Search

By Carla Javits

Springtime means baseball is back! The new baseball season got me thinking about farm teams, where athletes get to hone their game in a lower-risk environment that is supportive but challenging. It’s a brilliant system and, as a plus, a great business model for training players to move up to the next level. Another area where a farm-team type approach has enormous potential is workforce development.

Prime-time employment, where your behavior and actions are scrutinized every day, is a challenging experience for even the best-prepared among us. And even then, most people benefit from a supportive work environment that allows them to learn and adjust to the demands of the workplace.

In fact, many of us who have had success at work benefited from just such an environment. If your parents or extended family owned a business like a restaurant or a store, chances are you started off in a job there with some up-close-and-personal supervision. Maybe you babysat or cut the lawns for the neighbors. They got mad when you were late or didn’t show up, but it was low risk; they probably gave you another chance. Many of us were lucky enough to know people along the way who took us under their wings and helped us navigate the early years of work.

For those who did not have that good luck, there was no such “farm team” training ground: no supportive relatives, no forgiving work environment, no friendly mentors. And even more challenging, many also had to develop their abilities to navigate within a crucible of extreme and ongoing stress, even violence and trauma, in a country where a college degree is the default hurdle for many jobs that offer upward mobility and where wages at the low end of the market have barely budged in years.

And despite what many believe to be an egalitarian market, a wide variety of research proves that’s not case. A widely quoted field experiment conducted in the low-wage labor market of New York City found that even when white, black and Latino job applicants with similar interpersonal skills were given the same exact resumes, after applying for hundreds of entry-level jobs, black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

American businesses are increasingly on record with their frustrations about finding well-prepared workers. They’re leaving positions unfilled or tolerating excessively high levels of turnover. What they’re not doing is connecting with well-prepared frontline workers routinely or making major investments in training and workforce preparation.

How do we get out of this vicious cycle? I propose a new set of workforce development “farm teams.”

A growing national cohort of social enterprises could be a ready-made starting point. These mission-oriented businesses operate with a double bottom line. They earn revenue by selling quality products and services, while providing jobs and training in a supportive work environment to people who are overcoming significant challenges, and need coaching, support and a lower-risk environment to prepare for work in the big leagues.

Social enterprises, like farm teams, are an entry point, enlarging the labor pool and preparing people to work. Specialty training — like batting or catching camps — can be offered by community colleges or training providers.

Some community colleges report that people are flocking to oversubscribed programs -- nursing, for example -- that lead to real jobs.

When players move from farm teams to the big leagues, there is a handoff from one coach to another, one set of teammates to another. Support continues, but it’s different in nature once you’re at that next level. Similarly, social enterprises partner with employers, making sure attention is paid and support provided to newly hired employees at any level of the organizational hierarchy, fostering productivity and job retention.

Businesses interested in creating a farm team system should be in touch with the social enterprises, community colleges and community-based job training programs in their locales. Investing the time to develop partnerships, and finding useful ways to invest in the growth and development of these entities, is essential for business and government.

Many people who elected President Donald Trump were clearly focused on economic mobility and jobs. He has called for a patriotic, national commitment to the development of jobs and greater opportunity. On both sides of the aisle, many Americans are eager to find long-term solutions that provide employment and hope for millions in need.

A national farm-team system for workforce development will ensure that those who are sitting on the sidelines or bouncing in and out of low-wage jobs have a pathway into the workforce and better jobs -- and are ready to add the value employers seek as they grow their companies and consider investing in more jobs and higher wage levels.

Image courtesy of REDF

Carla Javits is president & CEO of REDF. REDF invests in the growth and effectiveness of social enterprises―double bottom-line businesses dedicated to helping people who otherwise would be shut out of the workforce get jobs, keep jobs and build better lives. Since 1997, REDF has provided funding and specialized advisory services to 100 social enterprises around the country that have employed 14,500 people, with a significant rate of return to society—$2.23 in benefits for every $1 spent. For more information, visit www.redf.org and follow on Twitter at @REDFworks

By Bob Keefe

Scientists in lab coats strolled side-by-side with schoolkids from the Bronx and Lorax-lovers carrying Dr. Seussian-like Truffula trees. But also among the 200,000 participants in the People’s Climate March in Washington were Silicon Valley investors, corporate CEOs and working-class Americans from all across the country.

