As graduation season is quickly approaching, many high schools and universities are faced with deciding between virtual or in-person ceremonies. As states begin to lift mask mandates, as reported by The New York Times, educators choose to continue holding virtual graduations. Being forced to host these small ceremonies is not ideal, and the loss of their special celebrations will sadden many students. However, due to public health risks presented by the pandemic, this precaution is necessary for many schools. Virtual graduation is a hard decision, but it may have an upside. Let’s analyze the lack of traditional graduation ceremonies in serving as an eye-opener to the ‘lost’ school-time and the starless future in the job market.
Amid the complex changes, everybody has been compelled to cope. The strife of the pandemic has made way for more neighborly festivals later on. The need to adjust the face-to-face functions for pandemic limitations has set out the freedom for graduations to be more available later on. This option permits relatives who can’t travel or individuals with more extended families to participate in the special day.
Because of the pandemic, plans changed, and life was reconsidered. The virtual graduation functions were unquestionably not what seniors had expected as the hotly anticipated finish of their school vocations. Virtual graduations are not the slightest bit amazing arrangements; understudies merit the magnificence and acknowledgment that accompanies achieving such an accomplishment as moving on from secondary school or even primary school. Nonetheless, this isn’t to imply that beating the earlier year’s deterrents has received no rewards.
Alumni of 2021 merit the option to be disturbed about their deficiency of conventional functions, and their misery over virtual beginnings ought not to be neglected. Following quite a while of challenging work and late evenings considering, these understudies were denied graduation services and their capacity to command the entirety of their achievements face to face. Notwithstanding, these equivalent, appalling conditions have made COVID-time initiations open to potential participants who might not regularly have the option to drive to conventional graduations.
Justin Olson says news reports that he is against getting Arizona’s electric utilities to a carbon-free or net-zero carbon level are incorrect. He whole-heartedly supports that goal, Olson insists, but believes it is more important to ensure Arizonans who pay for that electricity do not end up paying higher rates to reach the goal.
Olson is one of five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and one of three Republicans. He was joined last Wednesday by the ACC’s two Democrats in voting down a rules package which urged all electric utilities to a net-zero carbon level by 2050, but not mandate the goal.
The vote came nearly six months after the ACC -with a slightly different contingent of commissioners- voted 4 to 1 on a draft set of rules that included the net-zero by 2050 mandate. It had taken ACC staff and industry representatives about three years to get those rules worked out.
Olson cast the lone nay in that November vote. And he then voted nay last week even after he introduced an amendment to make the whole thing more palatable by switching the mandates to guidelines.
In the end, Olson says he could not get language into the rules to prevent utilities from using the mandates -or guidelines- as a justification for a rate increase to pay for something the company intended to do anyway. And that left customers at risk of paying more.
Olson insists that complaints directed toward any commissioners for “wasting” the time of ACC and industry staff are misplaced.
“The utilities would have undertaken all of that review and study anyway,” as part of determining their own future business plans, Olson told AZ Free News.
In fact, Arizona Public Service (APS) released an Integrated Resource Plan update for shareholders in February which listed its clean energy commitment for 100 percent “clean, carbon-free electricity” by 2050. Olson noted that the company’s plan was made without any regulatory mandate in place.
Olson also pointed out the “overwhelming” voter rejection of Proposition 127 in 2018 which sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require nongovernmental electric utilities to increase the portion of their retail energy sales from certain types of renewable energy resources to 50 percent by 2030.
Refusing to support any type of renewable energy mandate without protecting ratepayers was simply “respecting the will of the voters,” says Olson. And that, he believes, means the ACC should be working to ensure ratepayers are charged lower rates in the future if utility companies benefit from lower costs by their own business decisions to use more renewable sources.
Some opponents of Olson’s position worry the Biden Administration will push Congress to pass legislation which may set net-zero mandates that do not serve the interest of Arizona’s utilities or its electricity users.
Olson says he understand that concern, but to preemptively enact “a bad policy” would be irresponsible given “there is no harm or penalty to Arizona the utilities, or the ratepayers at this time.”
In his seminal article in 1971 on the economic theory of regulation, the Nobel Laureate George Stigler of the University of Chicago argued that government agencies were often “captured” by the industries they were designed to regulate. Before Stigler, the common view was that noble regulators worked assiduously to correct “market failures” with regulation, in order to promote the public interest. Stigler showed that if we assume that regulators have other goals in mind besides promoting the public interest (e.g., covering up their own government failure or enhancing their power, prestige, and budget) they will eventually represent the interests of the industry they are supposed to regulate.
This is referred to as “regulatory capture.” Examples such as a “revolving door” between defense contractors and the Department of Defense and cozy relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration and large energy firms and the Environmental Protection Agency come to mind. When there is regulatory capture, the interests of firms become more important than the public interest, which leads to a net loss to society.
