Episode 41 - Exclusion, Privilege, and Ethical Consumption

This episode we interviewed Brianna Scrimshaw Botchwey. Brianna is an aspiring zero waster and PhD candidate at the University of Toronto. Her research focuses on sustainable development and foreign aid. The research note below includes preparatory notes from Kristen and Brianna.

Kristen’s Notes

Brianna, we’re so excited to have you on the show to talk about exclusion and privilege in ethical consumption. We’re going to focus on fashion, but this is a question that impacts any kind of ethical consumption in different ways.

Brianna, I know this is something you think about a lot, and it was your idea to have an episode on this. So, can you maybe describe for the listener what you mean by privilege and exclusion in ethical consumption?

In our series on fast fashion, we talked about the components to building a conscious closet (which we took from the wonderful book by Elizabeth Cline, The Conscious Closet).

The advice is basically to avoid fast fashion as much as you can by thinking about your closet as a wardrobe that you build over time.

As part of that, there are basically three categories for how to shop for clothing as an ethical consumer: (1) when you have to go fast fashion choose Better Big Brands, which are the big brands that are doing better than their peers; (2) look for Conscious Superstars, which are slow fashion brands that really focus on human rights and sustainability; and (3) go for new-to-you second-hand clothing through thrifting, renting, swapping and borrowing. 

I think what I want to do with this episode is to talk about some of the barriers to inclusivity with each of these three approaches. But first let’s have a more general discussion about the kinds of barriers that we might encounter in all three areas:

Barriers to Building a Conscious Closet

What do you think are some of the big barriers that people face in trying to get to a more conscious wardrobe?

• Cost

• Sizing

• Marketing

• Race

• Time

Better Big Brands and Problems with Inclusive Sizing

Brianna, you shared a video about Lululemon on your Instagram feed a while ago, and I thought it was a good way to open up this discussion.

A consultancy firm called Simon-Kucher and Partners surveyed consumers about the considerations for conscious fashion. The four top-rated considerations were (1) fair labour standards, (2) sustainable materials and processes, (3) sending profits to charity, and (4) body positivity.

Have you observed a change?

I was listening to an interview with body positivity writer and photographer Marielle Elizabeth, and she talked about the reasons that clothing companies have been so slow to adopt inclusive sizing.[1] She says basically that until about five years ago the main barrier was fat-phobia and these harmful narratives that stem from it – like the (totally incorrect) idea that larger people don’t spend as much on clothing because they are trying to lose weight.[2]

But in the last five years these fat-phobic narratives are being smashed, so now it’s more about the financial investment. Because there is an initial cost to introducing inclusive sizing, especially if you’re going to be increasing beyond size 18. She made an interesting point that beyond size 18 you basically have to re-think how you design clothing because it’s not just a 1:1 size increase everywhere.[3]

I was listening to an interview with Alexandra Waldman, a co-founder of Universal Standard (an inclusive fashion brand that produces sizes 0 to 40), and she talked about not being able to find a quality white t-shirt that didn’t have a cat or flowers on it.

Sustainable Fashion Superstars Inclusive Sizing

Inclusive sizing actually just makes a lot of business sense. The sizes most frequently sold in stores are 14-18, so having those sizes available allows you to sell to people in that category.

From what I’ve seen, sizing inclusivity generally means having sizes to at least 24. A number of slow fashion brands have introduced inclusive sizing (or had it to begin with). Similarly, inclusive fashion brands are increasing their sustainability. From what I was able to see, most slow fashion brands have made nods to sustainability and also use some level of inclusive sizing. 

Power of My People: an ethical fashion company based out of B.C. They are a slow fashion company and I found their approach convincing – they seem to have thought about workers’ rights and environmental sustainability in how they supply and manufacture garments. On their website they describe where the fabrics were sourced and where manufacturing occurred for each item, as well as any ethical certifications. They have a new net zero emissions target that they are meeting with carbon offsets. For that reason, their products are on the pricier side. But I’m working on trying to buy a smaller number of staple items to build my wardrobe – conscious closet episode – so I don’t mind. I bought a linen button down from them a while back and really enjoy it. Power of My People sizes to 3XL and they have plus-sized models showing their items.

Girlfriend Collective: I have three pairs of leggings and two sports bras from this brand. I bought them in 2018 and 2019 and they are all still going strong after probably 50-150 wears. They have a Good On You rating of “Great”, which is based on a 4/5 rating for the environment and a 5/5 rating for human rights. They have a lot of detail on their website about how they source the water bottles and fish nets they recycle for the fabric, as well as the working conditions for the people that make their clothes. Girlfriend Collective uses diverse models and has sizing up to 6XL. As for price, they are certainly not cheap – leggings go for $68 each according to my most recent search – but they are in line with other athleticwear brands.

On her website, Marielle Elizabeth publishes a list of slow fashion brands that have inclusive sizing. Check it out here.

Thrift Shopping

Brianna, you mentioned thrift shops and clothing subscriptions in the outline that you sent us. Can you tell me a bit more about what you meant?

That was something I had never thought about before. But quality consignment stores so rarely have good selection for people above a size large. Which is ridiculous because all body types have clothing that they want to get rid of.

Why do you think it is that thrift shops have such little selection in plus sizes?

There are a couple of thoughts on why the supply of plus-sized clothing in second-hand markets is so low. First, because fashion brands haven’t been selling in inclusive sizes, people with larger bodies haven’t had the same level of access to the quality pieces that consignment stores look for. There is also some fat-phobia in what consignment stores are selecting for their inventories.

Another factor is the documented impact of fatphobia on the livelihoods of people. There is evidence showing that larger women make less money, which in turn influences the amount that people have to spend on clothing – which in turn means fewer clothing donations and more demand for second-hand clothes.

When it comes to thrift shops, one writer that I encountered said the lack of plus-sized options was due to high demand – that whenever there are plus-sized clothes they go pretty quickly. She also said that there is a problem where non plus-sized people will go to thrift shops and buy plus-sized clothes with interesting patterns in order to cut them up and create new items. Apparently this is a whole thing that people do, and even blog about. So yeah, don’t be that person. There is also a trend of buying oversized clothing, which takes away from nice clothes that would fit a larger body.