The message they carried was among the most prevalent at the march: Millions of good jobs are at stake if President Donald Trump and members of Congress continue taking us backward on climate and clean-energy policies.

Not too long ago, it might have seemed odd to see businesspeople marching alongside environmentalists and college students at a rally for the earth.

But that was before clean energy became one of the fastest-growing job markets in the country, now employing more than 3 million workers. That was before business leaders realized not acting on climate change is risky business that comes with high economic costs. And that was before American investors recognized that America continues to fall behind other countries in clean energy because of its short-sighted policies, which will cost us all – literally – in the future.

Businesspeople are doing more than just marching, too.

This week members of my organization, E2, and nearly 100 other business leaders from across the country will meet with members of Congress – about 60 Republican and Democrat offices in all – to discuss the economic benefits of clean energy and action on climate change, and the economic costs of not taking action. The first National Business Climate and Clean Energy Advocacy Day includes members of E2 and about 10 other business and sustainable industry groups.

Businesses are taking action in other ways too.

More than 1,000 businesses have signed on to a letter demanding that President Trump and members of Congress do more to advance low-carbon policies, including – most importantly – keeping America’s promises to the world that we agreed to as part of the historic Paris climate agreement.

Fully half of Fortune 500 companies have set their own climate and clean-energy goals, because they realize it’s good for both the planet and their bottom line.

And like most Americans, businesspeople aren’t buying the Trump administration’s claims that we have to choose between jobs or a good environment. In a recent Politico/Harvard University survey, only 21 percent of Americans said they agree with the Trump administration’s claim that addressing climate change will cost jobs.

President Trump has proclaimed he wants to be "the greatest jobs president that God ever created."

But with so many other business leaders stepping up, speaking out and taking their own action in support of clean energy and climate change, it begs a question: Why doesn’t our businessman-president get it?

Images courtesy of E2

Bob Keefe is executive director of E2, a national, nonpartisan group of business owners, investors and others who advocate for policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment. Learn more at www.e2.org

Editor's Note: This article is the second installment of a two-part series, “From Dumb to Smart: The Future of Energy." To read the first part, click here.

By Gregory Craig

What does the future of energy look like?

New advancements in smart and mobile technology are creating an exciting future for the energy industry. Smart thermostats like Nest, for example, are helping to regulate home energy use by automatically adjusting temperature, saving homeowners 12 to 15 percent on heating and cooling costs.

We see this as just the first layer of the onion. With the right technology, consumers can take even greater control and benefit from a new generation of energy efficiency tools.

It’s about to get real (time)

If you already manage your personal banking from your tablet or phone, imagine managing your electricity in a similar way. Gone are the days of waiting for monthly statements to come in the mail. Soon you’ll be able to tap into a user-friendly platform showing you, in near real-time, useful information like how much electricity you use, when you use it and its cost.

Combined with near real-time price alerts and tailored recommendations, this kind of customized insight into your energy use will allow you to save money and help balance the grid.

Our home will outsmart us

The adoption of smart home appliances will make this kind of real-time information easy to act on -- saving you big bucks on energy. For example, connected devices will allow people to set up personalized ‘if/then’ scenarios for powering up or down certain appliances. Think, “if the price of electricity drops to $X before 5 p.m., turn on the dishwasher.”

As smart technology becomes even smarter, our appliances will begin to learn our habits and predict our needs automatically. If the weatherman is calling for a scorching heat wave or deep winter freeze, your robot (let’s call her Dolores) is going to recommend you run the dryer tonight, or wait until after things cool off. You’ll be able to load your laundry in the morning before leaving for work, and then set it to start when energy is cheapest.

This kind of rationing response by customers is exactly what energy industry innovators have been dreaming about. It will help utilities manage surges in demand on the grid and help you avoid paying surge pricing. Talk about win-win.

Greener pastures await

The surge in renewables and self-generated energy solutions such as Tesla’s new solar roofs will only make the future even more brilliant. Historically, these kinds of cutting-edge solutions have been pretty expensive — and are still prohibitively so for most consumers. But the price of turning your home into a solar-powered machine is reaching new lows. Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. That’s unlikely to slow down.

At the same time, mobile apps are being developed that can alert customers when there is more renewable energy on the grid, which usually correlates to when energy is cheapest, too. Ultimately, these innovations enable consumers to “vote” with their electricity use for a cleaner, sustainable future.

