Monthly Archives: May 2020

On February 24, Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree. On Wednesday, March 11, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison. On Thursday, March 19, California issued a stay at home order, the first statewide measure in the United States, and New York followed suit on March 20. On Sunday, March 22, Weinstein tested positive for the coronavirus.

The impact of the Weinstein verdict is not as simple as a win for the #MeToo movement. His sentencing, by a jury that included six men, isgood newsfor women who hope to be successful in court and thus may encourage women to come forward and bring charges against their assailants. But the conviction does not change theculturein which women live, especially women of color and working-class women. These women still live in a world where sexual assault is common, and resources to bring charges are scarce.

This victory for the #MeToo movement will not have the same impact on women and feminism now that the coronavirus crisis has all out attention. Shelter-in-place orders, which are clearly necessary during this crisis, have several unintended effects that will impact #MeToo and other social movements.

First on a long list of these unintended consequences is the fact that women (and children) are forced to stay at home with their abusers.Domestic abuseis on the increase across the world during the lockdowns. The UN hasaskedgovernments to take this into account in the ways they address this pandemic.

Second, feminism, womens advances in work and pay, as well as hard-won cultural changes of the past 50 years in the US and abroad,will take a hit. In families with two working parents and children, telework will most often result in women having a triple or at times a quadruple burden: paid work, unpaid housework, childcare (which will now include home-schooling for some) and, at times, elderly care. There will be places where men help or take up an equal share of this burden, but more often than not this will fall on women. In single-mom households, of which many women are low-wage workers who unlikely to telework or who have lost their jobs due to layoffs, survival, not feminism, will be the priority.

Then there is the fact that no one is paying attention to the Weinstein verdict during the coronavirus crisis. This is partly due to so many other pressing concerns and partly to the primacy of the story in the news. This reduces its potential to fuel the movement. To compound the problem, no one can protest or march, or even go to court in some places during a lockdown. Many legal practices have been suspended.

Finally, a recession is imminent. This will mean that fewer people have money to give to organizing efforts and nonprofits will have to lay off staff. Many nonprofits are alreadyfeeling the impact.

How will all of this impact the future of the #MeToo movement? While we cannot answer this question, we can look for clues in past crises that led feminist movements to refocus their efforts, and the #MeToo movement can look for guidance and hope in their strategies. Of particular relevance is the womens suffrage movement. During its lifetime, it survived three major crises the American Civil War, World War I and the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918 as well as economic recessions, including the panics of 1857 and 1873. What can the current #MeToo movement learn from their reaction to these crises?

First of all, it needs to focus attention on the crisis because the crisis requires it and deserves it. During the Civil War, the womens rights movement directed its energy toward assisting with thewar effort. This was a strategic choice as well as a practical one there was really no other choice. The crisis required all hands on deck and did not allow for other issues to take primacy.

The #MeToo movement needs all its organizational strength to assist with the crisis, thereby maintaining member involvement and positive relations with political allies, the press and kindred movements. During the Civil War, the womens rights movement worked with or created groups dedicated to abolition. The womens movement viewed the two issues as related and hoped that after slavery was ended, their allies would assist them in gaining the vote and other womens rights.

The focus on abolition kept women involved, politically savvy and ready to take up the cause again once the war was over. When the United States joined the First World War, many women from various American suffrage organizations assisted with the war effort and with the Spanish pandemic that followed. There is evidence to suggest that they wererewardedin some states for their work during both crises.Embed from Getty Images

Finally, #MeToo needs to look for ways in which its issue and the crisis are interconnected and frame the movement narrative around that. But it must choose carefully. The womens suffrage movement sought to connect the plight of women with that of slaves. This tactic met with mixed reactions. Women were legally chattel at the time, but the reality of life for many white women in the movement was not identical to the reality of life for slave women. Thus, this tactic harmed some of their relations with abolitionists and didnt resonate with the public. But later in the movement, during World War I, women did successfully make the case to President Woodrow Wilson and other political leaders that it was ironic that the US was fighting for democracy abroad when it wasnt truly a democracy at home. So: Connect, but choose wisely and thoughtfully.