It seems like there is some progress on this as entrepreneurs start to create body positive consignment and resale stores. I found a list of options in several American cities. ThredUp, the world’s largest online consignment and thrift shop, has up to 4XL on its website 

On its face, clothing swaps could be great for people who don’t see their bodies represented in thrift shops. But I think about the clothing swaps I have been a part of and how my own insecurities have sort of been at play, and I wonder whether that might not be problematic. What do you think? Is there a way around it?

Ethical Fashion and Affordability

I think class is the next most important barrier to participation in ethical fashion. I know it has been a factor for me. What about for the two of you?

Let’s dig into the reasons. So, obviously, on a one-to-one basis a shirt you buy from fast fashion is going to be cheaper than slow fashion. Lots of blogs have pointed this out. Definitely, there are ways to spend less on slow fashion than on fast fashion. Good quality clothes last longer, so to a certain extent it can make sense to buy for longer.

But the reality is it can be hard to have the liquidity to be able to afford these more expensive, long-lasting pieces.

I think there is also a question of what happens if your style or size changes. Investing a lot in a few pieces can be a good strategy, but if your size fluctuates that can make it more difficult to think about your clothes as a wardrobe. Also, lifestyle changes.

There is also a certain privilege in being able to spend the time to read about what goes into a wardrobe, to research ethical fashion brands, and to go to lots of different consignment shops. Making your own clothes is also about the luxury of time.

Potential Solutions

Size Inclusivity: Brianna, you had some really good suggestions for solutions to size inclusivity problems in the fashion industry. Mind telling us about that?

In General: For ethical consumers, I think it’s important to remember that everyone has different identities and experiences and challenges, and that the ability to make ethical consumption choices is a privilege that not everybody has the same access to. What comes with that is a duty to use your privilege to make ethical consumption easier to access. So that means asking your favourite sustainable brands to size inclusively, to produce makeup in different shades. It also means you have to help push for those more systemic solutions.

Brianna’s Notes

Aim

When people engage with ethical consumption, they often don’t realize the different kinds of privilege they may have access to. Hoping to illuminate how privilege shapes who has access to ethical consumption.

Disclaimer

Not an activist or social justice scholar, my comments are based more on my personal experience when trying to engage in ethical consumption patterns. Also acknowledging that I am on the border of straight sizing so generally can find clothes in most stores and I am a lighter skinned dark person so also can find shades in most places.

Big Questions

1. Who actually has access to ethical consumption?

2. What are the different barriers to access?

Barriers to Buying Slow/Sustainable Fashion

Cost.

Sizing: most brands only go up to size 12, or occasionally 16. Even for brands that have these bigger sizes, finding them in store is like finding vegan food in a steakhouse – Not easy.

Style: a lot of sustainable plus size clothing just isn’t trendy – like not all of us bigger folks want to wear moomoos.

Marketing: a lot of sustainable fashion appears to be marketed to white western audiences, which for me suggests that a lot of assumptions are being made about who wants sustainable fashion which obviously is not just that white western audience.

Some nice exceptions:

• Girlfriend Collective goes up to a 6XL and they use diverse models.

• Nettle’s Tale goes up to 3XL and has a community sizing guide that includes measurements from people with all body types.

• Kotn goes up to a 2XL, but not in all styles.

• Other popular brands like Patagonia also only go up to 2XL in select styles.

Barriers to Other Alternatives to Fast Fashion

Thrifting (also suffers from sizing/access issues)

Clothing subscription (again only for smaller people)

Make your own (lack of time (time is also a privilege) and upfront costs can be high)  

Barriers to Buying “Sustainable” Beauty Products

Cost.

Lack of shade range.

Lack of products for different hair types.

Only sold online a lot of the time.

Examples of people trying to do better: Range Beauty is a black owned company trying to offer clean beauty for all shades. Cheekbone beauty is an indigenous owned company.  

Potential Solutions

Plus-size-only second-hand shopping.

Made to order sizing: some sustainable brands have this option where you can submit your measurements (examples: Pamut Apparel US).

Pressuring brands to be inclusive: Whenever a brand does a survey ALWAYS encourage them to increase sizing/inclusivity in product/marketing. When you are writing a review also consider talking about inclusivity.

What is NOT a solution is telling people who face these barriers that they just shouldn’t consume. It’s one thing to decide not to consume at all (which can be a valid choice) but it’s another thing not to have the choice at all because of structural factors beyond your control.

The onus for sustainable consumption is partially on the individual, but brands and suppliers also need to make sure they are inclusive so that everyone can have access to ethical consumption.

Resources

 https://www.stephanieyeboah.com/2020/03/navigating-sustainability-when-youre-plus-size.html 

https://fashionjournal.com.au/fashion/the-sustainable-fashion-industry-is-size-exclusive-take-it-from-this-model/

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/designers/a32213676/plus-size-sustainable-fashion/

https://wellinsiders.com/defining-diversity-inclusivity-in-green-beauty/

Endnotes

[1] Medium Well Podcast. (23 September 2020). Creative a More Size-Inclusive Ethical Fashion Landscape and Fat Activism with Marielle Elizabeth. Medium Well Podcast.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Episode 20 - Alix's Notes on COVID-19 and Inequality

Covid19 and Inequality

Some people frame this pandemic as a “great leveller” because people are all vulnerable to getting ill. This argument goes something like, we’re all facing the prospect of getting sick, we may all lose loved ones, and we are all having our routines altered as we commit to social distancing.

However I’m not alone in arguing that in general this pandemic is exacerbating existing inequalities rather than simply creating some sort of “shared experience” equality. Capturing all these impacts is a really important research and activism agenda, but here are the trends that have jumped out of me – at least in Canada and similar advanced industrial democracies or whatever we want to call them.  

Risk and Age

The first aspect of inequality relating to the Covid19 pandemic that comes to mind is age. The general consensus is that people who are older, alongside people who are immunocompromised or have any history of respiratory difficulties. The CDC has released a report on this[i] that indicates to date, fatality is higher for those aged 85 and older and then decreases with age.

