAID-RML]

After a massive peak of COVID-19 infections that reached its zenith on New Year’s Eve, by nearly all accounts, the winter wave was expected to recede and inaugurate another lull in infections, at least until population immunity began to wane again and a new variant was discovered to outdo its predecessors in terms of contagiousness and immune-evasiveness.

Yet, before January was through, national wastewater concentration of SARS-CoV-2 began to climb once again from the low of 812 copies per milliliters and has continued to rise by 14 percent to 929 copies per milliliters on February 19. When one reviews the wastewater data throughout the pandemic, the usual trend is for a rapid decline after the holiday peaks, with cases rapidly plummeting in February and March, but this pattern has yet to materialize.

Dr. Mike Hoerger, PhD, from Tulane University, who opened the Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative to address the physical and emotional burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been modeling the national wastewater concentration data released weekly by Biobot to estimate daily COVID-19 infection rates in the US. In response to Monday’s update from Biobot, he noted on his social media that the US remains in a prolonged high-transmission COVID surge.

Hoerger added, “Bad news: levels are still rising. Historically, February is marked by a rapid decline in transmission. [The] 929 copies/mL corresponds to 1.35 million infections per day.” Furthermore, his model estimates that around 2.7 percent of the population is actively infectious with possibly 60,000 people expected to develop Long COVID each day.

To place these figures into context, Hoerger noted, “Relative to the full pandemic, transmission remains higher today than during about 86 percent of the pandemic … The present ‘post-surge hill’ of transmission are higher than the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th largest waves in the US in its own right.”

He noted that these estimates remain within their margin of error, implying that given the lack of any national mitigation efforts, these are not unexpected. “The take-home is that we’re in extremely high sustained transmission, hopefully plateauing, and with an updated post-surge hill peak transmission of somewhere between February 7 and February 21,” or precisely today.

For the next several weeks, rates of COVID infections across the US will remain alarmingly high and only expected to halve within the next four weeks. However, if next week’s Biobot report indicates that levels continue to rise above 1,000 copies per milliliter, Hoeger called this a very bad sign and “model-defying in fact.”

Since August 26, 2023, weekly COVID-19 deaths have remained above 1,000 and over 2,000 per week since December 30, 2023. For the week ending January 20, another 2,152 people died from this preventable disease. Given the sudden upturn in COVID-19 infections, these levels of death will most likely also be sustained in the weeks ahead, with the full level of excess deaths only ascertainable months down the line.

The current February phenomenon of prolonged high transmission of COVID-19 infections is a byproduct of ending the pandemic emergency declaration. Presently, COVID-19 vaccination rates are abysmal for every age category. Masking has become non-existent. Testing, isolating and quarantining have essentially been abandoned. And the promises to implement and enforce indoor air cleaning have failed to materialize.

California and Oregon have already implemented rules that tell infected workers and students that as long as they are asymptomatic or fever-free for at least 24 hours they can go about their lives, regardless of the risk they pose to others that include the elderly, infirm and immunocompromised. The misnamed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said last week that they would follow suit and scrap their current guidelines that encourage infected people to isolate for five days and avoid transmitting the virus to others.

In other words, the ongoing high rates of COVID-19 transmission are a byproduct of a non-viable public health infrastructure that runs roughshod over the population’s health for political and financial considerations.

As Hoerger correctly summarized, “What we are doing right now is focusing more on quarterly (short-term corporate interests) or nine-month plan (election). The consequence of laissez-faire public health is 84 consecutive days of more than one million daily COVID infections.”

The abrogation of public health in the US, at the center of world capitalism, has its corollary in the global response by all national health agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), to prioritize national and financial interests over considerations of global health. In addition to the ever-present danger of the next pandemic, multiple diseases previously eliminated or kept in check in developed countries have resurged, including syphilis and measles.

Last Friday’s passing of the two-degree Celsius mark for climate change only underscores the dangers posed both from natural disasters to human populations, as well as the growing dangers that another novel pathogen that will emerge and give rise to the next pandemic.

The annual healthcare and indirect costs for influenza were estimated at around $90 billion in 2007. Adjusted for inflation, this means for the flu, which was shown could be eliminated in 2020-2021, these costs amount to $135 billion per year. By giving COVID free rein to spread throughout society, healthcare economists estimate that associated health costs will range from $137 and $379 billion in the US alone.