How can these lessons be put into in practice? During the currentCOVID-19 pandemic, the groupWomen Deliverhas highlighted the interconnectedness of this virus and womens issues, thereby maintaining their work on womens issues while simultaneously showing their commitment to ending the pandemic. The frame is thoughtful and relevant. Many womens groups could adopt a similar approach, as we know this virus will have a disproportionate impactonlow-wage workersandpeople of color, but in particular women in both groups.

The #MeToo movement could organize around ways to help women who are stuck at home with an abuser during lockdown orders. While the #MeToo movement has been focused around sexual harassment at work, domestic violence is a close cousin. And the movement certainly could continue to organize around the sexual harassment that female low-wage workers continue to face as essential workers. This is as pressing as ever.

Crafting ways for those active in the movement to remain relevant at this time will help everyone. It will help the movement survive this time when attention is rightly directed elsewhere, it will help women in abusive relationships, and it will help women who continue to be sexually harassed in the workplace and have no recourse during this crisis. Given the roots of the movement, it is a logical step.

Alana Jeydel

This article was first published in Fair Observer

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Qrius editorial policy.

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

Link:

Wuhan and the Weinstein Verdict - Qrius

Tokyo Despite an official homework campaign and the unprecedented coronavirus crisis putting Japan in a state of emergency, Sayaka Azuma always visits his office in Tokyos Nishi-Azabu district regularly.

Everyone else in his tech company, Venture Republic, is locked up at home. But once a week, Azuma has to return to his office only to perform a ritual that dates back to the 19th century. Opening a velvet case, she grabs a wood hankoor seal by hand, apply vermilion ink and begin to carefully stamp a stack of official documents, affixing the stylized corporate seal on each page.

TBS

For security reasons, I am not allowed to take the company seals home, she told the CBS News partner network. TBS. So I have to go to the office to use them.

Azuma is not alone: many workers say they are forced to keep on packed trains in the city only to stamp by hand, or to print documents or perform other office work that would seem redundant to our digital age.

The continued use of hand seals in the Japanese business community is one of the reasons why suburban traffic remains stubbornly high in major cities well below the target of an 80% reduction, according to experts, must be reached in order to control the coronavirus epidemic here.

Getty

Research by a nonprofit organization, conducted this year, found that only 43% of Japanese businesses have adopted digital seals. Even among the high-tech companies in Tokyo that have adopted telework, almost all were still forced to deploy employees for hand stamping tasks.

For more than a century, dating from an era of low literacy, the Japanese have brandished finely carved hand seals not their John Hancocks to approve contracts, buy real estate, incorporate businesses and even sign school permission slips. In a way, in the midst of automation and digitization, the hanko managed to hang on.

Inkans.com

The old custom has a loyal ally in the current government. Naokazu Takemoto, 79, who has been inexplicably entrusted with the governments information technology portfolio, is a big supporter of this archaic practice.

Takemoto gained fame last year after its website went offline and stayed there for months. He heads a parliamentary group dedicated to the preservation of hand seals. Asked if it was finally time to give Hanko the boot, Takemoto told reporters in mid-March that such migration was at the mercy of the private sector.

The root of the problem is not hanko its our paper-centric office work culture, writer Soichiro Matsutani told Yahoo News. Many offices were frozen in the 1970s or 1980s, and never went beyond word processors, photocopiers and fax machines.

But this time, with lives and livelihoods at stake, calls for the abolition of seals are growing stronger. A closely watched IT company, GMO, has announced that it is phasing out the use of hand seals. Seeing the writing on the wall, seal maker Shachihata unveiled a cloud-based signature service that allows users to apply an analog-like analog or vermilion seal to documents online.

The company gleaned around 2,000 orders in February for its seal that doesnt require an ink pad, which has a unique digital signature to prevent counterfeiting. In April, orders had reached 110,000.

Source > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/19th-century-ritual-forcing-japanese-workers-into-trains-and-offices-amid-a-coronavirus-pandemic/

Read the original post:

19th century ritual forcing Japanese workers to board trains and offices amid a coronavirus pandemic - The Press Stories

As we celebrate the triumphs of the Great Generation this weekend, Writer at Large Neil Mackay explores how we squandered their legacy, and warns that the same mistakes cannot be made again

LISTEN to Gus Bialick and youll learn everything you need to know about VE Day its significance, its promise, the way its legacy has been thrown away.