In Canada, the outbreaks in care homes have been particularly awful for residents and for workers (the latter of which I will discuss more further on). In Ontario 27 people have died in one home, while over 100 people have become sick at a home in Laval in Montreal, and 17 people have died who were living in a care home in North Vancouver.[ii] The largest outbreak in Alberta is also at a care home/centre. There have also been some issues with testing in care homes in Ontario around admitting asymptomatic residents.

Some people might see this as a one-off, but I think the conditions in care homes are worthy of more thought for the long term as we see populations aging – how do we best care for people who need more medical support in their later years? This is not my area of expertise but it’s definitely something I think societies should be having more frank conversations about.

Life cycle effects

When we start to think about the long-term effects, these are going to vary across the life cycle. After the financial crisis, there was some evidence suggesting that entering the workforce (from high school or university or another form of education) during a recession can have a scarring effect on income. Will we see another wave of millennials and Gen Zs moving home? Deepened housing insecurity and job insecurity? It’s possible, especially without a comprehensive long-term policy plan.

There might also be effects on people’s family planning decisions or care burdens – we don’t know what the long-term health effects are for people who have recovered. We also don’t know what the financial insecurity will do for populations. I’ve seen people joking about a COVID baby boom, which is one option. Another option is that people delay making big life decisions as we head into another recession.

Gender

The pandemic also has gendered effects in relation to running households when everyone is home. Women in straight relationships still do more of the household work than their male partners in the US according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics[iii] and the same is true in Britain – where women do an average of ten more hours of household work, including childcare, a week.[iv] In households where both parents are able to work from home, the burden is most likely falling on women to manage increased dishes, cooking, and childcare – while managing the challenge of trying to get kids through whatever schoolwork type setup they are focused on. The flow on effects for women’s careers will be interesting to track.

There are a couple of other aspects of gender inequality that stand out that we didn’t get to in the podcast. One is the gendered nature of essential work – medical work, work in supermarkets or grocery stores and pharmacies. Exactly how gendered is essential work? I took a really quick look at the Stats Can data on the proportion of men and women in occupations for 2019 (using NOCs – the National Occupation Classification titles).[v] IN 2019, health occupations writ large were pretty women-dominated – women make up 79% of this labour force. Service work is more evenly split – 48% of retail workers and 53% of service support workers are women. When it comes to front-line public protection services (think fire, police), the labour force is overwhelmingly male – only 17.5% of workers in this category in 2019 were women. So, there are of course some greater risks for men in this category.

And finally, a pretty scary concern gender-based violence in a pandemic. This is a high stress time and people are spending as much time as possible at home. Add to that the stresses of job loss – it’s a very high stress situation.[vi] A recent StatsCan survey reported on by the Toronto Star indicated that one in ten women were “very or extremely concerned” about the potential for family discord or violence.[vii] While governments and organizations appear to know about this issue, it’s still incredibly hard to address. I took a brief look only, I must admit, at Ontario’s response and crisis lines are open.[viii]I’d be curious to know what extra resources are being provided to get people out of unsafe home situations. Shelters are also under extra pressure as a result, trying to keep physical distancing protocols in place.

So, a real mix of gender-related inequalities are being highlighted by this pandemic – all of which are worthy of serious responses from governments, communities, and individuals – and worthy of further research.

Race

This pandemic is also exacerbating racial inequalities – notably relating to both health and work.

It is incredibly alarming to note that in the US, preliminary statistics indicate that COVID19 is killing black people are disproportionately higher rates.[ix] It speaks to the US’s ongoing legacy of inequality and racism. These are revealed in long-term economic and health inequalities. So, Black Americans are less likely to have access to quality medical care, more likely to be exposed to diseases related to poverty (some of which are respiratory), and face the initial burden of medical professionals providing substandard care to people of colour because of racist assumptions about pain.

In Canada, the issue of race-related inequality seems to so often be sidestepped by a culture of pretending racism doesn’t exist here. The most basic way to think about it, I think, is that there are persistent economic inequalities between people of colour and white Canadians that translate into poor quality housing, less access to medical care, and other factors that can lead to ill health like living in food deserts or near sources of pollution. These factors cause bad health outcomes, including respiratory diseases, which can then make people more vulnerable to COVID-19. 

For example, in some countries including Canada, there is a thing called the “healthy immigrant effect” where people who migrate here initially are actually healthier than the general population. However, over time, some evidence indicates that this effect wears off and immigrants end up with worse health outcomes [x]. York University professor Professor Michaela Hynie has worked extensively on the mental health outcomes of refugees in Canada. She has a review article in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry [xi]from last year that summarizes the evidence indicating that over time, the mental health of refugees and asylum seekers who settle in Canada actually declines. Income and employment are especially important in this story, as are housing, language barriers, the settlement process, social isolation, and discrimination.  

There is a very useful piece on The Conversation by Professor Roberta Timothy (University of Toronto’s Dalla Lama School of Public Health) [xii] that discusses the fraught history of government and medical treatment of black, indigenous, and other racialized communities in Canada and the US. There is a lot of distrust as a result of histories of mistreatment. In the article she asks, how are people supposed to navigate health systems that “consistently violate” them?

Also, of course, many essential workers are also racialized workers – and when you look at care-related roles in healthcare, elder care, and childcare, race and gender collide here to result in a disempowered, marginalized, and poorly paid workforce who are now also extra at-risk of catching coronavirus.

Work

Focusing on work is one way to consider the impacts of economic, race, and gender inequalities altogether. Some of these issues came up on episode 17 of Pullback, where you talked about champions and problems of 2019: no sick leave for most wage workers and barely any kinds of protections for gig workers.

• Wage workers are likely to experience unemployment and many in Canada don’t usually have sick leave. EI offers very little to minimum wage workers

• Independent contractors/gig workers are essential but denied all the usual protections of employment, including safe workplaces. Gig economy workers are very exposed to the public.

None of this is pleasant or fun for any of us. I’m not disputing that. But I think the ability to quarantine and minimize discomfort depends on your wealth and your job. If you can stay home without financial stress, you’re in a safer position than someone doing essential work or experiencing housing insecurity.

Essential workers

Essential workers still have to work, in increasingly hazardous conditions, and many don’t have employee status. Essential workers are, roughly:

• Health professionals of all sorts

• Social services

• Community service workers e.g. people collecting waste, sewage treatment, the justice system, police and firefighters, corrections etc.