Join the club

In some ways, the future is already here. The next generation of retail energy services and cutting-edge tech tools are helping first adopters capitalize on the progress we’ve made in the energy industry. Griddy, for example, has introduced an energy club that allows its members to bypass energy brokers and buy energy at-cost. With enhanced mobile technology powered by smart meter data, Griddy members get access to real-time usage information and when they should conduct energy-intensive tasks – everything from doing laundry to charging an electric vehicle.

With these innovations, nothing is stopping us from catapulting into an excitingly brilliant future – let’s go!

Gregory L. Craig is a 25-year energy industry veteran and the founder and CEO of Griddy, a next-generation energy company. He is also the founder of PowerToConfuse.org.

By Anna Johansson

For centuries, leading businesses have earmarked portions of their revenue to go to charitable causes. And while the primary reason for charitable giving is obviously to benefit the people and groups involved, it’s hard to ignore the fact that generosity makes the giver feel good. But did you know that it also makes employees feel good when their employers are generous?

Understanding the psychology of giving

It may sound weird for someone who has never given anything of value to someone else, but the giver often benefits more than the recipient. That’s because it feels good to give.

Mitchel Popovetsky, M.D., a primary care physician at Rush University Medical Center, has spent a lot of time studying the psychological benefits of giving. The insights he gleaned from researching this topic are pretty fascinating.

One of the studies Popovetsky likes to talk about involved performing functional MRI scans on the brains of charitable donors. It showed that the mesolimbic portion of the brain lights up after donating.

“This is the part of the brain that controls feelings of reward and pleasure. It’s also activated by things like food, drugs and sex,” Popovetsky says. “But that’s just the physiology of it.” There are also a number of other psychological and health-related benefits associated with giving.

Corporate giving and employee engagement

When you consider that employees feel connected to their employer and identify with the decisions these companies make, you start to understand how corporate generosity plays such a major role in bettering employee engagement.

Whether it’s through direct employee giving – in the form of volunteering or charitable donations – or the company itself sponsoring a cause, research shows that individuals feel a greater sense of job satisfaction when there is generosity involved.

According to a Deloitte Volunteer Impact Survey of employed millennials, those who frequently participate in volunteer activities in the workplace are twice as likely to report being “very satisfied” with their careers.

As a separate study explains: “Employee engagement through cause is a vital means by which to strengthen employee relationships, enhance employee morale and even build critical skill sets and expertise. Plus, employees are hungry for ways to get involved in cause.”

The connection between corporate generosity and improved employee relations can be tied back to a few specific benefits in the following areas:

• Better productivity. When employees feel like their goals are aligned with the company’s goals, productivity is naturally increased. Everyone is on the same page, and there’s less friction between individual parts of the team. This idea is supported by a 2015 study conducted by professors at the University of Southampton in the UK. It shows a strong positive correlation between employee-directed corporate philanthropy and workplace productivity.


• More pride. Pride is a big deal when it comes to connecting with employees. When an employee is aware of the company’s vision – and that vision doesn’t embarrass them – they’re much more apt to speak out in a positive fashion. One study, conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, supports this theory. The findings from this study reveal that employees tend to have a more positive view of their employers when the company is committed to corporate giving. Specifically, emotional engagement is higher.


• Morale boost. In his research, Popovetsky found that people who are natural givers have greater self-esteem and more satisfaction with life. This is because they’re able to look beyond themselves and recognize what really matters in life.


• Better health. Popovetsky also points to a number of studies that show volunteering can lead to better mental and physical health. Specifically, people who are generous tend to have less belly fat, lower cholesterol and lower blood pressure.

The benefits of corporate generosity are clear. The only problem is that many businesses are not honoring their employees’ wishes. This represents a huge missed opportunity in organizations around the world.

Make generosity a CSR priority

You can’t include everything and everyone in your corporate social responsibility initiatives. But if you want to maximize the return on your investment, it’s wise to include some form of generosity toward others. Not only does this provide your organization with a chance to give back, but it also enhances employee engagement.

On a related note: Make sure you include employees in the selection process. Some companies do this by offering what are called “prosocial bonuses.” This is money given to employees with the expectation that they’ll pass it along to someone in need.