Gus was there as a soldier at the invasion of Sicily. We knew that we were doing something that would help every one us to live decently, he said. Without winning this war, wed have no chance of living a better life therefore this war had to be won.

When he recalled VE Day, Gus said: To feel that wed come out as a victorious nation and that we could still see a great future in front of us, it was a wonderful feeling.

Guss words werent triumphalist they were simple words of hope. He, and millions of others, risked their lives in order to make this country a better place. Thats the simple story of what VE Day meant to those who fought and died.

It should shame us that we failed Gus and all those other men and women. We didnt build on their sacrifice. We wasted it.

Lost legacy

OVER the weekend, if we really wanted to honour the heroes of VE Day, the Gus Bialicks, wed have reflected soberly on how we let them down and threw away their legacy. Instead, we offered up Union Jack bunting, renditions of Well Meet Again, and cloying nostalgic sentimentality.

The men and women who won the war gifted us a world of opportunity and freedom which 75 years later weve squandered. They bled so we could inherit peace. Their struggle gave us the United Nations, the NHS, the welfare state. They forged for us the belief that the world was a meritocracy that you didnt have to stay poor, that life would get better as each generation progressed. They set us on the path to true personal freedom, where the individual decides what life they lead, not the church, state, family or society. They fought for tolerance, decency.

But nearly everything the Great Generation gifted us has been wasted. Weve trashed the international community the UN is a dark, useless joke. The NHS and welfare state have been crippled by years of neglect. The social mobility that the war generation began is a thing of the past. Instead of cherishing tolerance and difference of opinion, weve divided the world into politicised, cult-like camps of us and them we sit in our confirmation bias bubbles hating anyone we disagree with.

Then theres the Iraq War that squalid episode disgraces the memory of the Great Generation. They went to war to defeat aggression. In 2003, Britain and America lied to launch a war of aggression. The Great Generation fought for human rights. Today, the West wears badges of shame called Extraordinary Rendition and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques kidnap and torture.

Our failure to live up to the promise of the new world the Great Generation fought to build is made all the more egregious by how we exploit their memory. We invoke their courage, while simultaneously undoing everything they strived for; we use wartime metaphors with little consideration of what struggle really means. This time of global pandemic has been littered with lazy language which seeks to steal the glory of VE Day veterans. Politicians mouth platitudes about the Blitz spirit, and invoke the ghost of Winston Churchill, like children playing toy soldiers.

Yet, while we deploy the language of wartime amid coronavirus where are the remaining men and women who fought the war? Most are now in care homes the graveyards of coronavirus, where the death toll soars. Could there be a more disgraceful way to fail the people we pretend to honour?

The tragic irony is that were at it again repeating the same mistakes from the past. Today, we rightly recognise a new breed of hero the NHS worker, shelf stacker, delivery driver, cleaner. The people keeping the world running and saving lives while risking their own safety, as we shelter in lockdown. We talk of building a better world after the pandemic, of honouring the sacrifices of the heroes of coronavirus. But will we? Or will we squander their sacrifices just as we squandered the sacrifices of the heroes of the Second World War?

Many of us went into the pandemic imagining society would come out the other side fairer, more decent. As the days wear on, though, and we see how it is the weakest suffering the most the poor dying at twice the rate of the rich and how the wealthy and powerful suffer least, it is hard to believe that there will be that much-needed great reformation of society once this is over.

Perhaps, 75 years from now, our grandchildren will be celebrating the nurses who kept us safe during coronavirus, and wondering why we their grandparents didnt take 2020 as an opportunity to build the better world we promised.

Forgotten sacrifice

IT has become fashionable to sneer at remembrance as if respecting those who fought in the war is somehow embracing the sins of empire, or an act of flag-wrapped xenophobia. It is not difficult, however, to reflect bitterly on empire, shun patriotic exceptionalism, loathe xenophobia, and still feel great respect for the sacrifices made by the Great Generation.

For folk my age, the sacrifices were tangible they were made by our grandparents. For my children, the memory grows more distant but Ive tried to keep a flame of remembrance burning because I know the simple, decent reasons why my grandparents went to war. They wanted that same better world that Gus Bialick dreamed of.