• People looking after key infrastructure (water, power, internet)

• Some manufacturing, agriculture, and food production

• Some researchers – doing research that might help treat or prevent coronavirus.

• People working in supermarkets, liquor stores, corner stores

• People making and delivering food

• People who clean essential spaces, like hospitals and supermarkets

• In Ontario, it’s also some construction workers, which has been the subject of debate.

There are two main concerns for these workers: (1) safety on the job and (2) wages and job protection more generally.

Safety on the job:  so, of course people who are actively working are the most at-risk of being exposes to coronavirus, especially health workers – and especially if they don’t have access to personal protective equipment, which has been a major issue in the US. In Canada, the Brookfield Institute has done a cool/scary analysis of the risk of COVID-19 to workers in Canada.[xiii] It graphs frequency of exposure to infection with the closeness of contact. It basically shows that GPs and other medical practitioners are at high risk of exposure, followed by bus drivers, then delivery couriers and light-duty cleaners in the middle, then pharmacy workers, security guards and cooks, with writers at the low end. The risk for education professionals has shifted down as those things have moved online. The write up, by Viet Vu and Nisa Malii, also points out that many bus and Uber drivers in Canada are at least 65 years old, so they are likely even more at-risk.

Wages and labour protections: service workers in particular are likely to be in precarious jobs, exposed to the double-whammy of health risks and unstable work. This relates to a problem that predates the pandemic: the crummy state of worker’s rights in Canada which makes many workers vulnerable to poverty.

Some essential workers face increased safety issues AND the struggles of precarious work.

Other precarious workers are now struggling to earn any income and facing the stresses of this pandemic (worrying about safety, kids at home etc.) without any job security.

Precarious work

It’s probably helpful to step through what precarious work is. It’s basically a term for work that sucks on almost every dimension. Precarious work is work that is irregular, low paid, and has no job security (so it’s easy to get fired/lose the ability to do a certain kind of gig).

• This can include driving Ubers, working on casual contracts in cafes, and working informally (without a contract)

• So gig work and low-paid contract work is what we mean here

Precarious work is a feature in most countries and a growing phenomenon even in European countries like Germany that have strong labour protection legacies. It’s not a new thing – work outside of standard employment has always taken place – but it is a problem for ensuring all people have their basic needs met and are treated fairly and with respect in our economic systems. 

People involved in labour or who study work usually contrast it with work that meets the definition of a “standard employment relationship” – that is work that occurs in regular hours, is permanent and continuous [xiv], and usually involves entitlements to things like EI, extra health insurance, health and safety regulation, and perhaps sick leave. They also do not have steady income – their wages can fluctuate depending on demand for their labour.

The other key characteristic of precarious work is a lack of job security. In a lot of countries, job security has declined since the 1980s – there has been a shift in the organization of the labour market away from the idea of a job for life and towards the idea that people will move more fluidly between jobs. People also tend to work more jobs across their life span now.

In Canada, employees do still have some protections against being fired. If you are an employee, your boss can fire you but they have to give reasonable notice or they have to have just cause for an immediate “summary” dismissal. Contract workers can be dismissed per the terms set out in their contract – a breach of the contract can terminate it, though this may end up in a court process. People working informally without a contract have no protections, of course.

There’s a really good CBC piece on the experiences of janitorial workers during the pandemic – Michael Enright interviewed Deena Ladd, who is the executive director of the Workers’ Action Center in Toronto who do lots of good work [xv]. Deena explains that most cleaners are independent contractors who work for low pay. They work with heavy duty chemicals that they don’t get briefed about and little protective gear. Many are immigrants or undocumented so working informally. This group is the typical example of precarious workers. They work irregular hours in tough conditions with no benefits, no health and safety oversight, and poor pay.

This group has of course been affected by the pandemic: many have been asked to use even more harsh chemicals and are not given information about how to use these chemicals safely, they’re working more hours (or being asked to), and many are afraid to lose their jobs so won’t refuse to work even if they feel unsafe. If they quit, they’re not eligible for CERB and if they’re not employees, no EI. They might be eligible for provincial financial assistance if they have a SIN number and meet various provincial eligibility criteria, but usually this type of social assistance is set at a very low level.

Deena calls for us to reconsider how we value this type of work – the pandemic shows us just how important is for keeping us all safe and healthy. It doesn’t make sense that it should be done with no pay, no job security, and no health and safety protections.

Job loss generally

The other big concern is that in many countries, unemployment is skyrocketing. This, of course, increases inequality by taking people from the middle of the income range to the bottom.

Even those who are eligible for EI are in a worse position now – EI pays out at 55% of your earnings but this is capped at a maximum of $573 a week, AND the number of weeks you can get it for is capped, depending on the regional employment rate.

We know that a million Canadians applied for EI in the week starting 16 March! Layoffs have kept growing. The US is also experiencing mass unemployment.

We are, in all likelihood, facing another recession – and recessions are always worse for the poor. So, outside of this health crisis, things look pretty grim too.

Social Policy Responses

There are a whole host of inequalities and problems relating to inequality in Canada and beyond that this pandemic is exacerbating – both short term and long term. Governments are responding to some of these problems with a whole range of initiatives.

Here are some criteria to help evaluate social policy responses:

1.     Any form of assistance should create as few administrative burdens as possible. This is a concept developed by Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan, two American professors, to capture all the ways in which government can cause issues for the very people various policies are supposed to support.[xvi] If something is low in administrative burdens, this means:

a.     It’s easy to learn about and understand

b.     You don’t have to do a ton of paperwork, or waiting around on the phone

c.     People are treated equally and with respect in the application/access process

d.     Using the benefit doesn’t carry any stigma – there’s no negative social image associated with it.

2.     Assistance should be as universal/inclusive as possible so that the most people possible get support

a.     This relates to the administrative burden thing – as soon as you start placing more eligibility criteria on things, it’s harder for people to access them even if they are entitled.

b.     It should also be equitable and promoted to all groups (e.g. available info in multiple languages, promoted everywhere…)

3.     Assistance should be targeted at the people most unable to meet their basic needs right now (this has to balance somehow with the second one).

a.     So, much more support for people experiencing homelessness

b.     More support to renters than people with mortgages, is an assumption of mine

c.     And of course, more support to precarious workers or people who weren’t in work before the crisis.