“Lots of employers do this with match programs, like the one at Microsoft, where for every dollar the employee pays to a charity, the employer matches. This again helps develop a feeling of teamship and allows the employees to give to the charity of their choice, for a cause that’s close to them personally,” executive coach Angie Buchholz noted in a blog post.

Not sure where to start? “Setting up prosocial programs can be as easy as giving employees vouchers for a job well done, allowing them to give that voucher to the charity of their choice. This is a dual natured way of improving morale, as it gives the employees individual recognition, while allowing them to give back to a charity they care about,” Buchholz advised.

Once you understand the relationship between corporate generosity and employee engagement, you’ll see a world of new opportunities emerge. What will you choose to do?

Image credit: Pixabay

Anna is a freelance writer, researcher, and business consultant. A columnist for Entrepreneur.com, HuffingtonPost.com and more, Anna specializes in entrepreneurship, technology, and social media trends. Follow her on Twitter and LinkedIn.

by Sangeeta Waldron

Chocolate is one of the most popular and widely consumed products in the world, with North America devouring the lion's share, followed by Europe. There is a huge variety of chocolate products available, but there is one unusual chocolate brand gaining ground, making a big difference, and that’s Tony’s Chocolonely. A Fairtrade chocolate, Tony’s Chocolonely grew to be the largest Dutch chocolate company in less than 10 years, and has now entered the American market with its launch in Portland, Ore. last autumn; it can be bought online from the company's website. In addition to the Netherlands, Tony's is sold in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and will launching in Germany later this year. It’s on a mission to be sold across the entire US this year.

Tony’s Chocolonely has a wonderful backstory. It was started by Dutch journalist Teun van de Keuken (‘Tony’) when he discovered that cocoa was being bought from plantations that used child slavery. After learning these facts, van de Keuken ate 12 chocolate bars and turned himself in to the police as a ‘chocolate criminal,’ saying he had purchased an illegally manufactured product. When the trial didn’t result in his conviction, he decided to start a chocolate company dedicated to creating a 100 percent slave-free chocolate industry.

When you unwrap Tony’s Chocolonely brightly coloured wrapper - it evokes a sense of perhaps this is what a Willy Wonka chocolate bar would be like - you discover a six-ounce chunky bar that’s unequally divided to illustrate the inequality in the chocolate industry. In today’s free trade world, slaves are still at work on cocoa farms in West Africa, many of them children. Tony’s Chocolonely exists to change this situation by making 100 percent slave-free the norm in the chocolate industry and to show that chocolate can be made differently, through direct, long-term relationships with cocoa farmers and other supply chain partners.

A recent study by Tulane University revealed that more than two million children were working in hazardous conditions in the cocoa production industry in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Tony’s Chocolonely has created a completely transparent and traceable bean-to-bar process, where they agree on better prices for the farmers. The brand also provides business and agricultural training to increase productivity on their farms. Plus, 1% of its net revenue is donated to its Chocolonely Foundation, supporting projects to eradicate slavery in the cocoa supply chain.

Tony’s wants to inspire both consumers and other chocolate companies to take responsibility by asking American consumers to buy Tony Chocolonely’s this Mother’s Day. If it can inspire others to take ownership in the supply chain, it believes it can make a significant difference in making all chocolate 100% slave free.

Photo Credit: Tony Chocolonely

A searing report released last week by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) lambasts PepsiCo for what it calls the “reckless destruction” of both rain forests and communities in Indonesia.

RAN’s researchers mined Indonesian customs data that they say reveals connections between the global snack and beverage giant and several of the largest importers of palm oil to the U.S. That report follows a survey RAN released only days earlier, which it says highlights the connections some of the world’s largest banks have to PepsiCo and, by association, mounting deforestation and human rights violations.

From RAN’s point of view, PepsiCo -- which has continued a spree of acquisitions as part of an aggressive growth plan worldwide – is earning billions of dollars by profiting from what NGOs frequently call “conflict palm oil.”

The global palm oil industry, thanks to some successful self-policing measures such as RSPO (the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil), has indeed achieved progress on ensuring this coveted ingredient is sourced more sustainably. But according to RAN, some companies including Indofood, which has a joint venture with PepsiCo in Indonesia, are responsible for the destruction of carbon-dense peatlands while failing to respect basic human rights. Meanwhile, the NGO also accused PepsiCo of facilitating the exports of even more palm oil to the U.S., with much of that supply responsible for continued child labor violations and land rights abuses.