Traditionally, capture theory applies mainly to private sector interests, i.e., firms and industries. However, thanks to several intrepid reporters at the New York Post, we now know that capture theory can also be applied to public sector unions. These reporters uncovered palpable evidence of explicit collusion between the American Federation of Teachers and the CDC. Similar types of explicit collusion between teacher unions and public health officials may also be occurring at the state and local levels. We know that it has also occurred in the U.K., where Boris Johnson appears to be defying trade union pressure to keep masks on secondary school children.
What motivates political appointees at the CDC to collude with teacher unions to prolong lockdowns and continue the confinement and deformity of our children? First, the Biden administration is beholden to teacher unions, who provide substantial financial support to Democrats and also constitute a major, reliable voting bloc. Second, CDC stands for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and thus, is responsible for the single greatest government failure of all time. Their ineptitude, inconsistency, and overall incompetence, both before and after the outbreak of the virus, has been staggering. Therefore, it is important that the CDC keeps its trade union friends for political cover. Third, public health police state officials, such as the CDC director, are basking in the limelight and flush with funds, power, and influence. For infectious disease experts, who have become our un-elected rulers, these are the best of times. Pandering to teacher unions allows them to continue regulating all aspects of our family life. Note also that while the CDC is lionized by the media, they are also shielded by craven, cowardly politicians from any accountability for the damage they have inflicted on our economy, society, and physical and mental health, as a result of their misguided quarantines, lockdowns, and “re-openings.”
A sad irony is that the agency responsible for the most massive government failure of all time is allowed to grow and prosper, while continuing its ongoing collective theft of private property, services, and economic, personal, and religious liberty. For example, thanks to the CDC, the entire cruise industry has been grounded for at least fifteen months. CDC guidelines have led to closures of public libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions for over fourteen months. The CDC Director’s recent message of “impending doom” is music to the ears of teacher union officials, who have a vested interest in maintaining maximal use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as school closures, physical distancing, and masks for children as young as two years old.
It is impossible to understate the dastardly actions of teacher unions in exerting undue influence on the federal agency charged with deciding how and when to “re-open” schools. Let’s start with the fact that teachers have already received more special treatment than any other type of worker. Recall that when our state-run COVID religion was established in March 2020, a totalitarian/Orwellian taxonomy of “essential” and “non-essential” workers and industries was developed. In most states, teachers are “essential” workers. Unlike many “non-essential” workers, teachers have received full pay during quarantines and lockdowns, with virtually no job losses in the sector. In some school districts, teachers have even received raises and additional benefits, while children remain at home to learn online, often with inferior Internet connections and overwhelmed parents to supervise them. Unlike almost all other “essential” workers, many teachers have not physically reported to work since March 2020. Also, in many states, teachers were vaccinated before many others in their age groups, since we were told that this step was necessary to reopen the schools. The forced masking of students as young as two years old for six hours a day is designed to protect teachers, not students. It has never been clearer that teacher unions aim to prolong the pandemic party for teachers while paying no heed to the physical and psychological damage to the nation’s students.
Now that the collusion between the teacher unions and the CDC has been exposed, we can no longer pretend that public health officials have the public interest in mind. Their claim to follow the “science” has been revealed as fallacious, since they are actually following “political science.” Since March 2020, we have all been human subjects in a grand social science experiment, which has been conducted without “informed consent.” As social scientists, when we conduct an experiment, we are required by law to obtain the informed consent of each of our human subjects. That is, we are required to explain to each subject, in great detail, precisely what we are trying to accomplish in our project, as well as its duration, cost, and risks. All of these protocols have not been followed. We also have to abide by an ethical code, which says that there should be no psychological or physical harm to the subject.
There is no doubt that this unprecedented and deviant child experiment has inflicted significant harm on its human subjects. Thus, while some might say that it is wrong to demonize public health officials, we say that their actions, especially as they relate to children, have been demonic. Regulatory capture of the CDC by teacher unions is a scandal of epic proportions.
For these reasons, we call on parents to reject CDC guidelines for schools and any semblance of the “new normal” at schools. We should no longer allow our children to be unwitting subjects in this deviant and unethical grand social experiment. CDC and teacher-union-enabled child abuse and its ongoing destruction of normal childhood development must end now. The next time your child is forced to wear a face mask for seven hours a day and prevented from interacting with her playmates, you should call child protective services on that teacher or school official. The CDC and the teacher unions are now officially guilty of child abuse.
Donald S. Siegel, Foundation Professor of Public Policy and Management and Director, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University (Donald.Siegel.1@asu.edu)
Robert M. Sauer, Professor of Economics, Royal Holloway, University of London (Robert.Sauer@rhul.ac.uk)
During the first months of the coronavirus pandemic shutdown, the use of telehealth increased significantly. In fact, overall, almost half of the people who were undergoing treatment when the pandemic shutdown began reported using some form of telemedicine.
From a new RAND Corporation study, those findings make the news of Governor Doug Ducey’s decision to sign telemedicine legislation all the more welcome to individuals still hesitant to venture out.