Changes to provide people with more income

Canada straight away (18 March) introduced a tax credit for low income families AND provided a moratorium on student loans. It also increased the Canada Child Benefit.

These all seem like good things though I think it’s obvious they wouldn’t have been enough alone. What about bigger forms of income support?

Employment Insurance

In theory, EI should support many Canadians who lose work at this time.To be eligible for EI, though, a person must have worked sufficient hours in insurable employment and have not worked in at least seven days through no fault of their own – and be available for and actively seeking work [xvii]. People must also apply for and have received this support.

Those working in non-standard employment relationships like contract-based work are excluded (though some can opt in and pay coverage premiums), which is concerning considering that misclassification of workers as contract workers rather than employees is a known problem in Ontario. As a result, between 30 and 41% of Ontarians are actually eligible for EI.[xviii] Eligibility is also unevenly distributed across Ontarians:  people aged 15-24, 55 and above, recent migrants, and rural residents  are much less likely to be eligible and women are slightly less likely to be eligible than men – especially among self-employed workers.

So – not enough coverage, annoying to access (according to friends), and a short term bandaid really.

CERB

The Federal Government introduced the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. In recognition that EI wasn’t going to cut it as a response to rising unemployment. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit provides $2000 a month for up to four months for workers who lose their income as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.

To be eligible you must:

• Live in Canada and be over 15

• Have stopped working because of Covid19, not voluntarily quit, and be out of EI or sickness benefits

  • But you can be self-employed OR an employee

  • You can even STILL be employed – as long as you’re not getting paid most of your income***

• Have had income of at least $5K last year

• Be, or expect to be, out of income for at least two weeks.

The idea is that it should help anyone who has lost income due to the pandemic and its flow on effects (e.g. people who need to undertake childcare now). It’s supposed to cover employees, self-employed people, and contractors more generally.

You can apply either through Service Canada or through the CRA. Nearly a quarter of a million people did on the first day you could apply, and only those born in the first few months of the year could apply (to try and manage the tide of applications).

Positives: It’s easy to access because it’s built on the principle of “presumed eligibility” – it’s set up to assume people who apply should be receiving it and so it’s granted quickly. Apparently, it’s being paid quickly.

The checks on eligibility will come later, which I think is a pretty good decision in these circumstances, though I hope the checks aren’t arduous and I hope repayment schemes are flexible.

• The government did the right thing by merging together the previous Emergency Care Benefit and Emergency Support benefit

• Simplicity is key!

The second reason I like it is that the government has continued to widen eligibility as they come across more groups of people who are excluded – so we’re heading towards something closer to universality (though we’re not there yet). Expansions:

• Just yesterday, the government announced it would expand eligibility to workers who are still working but earning $1000 or less a month, including seasonal workers who have run out of EI during the pandemic.

• This helps gig workers and independent contractors – at least in the short term (Sunil Johal has a good piece on this on the Policy Response blog)

• More is coming for post-secondary students too as this group was initially left out – so we’ll see.

There are, though, some problems with it:

• Remember our janitors – many of whom are precarious? They might be able to get it but

• Anyone who QUITS their job is also ineligible – so if you quit because you don’t want to work in unsafe conditions, you won’t get it.

• the undocumented group is rules out as you need a valid SIN to access it

  • this one is tough – it makes sense that the grant is being run through the tax system – administratively this is easiest. I’d be curious to know if there are ways around this.

• Anyone who was unemployed before the pandemic, receiving some income support from their province, isn’t eligible and is receiving a LOT less (ODSP pays out at $1169 a month for a single person, OW is even less). These people now face even tougher labour markets.

• In Ontario, people getting social assistance can get one-off emergency assistance to help with costs relating to the pandemic (e.g. transport, food, clothing, cleaning supplies) but these are capped at $100 for a single person and $200 for families. 

• There’s variation across the provinces too which is the result of having this be a provincial responsibility rather than federal.  

Wage subsidy program

So the other main tranche of the government’s response is the wage subsidy program, which many countries have put in place (notably not the US), including the Netherlands.

In Canada, businesses and people who are self-employed can receive a subsidy covering 75% of wages for up to three months. The government expanded this to businesses of all sizes after criticism the size rules were unhelpful.

The idea behind wage subsidies, which Zucman and Saez championed in a recent New York Times article, is to protect jobs and minimize labour market mayhem later. Wage subsidies help to “freeze” the labour market for some, meaning less re-matching/job applications and hiring to do later. That kind of makes sense.

However there are some problems with this:

• It might just retain shitty jobs

• It might prevent any positive kinds of alignment towards a new economy, new models of consumption and production…

• In New Zealand there have been a ton of issues with this – employers are “trusted” to pass it on to workers, but many haven’t been, or haven’t been paying the non-covered percent.

Effects on social services more generally

Social services that support people struggling with poverty are facing a really hard time – they have had to change their service models quickly AND possibly face insecurity around contracts and funding for the long term. The Globe and Mail’s daily update at the end of March ad a section on the effects for Canada’s charities

• So far I think there has been no federal financial aid for these organizations* (note: the Federal government announced additional funding after the podcast was recorded)

• Many have had to lay off staff.

This is an area of real concern – a lot of these organizations are the closest to people who are struggling right now.

Thinking long-term post crisis (!?)

This podcast is about ethical consumerism writ large

I’m not the first person to ask whether this is our chance to make a transition to a greener economy and a stronger, more progressive welfare state. I mean, I hope so?

In some ways, the rate of job destruction does suggest we have a chance to rethink our production and consumption needs – what do countries want to produce and consume, and what kinds of jobs should people be doing as a result?

• What this will do to people’s priorities and political values long term

• What it will do in terms of responses

  • Short term measures reveal governments’ priorities

  • And then what will happen long term?

Benefits need to be decoupled from employment status, otherwise benefits accrue mainly to the middle class, not the worst off (which is of course why governments and many voters like them).