RAN insists it has been lobbying PepsiCo for a while in an effort to push the company to transform its palm oil supply chain. “PepsiCo has been engaged by hundreds of thousands of emails, online petitions, phone calls, written letters and on-the-ground actions from supporters of the campaign,” Emma Lierley, a communications manager with RAN, told TriplePundit. “And over the past three years, our team has had extensive engagement with their sustainability team on these issues as well.”

The NGO said it has held lengthy discussions with PepsiCo’s sustainability team as the NGO attempted to convince the company to skirt any connections to conflict palm oil. Last year, during PepsiCo’s annual shareholder meeting, a representative from the Indonesian labor organization OPPUK called on the company’s CEO, Indra Nooyi, to work with Indofood in order to change the labor and environmental practices on the company’s palm oil plantations. But a year later, RAN insists that nothing has changed on that front.

“PepsiCo is well aware of the issues surrounding Indofood and its palm oil supply chain,” Lierley said, “but continues to source from that company without consequence.”

As of press time, PepsiCo did not respond to 3p’s request for comment on RAN’s accusation. The company publicly posts what it calls its key sustainable palm oil commitments, which were last updated in October 2015.

Other NGOs have been supportive of RAN’s continued pressure on PepsiCo. Deborah Lapidus, a campaign director with the NGO Mighty Earth, told 3p that Indofood is one of the largest remaining producers in Indonesia that still has not adopted the High Carbon Stock Approach methodology to identify valuable forests. She also said the supplier continues to be exposed for labor rights violations.

“I think the worst thing about Pepsi’s palm oil supply chain is its ongoing [joint venture] with Indofood,” Lapidus told us. “Its recent update to its palm oil policy fell far short of the benchmark, so I think pressure on Pepsi vis a vis its [joint venture partner] is fully warranted.”

RAN’s report lists the top 10 palm oil exporters to the U.S., and outlines what it determined are the ties to PepsiCo. One of these exporters is the controversial IOI Group, a founding member of the RSPO. The Indonesian company generated headlines last year for suing the RSPO in a Swiss court after the organization rescinded the company’s membership following a study that linked it to repeated destruction of peatlands and rain forests across Indonesia.

Those allegations soon prompted Unilever to sever ties with IOI. After global outrage continued to grow and more companies dropped IOI as a supplier, IOI then dropped its lawsuit.

But despite IOI’s pledge to clean up its operations, RAN and other NGOs have accused the company of additional labor violations. And while PepsiCo has not confirmed or denied any links to IOI publicly, RAN suspects the food and beverage giant has indirect ties to the producer via its relationship with Wilmar, which in the past had been a PepsiCo palm oil supplier.

While RAN continues to call out PepsiCo for its relationships with companies such as Indofood and IOI, established or otherwise, Greenpeace has suspended its campaign against the latter palm oil giant. Last Friday, Greenpeace declared that IOI made a “significant commitment” to tackle deforestation and human exploitation within its supply chain. Greenpeace lauded IOI for agreeing to a one-year period during which the company will be audited by a third party that will verify these changes.

RAN, however, is not convinced. Shortly after Greenpeace announced its truce with IOI, RAN issued a statement that sums up IOI’s commitments as too little and too late. "IOI has started to make progress addressing the egregious and far-reaching impacts of its palm oil business,” said RAN’s Gemma Tillack, “but its statement today overplays the progress made, especially on key human rights issues.”

Image credit: Wakx/Flickr

In a move she described as necessary during an era of economic uncertainty,“from technology to Trump,” last week Ottawa Premier Kathleen Wynne announced a pilot project to gauge the effectiveness of a universal basic income.

The program, the Ontario Basic Income Pilot (OBIP), will randomly select 4,000 citizens within three regions: Hamilton, Ontario’s third-largest city and one that has seen its once-dynamic manufacturing sector struggle in recent years; Thunder Bay, a city on Lake Superior near the Minnesota border that has also seen a decline in manufacturing; and the town of Lindsay in the southeastern region of the province.

Participants will receive an income supplement for three years. Single people will receive almost $12,500 (CAD17,000) annually, while a married couple will collect approximately $17,500 (CAD24,000).