All four of my grandparents played their part. One grandfather was a sailor, the other a solider; one grandmother an army nurse, the other a civilian firewoman during the London Blitz. All were ordinary folk, their sacrifices no greater, nor less, than those made by millions. Although each lost friends and family, all four survived though my sailor grandfather eventually succumbed to his war wounds, dying too young.

I was closest to my maternal grandmother the firewoman. Her family was poor. Some had even spent time in the poorhouse. She knew squalor and hardship long before 1939. She told me stories of the war when I was little and each story had the same moral: we went through hell, so you didnt have to. The stories were never told with any demand for thanks or recognition there was no superiority to her memories of suffering. It was simply a fact: people like her wanted the world to be a better place for future generations.

You could call such simplicity the purest form of love. I do.

And so, it saddens me to think of so many idealistic people today folk who long for a better world rejecting any remembrance or reverence toward the Great Generation. You can remember in your heart, without decorating your breast with a poppy. Nor does remembering and honouring glorify death or the atrocities of war. Remembering ordinary individuals who wanted to make the world better isnt celebrating destruction and hatred.

This isnt to sentimentalise the Great Generation. Theirs was a generation with as many faults as any other. Nor should we forget the darkest side of the allied victory Dresden, Nagasaki. But their sacrifice far outweighs their sins the same cannot be said for any other generation, I believe.

Everyone of us has a forebear who fought and in many cases died. Admiration for the Great Generation shouldnt be a political act. When it comes to the exhausted phrase were all in it together, the Great Generation were the last people to really know what that means.

Litany of betrayal

LETS consider some of the many ways the legacy of the Great Generation has been squandered or abused how weve failed our own ancestors who bequeathed us so much.

For a start, we should consider something few of us even think of when we count the gifts the wartime generation gave us: liberal values. In a time of mass death, if youre in love and want to be together, it doesnt really matter whether youre married or not. War began to erode conservative attitudes. In my family, there were more than a few illegitimate children born because of the war.

Young people had risked their lives for six years come VE Day, and although Britain was still a conservative, religious country, change was starting. It would come to completion in the 60s and 70s with the pill, the abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of abortion and homosexuality, the Equal Pay Act, and the Racial Discrimination Act. We think it is the baby boomers who enacted these changes. It wasnt it was their parents, the Great Generation. They were the ones voting, running the country, setting the tone of debate as society gradually liberalised.

Liberal values are one of the few gifts from the Great Generation that we havent yet squandered they persist. The bitter irony is, we dont even acknowledge the debt. We credit their children the ones who began the dissolution of the work of the Great Generation, ushering in the conservative backlash of the 1980s.

Social mobility and income equality rose steadily after the war as Britain became a more financially fairer place. My own family, like millions of others, felt that first hand. We went from slums to universities in one generational leap. Then it stopped. Britain and America turned its back on the industrial working class. Reaganomics and Thatcherism saw inequality rapidly accelerate and social mobility stagnate. Today, were at a point where my children can expect a life worse off than mine. If thats not failing a generation who died so we could live better lives, then I dont know what is.

The Beveridge Report the foundation stone of the post-war welfare state and NHS named five giant social evils to be eradicated: want, ignorance, squalor, idleness and disease. Bit by bit that dream has been dismantled over the last 75 years. Today, we live in an era of foodbanks, declining schools and student debt, mass poverty, low wages, zero-hour contracts, intergenerational unemployment, and a gulf in life expectancy between the rich and the poor.

Im no Christian, but who could disagree with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who said the Beveridge Report was the first time anyone had set out to embody the whole spirit of the Christian ethic in an Act of Parliament. We had heaven in our hands and let it slip through our fingers.

Welfare from schooling to income support to university to healthcare was to be comprehensive, universal. It wasnt meant to be an act of humiliation for the recipient no matter what their circumstances there would be no return to the poorhouse. Today, we make a sport of mocking benefits scroungers". Claiming financial assistance, even for the disabled, is demeaning, dehumanising sometimes it even kills.

The policy of full employment was cast aside as utopian it didnt pay investors and speculators enough as voodoo economics took hold. The idea of a fair playing field a simple metaphor at the heart of the Great Generations view of the world was for losers. Greed was good.