The pandemic is making a pretty good case for universal social assistance set at a decent level for everyone below a certain wealth and income threshold. There is a Boston Review piece by Stuart White that argues for a wealth floor and that was also quite convincing – the idea is that everyone needs some wealth that provides them with coverage for hard times, extra costs, or the ability to fully participate in politics (in the US), invest in education, and similar.[xix] It sounds freeing to be honest – especially when you consider the cognitive burden of poverty.  

Endnotes

[i] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12–March 16, 2020.”

[ii] Grant and Anderssen, “‘These People Are Dying, Gasping for Air.’”

[iii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “American Time Use Survey-2018 Results”; Carpenter, “Millennial Women Are Working More. But They’re Still Doing Most of the Housework.”

[iv] Burkeman, “Dirty Secret”; Office for National Statistics, “Women Shoulder the Responsibility of ‘Unpaid Work.’”

[v] Government of Canada, “Proportion of Women and Men Employed in Occupations, Annual.”

[vi] Duhatschek, “‘Self-Isolation Is an Abuser’s Dream’ | CBC News.”

[vii] Gillis, “COVID-19 Having ‘a Profound Effect’ on the Lives of Canadians, Survey Shows.”

[viii] Government of Ontario, “Helping Women Flee Domestic Violence.”

[ix] Eligon et al., “Black Americans Face Alarming Rates of Coronavirus Infection in Some States.”

[x] Health Canada, “ARCHIVED - Migration Health.”

[xi] Hynie, “The Social Determinants of Refugee Mental Health in the Post-Migration Context.”

[xii] Timothy, “Coronavirus Is Not the ‘great Equalizer’ — Race Matters.”

[xiii] Vu and Malli, “Anything But Static.”

[xiv] Arnold and Bongiovi, “Precarious, Informalizing, and Flexible Work: Transforming Concepts and Understandings.”

[xv] CBC Radio, “Why the ‘invisible Workers’ Cleaning up COVID-19 Need Better Labour Protection | CBC Radio.”

[xvi] Herd and Moynihan, Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means.

[xvii] Employment and Social Development Canada, “Section 1: Applying for Benefits.”

[xviii] Bramwell, “Training Policy for the 21st Century: Decentralization and Workforce Development Programs for Unemployed Working Age Adults in Canada,” 402; Vosko, “The Challenge of Expanding EI Coverage | The Mowat Centre,” 33.

[xix] White, “We Need a Wealth Floor, Not Just a Wealth Ceiling.”

Reach out to Alix by following her on Twitter.

Check out our other episodes on COVID-19:
Kristen and Kyla React to COVID-19
Ten Unexpected Effects of COVID-19
COVID-19, Wildfires, and the Climate Crisis
Art, Artists, and COVID-19

Episode 20 - Kristen's Notes on COVID-19 and Inequality

For this episode, we were joined by the brilliant Alix Jansen. Alix is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto. Her work focuses on welfare states and the political economy of skills in advanced industrial democracies. Alix did a lot of preparation for this episode. And she was kind enough to send us her notes! We wanted to give those notes the attention that they deserve, so we gave them their own research note. Check them out by clicking here.

Alix’s Bio

Alix Jansen is a PhD Candidate and a Connaught International Scholarship holder at the University of Toronto. She specializes in the study of welfare states and the political economy of skills in advanced industrial democracies. She contributes to the research outputs of Future Skills Canada and the Innovation Policy Lab at the University of Toronto. A former Fulbright Scholar, she has international experience in interview-based research concerning work and the welfare state. Her dissertation project focuses on the distribution of retraining to unemployed workers in Canada, the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands. She has also worked as a Senior Advisor for the Ministry of Social Development in New Zealand, where she specialized in operational policy and active labour market policy.

COVID-19 and Existing Inequalities

Pandemics have a way of revealing the problems and weaknesses in society. What are some issues that come to your mind when you think of the inequalities that COVID-19 is exposing? Themes: age, gender, race, economic inequality.

One of the things you said when we were preparing for this episode was that the axes of inequality become clearer when we look at the effects of the pandemic at work. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Is there a particular story or moment that sticks out in your mind when it comes to the unequal way that COVID-19 is affecting people?

White Collar Quarantine

Let’s break down the concept of white collar quarantine a bit. First, class plays a role in who gets to stay at home during the pandemic. Can you talk a bit more about that?

But it’s not just about who has to go to work. The experience of the pandemic can be very different depending on your life circumstances – how comfortable your living spaces are, whether you have access to the outdoors, and even the ability to social distance when you go out. On this, check out the Toronto artist who built a “social distancing machine” to illustrate how the sidewalks are too narrow for people to safely get essential goods and services. Then of course there are the challenges faced by vulnerable people, including those experiencing homelessness (see my Ricochet op-ed on this here); prisoners; and elderly people.

Prisoners

Over 100 inmates and corrections officers at Canadian federal institutions have tested positive for COVID-19. At least 25 of those are at one facility in BC (the medium-security Mission Institution). Given these concerns there have been calls by health professionals to release as many inmates as possible. That is especially important because prisoners are more likely to be medically vulnerable and to have infectious diseases like hepatitis C and HIV. 25% of the prison population is either elderly or people with pre-existing health conditions.

Guards also feel unsafe: there has been at least one work refusal action by guards in a Canadian correctional facility.

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees have also called for low-risk prisoners to be released. So far, as far as I can tell Ontario is the only province to have done this. Ontario released 2,300 inmates from provincial jails (a drop of about 28% in the total population). These are people in jail for non-violent offenses and that are at low risk to reoffend. (I think jail is where you are before you’re convicted). A few American states have also released some inmates from jails.

Prisons are also using segregation and solitary confinement as a means to control the virus, which raises mental health and prisoner’s rights concerns.

Long-term Care Facilities

In Canada at least, long-term care homes have become the centrepiece of the pandemic. The stats are changing every day, but about half of Canada’s COVID-19 deaths are linked to long-term care facilities. In Quebec, 70% of COVID-19 deaths are linked to long-term care facilities and seniors residences. And we have heard gruesome stories of neglect in facilities such as Residence Herron.  