To encourage recipients to seek employment (or to keep the jobs they already may have), citizens participating in the program will see that amount decreased by only 50 cents for each dollar they earn. In other words, someone who earns CAD10,000 from a part-time job would receive CAD11,989 in basic income for a total income of CAD21,989. Anyone who happens to have a disability would receive additional income as well.

Premier Wynne expects the program to cost the province about $110 million (CAD150 million). Citizens taking part in the pilot would still be able to receive childcare and healthcare benefits in addition to this income supplement.

Canada joins Finland and Kenya as the first countries on earth to begin testing universal basic income programs. In Kenya, thousands of citizens who usually survive on about $1 a day will receive an income regardless of whether they work or not. That project, led by the NGO GiveDirectly, is expected to cost about $30 million and will last for the next 10 to 15 years. Earlier this year, 2,000 Finnish citizens who were either were collecting unemployment benefits or other types of income subsidies were enrolled in a two-year program that will supplement their incomes by $610 (560 euros) monthly – and those funds will not be taxed.

The growth of the gig economy, as well as the surge in automation, has sparked discussions over the merits of a universal basic income all across the political spectrum. Those on the left say such income plans can compensate for what has become an increasingly volatile job market and will give citizens the financial security that increasingly eludes many working families. Conservatives are increasingly warming up to the idea as, in theory, a universal basic income could eliminate government bureaucracy and many social programs. And some advocates insist a system universally applied to all citizens could also be a boon for sustainable development, as it could shift society to a more stable economic system that goes beyond consumerism.

The concept is still in its infancy, but momentum is slowly growing. Vermont recently introduced legislation that would fund such a system via a carbon tax. TriplePundit recently interviewed a libertarian candidate for California’s governorship who wants to fund a generous universal basic income by developing more of the Golden State’s coastline. And members of the European Union’s parliament have begun to suggest that the world’s largest trading bloc consider such a means to ensure economic stability.

Premier Wynne’s program has it share of critics. One Canadian professor of economics described the program as an interesting social experiment, but one that will probably just fund grown-ups who are already living with their parents. Others suggest it does not go far enough, as those recipients will still have to struggle financially in order to survive. The libertarian Cato Institute, while open to the idea, says governments should not fall into the “same traps” that it argues have bedeviled social welfare programs for decades.

But the concern shared by most critics of a universal basic income is that, since it has never been implemented widely, we are venturing into the great unknown. Pilot programs like those in Ontario, Finland and Kenya -- and the data that will be mined from these studies -- will help policymakers, as well as citizens, solve 21st-century problems that cannot be mended with last century’s solutions.

Image credit: Dan Zen/Wiki Commons

In a country as diverse as India, one would think that showcasing a human rights issue could land a company in a social media minefield. But Vicks scored praise for its touching story of a transgender mother and the child she raised as her own.

One month after it was posted on YouTube, the story has well over 9 million views – and, overall, garnered an enthusiastic reception worldwide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zeeVEKaDLM

Companies are increasingly wading into social issues while promoting their products, or as they often infer, seeking to raise awareness of an issue keen on their stakeholders’ minds. Not everyone is a fan of what is sometimes called “sadvertising,” but the evidence suggests that it can work – either by gaining consumers’ trust or landing the company a prominent spot in the newswires. Occasionally, the fallout can be a public disaster: Witness the scorn heaped on Pepsi's faux protest video starring Kendall Jenner, which PepsiCo pulled from its own YouTube channel.

Other campaigns have seen more mixed reviews, such as Starbucks’ foray into a discussion of race relations during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement two years ago. Honey Maid's parent company, Mondelez, says its definition of families is both wholesome and inclusive, as demonstrated by past Honey Maid graham cracker advertising campaigns portraying families of same-sex partners.

But for Vicks to produce this tribute, which is 3.5 minutes long, is a bold statement about transgender rights. In the video, a young girl, Gayatri, tells the story of how she lost her mother at a young age and never knew her father. She was then raised by Gauri Sawant, who was born a boy, then declared that she was a woman during her teenage years. The story of their relationship unfolds as any mum-daughter story would, until the end, when Gayatri asks:

"In our civics text books, we read that everyone is entitled to the same basic rights. Then why is my mom denied them? This is why I'm not going to be a doctor, but a lawyer. For my mom."