House Bill 2454, sponsored by Rep. Regina Cobb, will make telemedicine services provided to Arizonans through the Governor’s Executive Order last March permanent. The governor’s order required health care insurance companies to expand telemedicine coverage for all services that would normally be covered for an in-person visit.
The bill expands access to telemedicine for patients and ensures that doctors receive equal compensation from insurance companies for telemedicine services and allows out-of-state health care professionals to provide telemedicine in Arizona.
“Telehealth was an extremely valuable tool during the pandemic,” said Cobb. “It’s helped Arizonans get in contact with health care providers, mental health specialists, speech therapists, and more from the safety of their home. HB 2454 will continue those efforts and ensure that those living in Arizona receive medical service in a safe and convenient manner.”
According to findings published in the Journal of General, between mid-March and early May 2020, telehealth was used by more than 40% of patients with a chronic physical health condition and by more than 50% of those with a behavioral health condition, according to findings published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Under the bill, medical examinations in the worker’s compensation space can also be conducted via telehealth if all parties consent. It also prohibits healthcare boards from enforcing any rule that requires a patient to visit in-person before being prescribed most medications.
“HB 2454 is a win for physicians and patients alike,” said Arizona Medical Association President Dr. Miriam Anand. “Every patient deserves access to the appropriate care needed to treat their medical conditions. HB 2454 will break down unnecessary barriers to telehealth and help facilitate the delivery of high-quality care to patients across Arizona.”
HB 2454 also requires medical insurers to provide payment parity for telehealth services using audio and visual features and allows health care providers who are licensed in other states to provide telehealth services into Arizona under certain conditions.
According to the JLBC, “the bill establishes the Telehealth Advisory Committee on Telehealth Best Practices which would be tasked with recommending other health care service that may be appropriately provided through an audio-only telehealth format. These services would be covered services starting January 1, 2022 but would not require payment parity.”
The bill does not apply to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) but does require health insurers to cover audio-only health care services if those services are covered by AHCCCS or Medicare.
As the finger-pointing continues as to why April’s job growth fell far below expectation, business organizations in Arizona are drawing attention once again to what they see as a worrisome obstacle to pro-growth — whether the U.S. Senate will approve the H.R. 842, also known as the PRO Act.
The PRO Act, which stands for Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in March but has not yet had a committee debate in the Senate. Arizona Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly are among only three Democrats who did not co-sponsor the bill, which would enact sweeping changes to the National Labor Relations Act and other labor laws, including an override to Arizona’s longstanding “right-to-work” laws.
Arizona is one of 27 states governed by labor laws which ensure workers can choose whether or not to join a union and pay for representation. Employees in states without right-to-work laws can be required to pay union dues and fees in order to secure employment.
Millions of workers in Arizona and 26 other states would lose their right to work legal protections if Congress passes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021.
“Senators Sinema and Kelly have not co-sponsored this bill,” Glenn Spencer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said last week in an interview with Chamber Business News.. “That’s a good thing. People in Arizona should thank them for standing up for workers and right-to-work and employers.”
Major labor unions such as the AFL-CIO back the Pro Act, which President Joe Biden has already signaled he will sign. The possibility of severe changes to labor laws if the Pro Act is enacted is a cause of uncertainty for owners of all sizes of businesses at a time when the Biden Administration is desperate to follow through on promises of new jobs.
“The PRO Act would, for all practical purposes, eviscerate Arizona’s right-to-work law, which would mean that workers in the state who happen to be in a union work setting would have to pay dues or they would be at risk of losing their jobs,” Spencer said. “Their employers may well be forced to terminate them if they don’t wish to pay dues in that setting.”
And according to Spencer, research by the U.S. Chamber demonstrates that states with right-to-work laws usually have higher rates of economic growth, along with higher rates of job creation and lower rates of unemployment.
But concerns about Arizona’s right-to-work laws being tossed aside is not the only provision of the Pro Act many opponents, including workers, find objectionable.
As written, the PRO Act redefines the long-used criteria to determine who is an independent contractor. It will also restrict the ability of freelancers to have autonomy over their business activities. This could force many workers to be classified as employees, and in many instances those workers would be obligated to choose between paying for union representation or looking for another job.
In addition, the Pro Act’s language does not allow Arizona employees to opt out of having their personal information provided to unions. And the bill will prohibit employee / employer disputes from being addressed via cost-effective arbitration programs. Instead, time-consuming and lengthy litigation, often in the form of class action lawsuits, would be an employee’s only option.
“Employers have concerns about this move, because it is likely to increase the number of class action lawsuits, which are expensive and time consuming for employers and employees alike,” according to a review of the bill by the Snell & Wilmer Law Firm. “Employers with questions or concerns about the effects of the PRO Act should consult with legal counsel for a fuller understanding of its potential impact on their organization.”
On March 5, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and 19 local chambers issued a letter to Arizona’s Congressional delegation explaining why H.R. 842 would not be good for Arizona. The same concerns were shared by Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Debbie Lesko, and David Schweikert who voted no.
The bill is currently assigned to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. There has been no activity reported by the committee since March 11.