Unemployment/Debt

The pandemic is also an economic crisis, and that is something that certain groups of people are feeling especially acutely. What are some of the ways that this pandemic is likely to make our economy less equal? Themes: unemployment, unequal access to safety nets, difficulties for new entrants to the job market, and debt. In the US, 22 million unemployment claims have been filed in the last four weeks.

Policy Solutions

And what about the policy solutions to-date: are there actions governments could take that would mitigate these problems? Any countries that you think are doing particularly well or particularly badly? Spain is considering a permanent move to universal basic income, but there are still a lot of questions around whether the program will really be universal and unconditional.

How should we think about the economic problems posed by the pandemic? Themes: to what extent do policy responses increase job security and decommodify basic needs; universal basic income and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit; lowering administrative burdens for applicants;

Canadian Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Carla Qualtrough, had an interesting response the other day: she said the decision to have some barriers was because they felt having a substantial targeted benefit of $2,000 would be better than having an open policy that was smaller in scope. What would you say to that? 

Long-term Legacy

Ok, so the pandemic has revealed a bunch of problems with our society and it has forced countries around the world to come up to temporary solutions to these kinds of policies. To what extent do you think those actions will create a legacy? In other words, could we see a paradigm shift after this? Themes: which policies will stick around; the 2008 recession; the Green New Deal/Green Recovery.

It will be interesting in the long-run to see whether this crisis produces greater calls for revenue-raising and tax fairness (wealth tax, higher corporate tax rates, more progressivity in income tax) or whether we see a period of protracted austerity that further undermines the welfare state.

Check out our other episodes on the pandemic:
Kristen and Kyla React to COVID-19
Ten Unexpected Effects of COVID-19
COVID-19, Wildfires, and the Climate Crisis
Art, Artists, and COVID-19

Episode 09 - Veganuary

Veganism as a Set of Ideas and a Movement

History of veganism

The term veganism was coined in 1944 by a British guy named Donald Watson and a small group of non-dairy vegetarians. When they were creating the word vegan, they also suggested: dairyban, vitan, benevore, neo-vegetarian, sanivores, and beaumangeur.

And that is how the Vegan Society came to be founded. Veganism is, as self-described, “A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment.” Veganism is still a bit more of a fringe lifestyle, which is why it is so much harder – whereas almost every restaurant today will have a vegetarian option that is not always true for vegans.

History of Veganuary

Veganuary is a campaign started by a British charity with the same name that was founded in 2014. In 2019, the nonprofit says that 250,000 people took the pledge to try a vegan diet. Veganuary also draws participation from 500 companies, and it has become a hub for launching plant-based products and menus. Veganuary is also supported by Joaquin Phoenix, who lobbied for the all-vegan menu at this year’s Golden Globes. The campaign also aims to raise awareness and to mobilize people into a mainstream vegan movement.

Why veganism?

Although there is a wide spectrum of vegans that have different justifications for their lifestyle choice, most vegans view animal welfare as one of the main reasons behind their choice. From an animal welfare perspective, vegans argue that vegetarianism just doesn’t cut it: dairy and egg family can be just as bad or worse for animal welfare.

The strongest version of the argument says that we shouldn’t use animals as an end at all – so some vegans view it as wrong to even, say, shear a very happy sheep for wool. But most vegans focus on the very real contemporary horrors of our modern food, clothing, and cosmetics industries. The famous historian Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens and Homo Deus), called animal farming “the worst crime in history”.[1]

And many vegans explicitly take aim at the idea that humane meat is possible. Many of today’s “humane” standards, like cage-free eggs, still leave animals in cruel conditions.  

What about wild game? A lot of vegans have ethical issues with killing animals at all, but many will grant that this is a lesser harm than factory farming. However, from an environmental perspective, vegans will often point out that it would be impossible to feed the planet if everyone was consuming this kind of ‘humane’ meat (at least, in anywhere near the quantities that we do today). So, in some sense buying wild game or humane meat from local organic farms is a kind of modern indulgence for privileged aspects of society.

Veganism and whiteness

But the vegan movement has run into some issues of its own when it comes to race and inclusivity. 

For Indigenous people, hunting is a traditional way of life. Especially given the trauma that has been inflicted upon these populations continually since colonization, the ability to connect to traditions is an important part of cultural healing and resilience. Indigenous peoples will also point out that environmental stewardship and respect for the land and animals is embedded in their cultural traditions. So, from their perspective hunting is a morally justifiable part of their way of life. It’s also a crucial component of food sovereignty for Indigenous communities.

This is where vegan activists have sometimes come into conflict with Indigenous people. From an Indigenous perspective, some vegan activists have a White Animal Savior complex, which is inherently anti-indigenous. For example, in 2017 animal activists targeted a new Indigenous-owned and -operated restaurant in Toronto because it had seal on the menu. This was despite the fact that the restaurant (Kū-Kum Kitchen) made a point of vetting the hunters from whom they sourced their seal meat. For more on this issue, check out the documentary Angry Inuk.

More generally, vegan activism has also been criticized for racism against other communities. In 2003 PETA released an ad that related the poultry industry to the Holocaust. Animal activists have made similar associations between animal farming and slavery. 

We also need to talk about the connection between veganism and white nationalism, because Nazis ruin everything. Evidently, a sizable portion of white nationalists are vegan. This has something to do with the concept of “blood and soil” that is a bedrock of white nationalism. Apparently, Hitler was famously vegetarian, which I just learned. But if you recall the uncomfortable association between early vegetarianism and eugenics, it’s not all that surprising.

Finally, until recently been a lack of BIPOC representation in animal rights organizations. As this is starting to change, animal rights activists are becoming attuned to the need to become more intersectional. That means thinking seriously about oppression and developing strategies that are more inclusive.

If you want to be a woke vegan, Gloria Oladipo offers a few tips in an article she wrote for Afropunk. First, non’t culturally appropriate – vegan versions of cultural dishes should come from members of that culture. Next, support initiatives that make plants more accessible – food deserts are often in racialized communities, and solving that problem should be a first focus. Third, feature more BIPOC vegans. (Actually, polling has found that Black and Latinx Americans are vegetarian in roughly the same proportions as white Americans.[2] BIPOC individuals should be represented and should have leadership roles in the movement). And finally, show up for BIPOC causes – acknowledge that BIPOC go through a lot and be an ally.