20 Feb 2024

Australian Labor government’s new workplace laws codify second-class status for gig workers

Martin Scott


On February 12, the third tranche of Labor’s new industrial relations law was given final approval by the Australian parliament. The measures, known as “Closing Loopholes No. 2,” were originally intended to be legislated last year along with other Fair Work Act (FWA) amendments, but were split into a separate bill when minor opposition emerged among the Senate cross-bench.

Tony Burke, Australian Labor government’s industrial relations minister (left), presents Closing Loopholes bill to federal parliament, September 4, 2023. [Photo: Tony Burke Facebook]

The changes, hailed as a “massive worker win” by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), are ostensibly aimed at improving the wages and conditions of vulnerable workers, engaged as casuals, under sham contracting arrangements, or in the gig economy, as well as “self-employed” truck drivers.

This is a fraud. The real purpose of Labor’s new laws is to defend the right of corporations to implement ever-harsher forms of exploitation, establishing a lower tier of “employee-like” workers without most of the basic rights required by existing workplace rules.

Moreover, the proliferation of casual jobs and other precarious working arrangements is a direct product of the mass destruction of full-time jobs kickstarted by the union-backed Hawke-Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and 1990s, and enforced by the union bureaucracy ever since.

Now, under conditions of an ongoing cost-of-living crisis and a global upsurge of strikes and protests, Labor is concerned that these millions of highly exploited workers will take up a struggle against their increasingly impossible circumstances. The unions have negligible coverage and influence over these workers, especially in the gig economy, meaning the apparatus cannot apply the same methods of class suppression that have ensured industrial peace for corporations and governments for decades.

Similar considerations were behind this Labor government’s first major industrial relations bill, introduced in late 2022. Its multi-employer bargaining laws were aimed at delivering low-paid sections of workers, including in aged care, early childhood education and cleaning, into the grip of the union bureaucracy and the enterprise bargaining system.

The 2022 legislation also strengthened Australia’s already draconian anti-strike laws, granting stepped-up powers to the pro-business Fair Work Commission (FWC) to intervene in disputes, halt industrial action, and impose the demands of business through arbitration.

The “Closing Loopholes” legislation is designed to build upon that, further entrenching the industrial courts and the union bureaucracy as the arbiters of every workplace dispute, keeping workers on the sidelines.

While the “intractable bargaining” laws remain untested in the FWC, they have been wielded by companies, and, more commonly, by union officials, as a threat in several major disputes.

Workers are told that, if they reject a regressive company offer and continue with industrial action, the dispute will be declared “intractable” and they will have to settle for whatever the FWC decides, likely a worse deal than what they have already turned down.

The new legislation includes a revision to “intractable bargaining,” that requires that a determination handed down by the FWC cannot leave workers worse off on any single clause (except relating to wage increases) than the previous enterprise agreement. The exception to this is where management and the union have already agreed to such a term.

All experience shows that no faith can be placed in such provisions. Only the credulous would believe that the FWC, a pro-business tribunal, could not stretch the definition of what will leave workers worse off and what will not. To the extent that the change has any significance, it solidifies the legislation’s overall thrust of relying ever-more directly on the union bureaucracy to enforce cuts.

The complexity of the new provisions, and the fact that, in almost every case, they will only be enforced after employees apply to the FWC, is designed to force workers into the grip of the unions. Otherwise, workers will not have the resources to carry out detailed and likely protracted legal battles in the pro-business industrial tribunal in order to defend basic rights.

Around one third of the 2.5 million Australian workers engaged as casuals are in fact working regular hours more typically associated with full- or part-time work, but have no paid, sick or holiday leave, and no guarantee that their employment will continue beyond their current shift.

Under the existing laws, employers were required to offer conversion to full- or part-time employment for casuals employed for at least 12 months who had “worked a regular pattern of hours” for at least 6 months.

The new legislation reduces the waiting time to 6 months for employers other than small businesses, and does not stipulate a minimum length of time to establish “a regular pattern of hours.”

But it will now be up to employees to request such a conversion, a potentially intimidating prospect for casual workers, whose employment is precarious by definition. It also requires these workers to know that they have a legal right to do so.

While employers are not allowed to cut workers’ hours or sack them to avoid these provisions, it would again be up to the workers to prove that was the reason behind their dismissal. Employers will also be able to refuse a conversion request on the basis of “fair and reasonable operational grounds,” which they will not be required to specify.