As NPR noted, the story is true, and the two main characters play themselves in the video. But a few details are left out. NPR reported that Gayatri’s mother was a sex worker who died of AIDS when her only child was 6 years old; it was then that Gauri, then 27, took the child under her wing and raised her as her own. But in an interview with India Today, Gauri claimed she adopted the child after her parents made it clear they were going to sell their daughter.

Not everyone has been enthusiastic over the video. One Indian blogger asked whether Vicks and its parent company, Procter and Gamble (P&G), which by some accounts is anywhere from the third to ninth largest consumer packaged goods company in India, is actually sincere about their concerns for transgender people or whether this was exploitation for the sake of branding. But across social media, including on YouTube, the feedback was largely positive. “Made me cry” is a common refrain.

Full acceptance of transgender people, and the LGBT community in general across India, still faces a long road ahead. Three years ago, the country’s supreme court issued a landmark ruling declaring that all individuals -- regardless of their sexual preference, gender identity, or even if they declared themselves as “third” or “no” gender at all -- are entitled to full legal recognition. Earlier this year, the first school for transgender students opened in the southern state of Kerala; the school’s founders, however, insisted in a Deutsche Welle profile that social and legal discrimination against transgender citizens is still the norm.

Efforts like those by P&G may be only a pebble making waves in a massive pond of discrimination and scorn heaped on the LGBT community. But at a bare minimum, these videos produced by trusted brands succeed in raising awareness and help to inspire debate; not showing these people at all only makes these citizens feel as if they should be in the closet. Those closet doors, however, are being busted down worldwide, and in the end these changes are a net positive for everyone in society.

Image credit: Vicks India (YouTube)

Just when we thought attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act were dead, the GOP tried it again. The latest attempt, which was previously shelved, would grant states “sweeping power” to opt out of key ACA provisions, Politico reported last week. It would leave millions of Americans without access to healthcare coverage. And that could violate international law, says the United Nations.

The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva sent a letter to the U.S. State Department voicing concerns about repealing the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare.

The letter, obtained by the Washington Post last week, expresses “serious concern” that nearly 30 million people would lose healthcare coverage, which may violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.” The Office recommends that “all necessary interim measures be taken to prevent the alleged violations,” and if they prove “to be correct ... adequate measures” must be taken to “prevent their occurrence.”

The letter cites Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which “establishes everyone’s rights to a standard of adequate living,” and that includes health and well-being. The UDHR has become “a source and expression of international customary law, and all states, including the United States of America, are obliged to protect and guarantee the rights enshrined therein,” the Office asserted. 

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) establishes everyone’s rights “to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," the Office stated in its letter. And state parties have the “core obligation to ensure the right of access to health facilities, goods and services on a non-discriminatory basis.” ICESCR also mandates that health facilities, goods and services must be “affordable for all.” The U.S. signed the covenant in 1977, but never ratified it. However, the U.S. is still obligated to avoid acts that would defeat the covenant’s purpose.

There are two other ways a repeal of the ACA could violate international law, the Office asserted. Under Article Five of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, states have to guarantee everyone’s right to “a number of economic, social and cultural rights” without discrimination, including the rights to public health and medical care. The U.S. ratified the convention in 1994. No. 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights establishes the obligation of states to guarantee the right to health without discrimination.

The American people overwhelmingly do not support repeal of the ACA. Only 37 percent of those polled say it should be repealed and replaced, according to an ABC poll, while 61 percent say it should remain and be fixed. A large majority (79 percent) say President Donald Trump should find a way to make the ACA work better and not make it fail.

Most Americans don’t want the ACA repealed and replaced because it has been a success. From 2010 to 2015, 19 million people gained healthcare coverage as a result of the law. There is an old adage that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. President Trump and congressional members would do well to listen to the American people and not fix what works with the ACA, but work to improve it.

While the GOP plans an ACA repeal, a bill introduced into California’s state senate in February would provide single-payer universal healthcare to all Californians. State Sen. Ricardo Lara said he introduced the bill because he “felt it was important that we create a different narrative here in California." San Francisco already provides a single-payer system for uninsured city residents called Healthy San Francisco.  

If California is successful in passing the bill, it would put it in a unique role of being the only state to provide what residents of Canada and European countries have long enjoyed.

Image credit: Flickr/Franco Dal Molin