A friendlier, more inclusive animal-free movement?

That new inclusivity focus has already benefited the movement immensely by underscoring the need to focus on institutional change, rather than individual lifestyle choices. This is one of the core points that Jacy Reese makes in his book, The End of Animal Farming. So, rather than shaming individuals for eating meat, the animal-free movement is now focusing on shaming factory farms and pushing for institutional change.[3] Reese argues that this is actually more efficient because it helps people to overcome status quo bias and mobilizes a wider base of support.  

This is helpful from a strategic perspective because most people already think factory farming is bad; they just feel overwhelmed by the problem and powerless to change things. 32% of Americans believe “animals deserve the same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation” and another 62% believe they deserve “some rights”, according to a 2015 Gallup poll.[4] The increase in pro-animal rights attitudes over the 1990s and early 2000s is generally attributed to: urban pet ownership, cosmopolitanism, feminism, and religious trends (secularization and the increasing popularity of pro-vegetarian religions like Buddhism). In California, Proposition 2 (a ballot initiative to ban animal confinement in small spaces) drew the highest positive turnout for a citizen initiative in the state’s history.[5]

Tactics like animal farm investigations have also helped, by exposing the conditions in factory farms. The first modern animal farm investigation was carried out in 1992 on a foie gras farm, exposing force-feeding. In the late 1990s and early 2000s these investigations became increasingly popular. “A 1998 PETA investigation of a pig-breeding farm led to the first felony indictments ever for cruelty to farmed animals”.[6] The Humane Society of the US “released a ground-breaking undercover investigation of a California slaughterhouse” in 2008.[7] As these investigations gained prominence, the meat, dairy, and egg industries started to lobby for “ag-gag” laws to limit the ability of activists to document animal farm operations.[8]

Veganism as a Dietary Choice

Vegans don’t eat animals or animal-derived products. This obviously includes meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs. But one of the most difficult things about going vegan is navigating all of the secret animal products in our food.

Animal-derived ingredients

PETA has a comprehensive list of animal-derived ingredients. Dummies.com also has a list. Theirs doesn’t include everything on the PETA list. But it has an easy-to-use layout.

Some of the most common animal-derived ingredients include:

o   Beeswax and honey;

o   Casein (a milk protein derived from animal’s milk), calcium caseinate, sodium caseinate;

o   Confectioner’s glaze, resinous glaze, shellac, natural glaze, pure food glaze (comes from a hardened resinous material secreted by the lac insect);

o   Gelatin (a gelling agent derived from animal collagen);

o   Isinglass (a clarifying agent used in making wine and brewing beer, derived from fish bladders);

o   L. cysteine (a dough conditioner in some pre-packaged breads and baked goods, often sourced from feathers or human hair);

o   Whey (the liquid that remains once milk has been curdled or churned and strained);

o   Carmine (used as a red dye, this is from ground cochineal scale insects);

o   Lactose, saccharum lactin, d-lactose (I found this in chips a lot; it’s essentially a milk sugar);

o   Vitamin D3 (not all, but most Vitamin D3 is derived from fish oil or the lanolin in sheep’s wool) and omega-3 fatty acids (similarly, mostly derived from fish but vegan alternatives are available); and

o   Additives beginning with E (e.g. E904) are often animal-derived.

Veganism tips and tricks

To find out if packaged food is vegan, first look for vegan labelling (“Suitable for Vegans”, “Certified Vegan”). Then you can look for allergen information (e.g.: “Contains milk, eggs, shellfish”). Allergen information won’t generally tell you about meat-containing ingredients, so you should also read the ingredients list. There are some items that can be vegan but typically won’t be (e.g. bread, candy, chips, and beer/wine).

Fruits and vegetables are weirdly not always vegan. That is because they are often coated with either beeswax or a resin called shellac. These make the fruit look prettier, and also can reduce moisture loss and delay rotting. Synthetic polyethylene wax (a petroleum by-product) and carnauba wax (a palm derivative) are common, though problematic vegan substitutes.

If you are looking for a book with practical advice on how to go vegan, check out How To Live Vegan by a pair Youtubers that call themselves Bosh!

Meat substitutes

The first reference to plant-based food that mimicked animal flesh was about tofu in 965 AD. The Magistrate of Qing Yang (China) “encouraged tofu consumption as a more frugal alternative to animal flesh, referring to it as “mock lamb chops” and “the vice mayor’s mutton.””[9]

The first reference to vegetarian meat in Western civilization wasn’t until 1852, referring to a sausage-like mixture made by squeezing chopped turnips and beets.[10] The first recorded veggie burger was created in 1939,[11] and Tofurky was introduced in 1995.[12]

Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger are two plant-based burgers that are designed to mimic the culinary characteristics of beef burgers. They were both released around the same time. Impossible Burger released its burger in trendy restaurants, whereas Beyond Meat went straight to households by retailing at Whole Foods.[13] The plant-based food industry is now big enough to have an industry association (the Plant Based Foods Association).[14] Major food corporations are now investing in plant-based start-ups or creating their own plant-based food items: Unilever has released its own eggless mayonnaise;[15] General Mills invested in a nut based cheese and yogurt company called Kite Hill;[16] and Tyson Foods invested in a 5% share in Beyond Meat.[17]

Cultured meat

Cultured meat is also called cell-cultured meat, cell-based meat, in-vitro meat, lab-grown meat, and clean meat.[18] In 1998 NASA-funded engineers successfully grew goldfish meat in vitro, but the first cultured meat that people admit to eating was an art exhibition of cultured frog meat created by Australian artist Oron Catts in 2003.[19] There are now four main cultured meat companies racing to the market: MosaMeat, Memphis Meats, Hampton Creek, and SuperMeat.[20]

Endnotes

[1] Reese, Jacy. (2018). The End of Animal Farming. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books at p.x.

[2] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[3] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[4] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.4.

[5] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[6] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.24.

[7] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.27.

[8] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[9] Reese, The End of Animal Farming at p.46.

[10] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[11] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[12] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[13] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[14] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[15] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[16] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[17] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[18] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[19] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.

[20] Reese, The End of Animal Farming.