Employers are not required to increase the hours of a casual worker who converts to permanent, so these measures will do nothing to help the more than 977,000 workers deemed “underemployed” by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

University of Adelaide law professor Andrew Stewart told the Australian Financial Review, “I don’t expect that this will result in a substantial reduction in the proportion of Australian workers who are casuals.”

Labor’s new laws will allow the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for gig workers on a given “digital platform” (e.g., Uber, DoorDash, or other businesses in which work is assigned through an app), if those workers are determined to be “employee-like.” An application would need to be made by a union to start this process.

Only the most basic conditions, essentially limited to wages and union rights, can be included in these standards. Roster and overtime provisions are specifically prohibited. Penalty rates, minimum shift lengths, and payment for time spent waiting between orders are also stipulated against, although the FWC has the discretion to include such terms where appropriate.

When making a minimum standards order, the FWC will be required to avoid “unreasonable adverse impacts” upon the “national economy,” or the “innovation, productivity or viability” of business. In other words, the needs of gig workers for a liveable wage and basic workplace rights must not be allowed to impinge upon the profit interests of corporations.

The section of the new legislation that has attracted the most media attention in recent weeks deals with the so-called “right to disconnect.” A last-minute addition, demanded by the Greens, the measures are ostensibly aimed at giving workers the right to ignore work-related communications outside of business hours.

But the way this is implemented would seem to render it virtually unenforceable.

Employers will not be prohibited from attempting to contact workers, instead, it will be up to individual employees to decide (and prove, if challenged) that it is “reasonable” to ignore the communication.

Among the factors that must be considered in determining what is reasonable is “the reason for the contact or attempted contact,” which the employee may have no way of knowing if they are not reading messages or answering phone calls.

The limited character of the “right to disconnect” measures has not prevented an outpouring of vitriol from business lobbyists and the corporate press.

Nick Cater, writing in the Australian, said the amendment was “a victory for the anti-work ethic which has been gathering since the Covid-19 panic.” Workers should not be annoyed by late-night calls from the boss, he argued, but “recognise it as reassurance that their work is valued.”

Cater did not just demand that workers must be on call 24-7. He continued: “We must revisit the meaning of retirement after a century of rising life expectancy. Workers in their late 50s or early 60s should be able to look forward to something other than a 25-year holiday.” In other words, every last drop of profit-producing labour must be wrung out of workers, until the day they die.

While this is a particularly hysterical example, it makes clear what is behind big-business objections to Labor’s industrial relations law. They believe the government is not doing enough to boost “productivity,” that is, to drive up corporate profits through a deepening assault on jobs, wages and conditions.

Labor does not disagree with the premise. The conflict represents a difference of opinion between two sections of the ruling elite about how best to achieve it, while simultaneously preventing any challenge from the working class.

The latest industrial relations laws show that Labor is once again placing its trust in the union apparatus, aided by the FWC, to enforce its wage-slashing austerity agenda and head off mounting tensions in the working class.

19 Feb 2024

Commonwealth Distance-Learning Scholarships 2024/2025

Application Deadline: 28th March 2024

Eligible Countries: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Eswatini, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, The Gambia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia

To be taken at: UK Universities

About the Award: Commonwealth Distance Learning Scholarships are offered for citizens of certain developing Commonwealth countries. These scholarships are funded by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), to contribute to the UK’s international development aims and wider overseas interests, supporting excellence in UK higher education, and sustaining the principles of the Commonwealth.

These scholarships are offered under six themes:

  1. Science and technology for development
  2. Strengthening health systems and capacity
  3. Promoting global prosperity
  4. Strengthening global peace, security and governance
  5. Strengthening resilience and response to crises
  6. Access, inclusion and opportunity

Find out more about the CSC Development themes.

Information for universities is now available.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To apply for these scholarships, you must:

  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) standard; a lower qualification and sufficient relevant experience may be considered in certain cases
  • Be unable to afford to study your chosen course without this scholarship.

The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination, and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection Criteria: Selection criteria include:

  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country

How to apply: The CSC’s online application form is now open.

  • You should apply to study an eligible Master’s course at a UK university that is participating in the Distance Learning scheme. Click here for a list of participating universities and eligible courses.
  • You must also secure admission to your course in addition to applying for a Distance Learning Scholarship. You must check with your chosen university for their specific advice on when to apply, admission requirements, and rules for applying. You must make your application using the CSC’s online application system, in addition to any other application that you are required to complete by your chosen university. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the online application system.
  • You can apply for more than one course and/or to more than one university, but you may only accept one offer of a Distance Learning Scholarship.
  • It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details