While the work at home of the Great Generation was gradually dismantled, so too were the changes they wrought on the worlds stage. The governments of Bush and Blair, with their push for preemptive war in Iraq, neutered the United Nations set up post-war to rein in aggressors.

Today, we live in a world where democracy the very essence of what the Great Generation fought for is under threat, often at the hands of democratically elected politicians. The Great Generation denazified Europe now the Nazis are back. Belief in democracy is crumbling.

The Great Generation gave us three decades of the post-war consensus": there would be active, positive state involvement in society, a mixed economy including nationalisation, strong trade unions, rigorous regulation, fair taxation, and a decent welfare state. Now thats withered on the vine. Reagan and Thatcher put a stake through the heart of those dreams. Social democracy limps on, badly wounded.

Our grandparents cared about the world around them, not just their own pocket. Their horror and outrage gave us the word genocide" in 1944 yet genocide goes on from Rwanda to Burma, while we watch on TV. Their decency saw them care tirelessly for Europes refugees post-war, rebuilding shattered lives, finding orphans new families. Now we tweet our thoughts and prayers about dead refugee children on Mediterranean beaches, and then pull up the drawbridge.

The Great Generation replaced empire with Europe. The wind of change blew and they knew how to adapt to Britains new place in the world. Then their children voted Brexit, and had the audacity to invoke the war as they did so. Now, weve thrown Europe away the continent the Great Generation brought peace to and so were back as we were in the 1930s, a little country on its own, minus an empire.

As the years wore on, we put this Great Generation in care homes. We gave up on the people who saved us and strived to make our lives better than theirs. We locked them away, and we stole their language we took words like blitz spirit and we rendered them meaningless. We reduced their struggle to a meme: Keep calm and carry on.

We may have failed them but weve a new generation of heroes sacrificing themselves today our essential workers from hospitals to supermarkets. They want a better world too just like the Great Generation. They dont need bunting or patriotic songs. They need they want, they deserve change which makes society a better, fairer place. We cant fail them. If we do, we just fail ourselves once again.

Read this article:

Opinion: Neil Mackay: We failed the heroes of VE Day ... we cannot fail the heroes of Covid-19 - HeraldScotland

It had been over five years since I last watched The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham. I recalled it being a really good episode of Lost, and one that sometimes gets overshadowed by others when thinking about standout episodes in the series. What I wasnt prepared for when revisiting this episode was how emotional I would be left feeling when it was over. This episode of television left me feeling like someone had punched me in the gut and made me want to watch more episodes instead of starting on this article.

This episode was John Lockes journey off The Island, in an attempt to bring the Oceanic Six back, and a journey that we the audience knew going into it would result in John Lockes death. We had previously heard Richard Alpert tell Locke he was going to die bringing them back and Christian Shepard had confirmed this. We had also already seen Locke, off Island, in a casket, visited by Jack and Ben.

The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham accomplished a lot. Locke was picked up by a group of men in a pickup truck, in the exact same spot in the Sahara Desert that we had seen Ben in when he had left The Island. The men delivered Locke to Charles Widmore, who told Locke that this was the exit from The Island. Ive always found it interesting that when people turn the wheel to make The Island move, that they wind up in the Sahara. While I dont quite understand why, it is still a mystery solved, or at the least, expanded upon.

One of my big takeaways from early in the episode was that we got to see Charles Widmore in a completely different light than we ever did before, or after for that matter. Widmores typical demeanor was tense, argumentative and assertive. He was an easy character to dislike and his characteristics made it easy to root for Ben Linus over Widmore in their feud, despite all of the terrible things wed seen Ben do. Here in this episode, Widmore didnt openly try to exert any power over John Locke. He treated him as a peer, although I do believe that to have been manipulative behavior. Widmore helped send Locke on his way to find all of those who had left The Island and here is when we see Locke fully enter his role as a pawn in the game between Widmore and Ben.

John Lockes life had been one of pain. An unwanted child, bouncing from foster home to foster home, John lead a lonely and mostly loveless life. His birth parents would ultimately con him out of a kidney, using him as a pawn in their ongoing dynamic, and the pain from that broke John. The Island gave him a chance to heal, both physically and emotionally but it was almost like he didnt have enough time there to fully heal. He got to find self worth but John was so desperate to be loved and accepted that he remained prone to manipulation and obsessive thinking. The Island was home to two major power struggles: the one between Ben and Widmore and, on a larger scale, Jacob and the Man in Blackand Lockes life ended because he was a pawn in both, all out of a desire to feel special.

What gets me now about The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, is that both Ben and Widmore knew Locke would fail at convincing anyone to come back to The Island. It was a fools errand in the fact that none of them wanted to go back and even if they were tempted, Lockes soured relationships with all of those people made him the least likely candidate to tempt them. So why did Widmore and Ben allow this mission to happen? They both knew that Locke had to feel special, like he was the only person who could accomplish this, and then when he failed, the race would be on between Ben and Widmore to be the one to catch him first, get whatever information he might have and then kill him. Make no mistake about it, Widmore wouldve done the exact same thing as Ben did, although he likely wouldve had someone else commit the act instead of him. Both Ben and Widmore had the same attitude when it came to Locke. He did appear to be the next chosen one on The Island but he wasnt the same level of competition that they were to each other. Locke could be used and discarded. Then whoever got to him first would try and replace him. Ben merely won the race.

At this point in time, we had spent years wondering if John Locke was important to The Island or not. This broken man, who in every flashback of his that wed seen unveiled a new level of pain seemed like he shouldve been destined for something rewarding, wound up being murdered and deprived of any kind of resolution. John Locke had been manipulated and conned for the last time. He never got to escape his tragic cycle and in fact, he died from it. Seeing the on Island portions of this episode did give some hope that Locke, after death, would achieve some level of importance, but that was untrue as well. The resurrected Locke was just another con, as we would find out in the Season 5 finale, The Incident. The only purpose Lockes death served was to advance sides in a war he had nothing to do with. How tragic is that?

Of course, the story doesnt stop there and this is where the Jeremy Bentham element really comes into play. The real life Jeremy Bentham was known for being ahead of his time on certain issues. Bentham advocated for many issues, including the abolition of slavery, the decriminalization of homosexual acts, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, freedom of expression, as well as animal rights, all before his death in 1832well before most of these topics were on the forefront of the publics mind. These issues have all been met with resistance over the years, yet throughout time, have become more and more important to the masses. A very easy comparison to John Locke can be made here. Locke, like Bentham, went to his grave having advocated for something that few else did, yet after their deaths, opinions would slowly begin to change and people would begin to see the importance of both mens causes.

Jack is the narrative depiction of both the resistance to the idea, as well as the slowly changing opinion. In The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham, Jack and Locke have their final scene together as themselves, and their entire struggle is encapsulated here in their one scene together. Locke always viewed Jack as his path to acceptance. Although it was literally stated in this episode, that he just needed to convince Jack and the rest would follow, that had in fact always been Lockes mindset. Locke saw things differently than everyone else and Jack had the ability to influence peoples minds, through built up trust. Together, they could have been a formidable partnership, but it never came to fruition. Instead, Jack would attempt to play both roles after Lockes death.

One might ask, if your lifes work is accomplished after your death, does that diminish the value of the work being achieved? The end result is the same after all, yet the tragedy lies in the fact that the voice advocating for progress didnt get to see their mission gaining traction. John Locke never got to see the impact that his death, his words and his beliefs would have on Jack and how Jack beginning to come around to these ideas that The Island was in fact special and that he needed to protect it would have a snowball effect on many others, just the way that Locke knew it would. Ultimately, Lost vindicated John Locke through Jack, yet that image of Lockes body hanging in a run down hotel room haunts me. Locke was murdered and left to look like he had committed suicide, dying feeling like he had failed. Dying for mens selfish desires for power, after being used as a pawn, just like he had been his whole life. While its great that Lockes beliefs and work would later be validated, his life and the way it ended is something more than tragic. That kind of storytelling is why Lost will always stick with me.

See more here:

"The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham" Still Haunts and Asks Big Questions - 25YearsLaterSite.com

the Rockwool Foundation has been the first examined the impact of abolition of integrationsydelsen from 2015.

Integrationsydelsen, which is about half as large as the cash benefit, will not get more women in work. In turn, increases the proportion of the male refugees, who have been in work for ten months, from they came to Denmark, from four percent to almost double.

It shows a new study of integrationsydelsen made by the Rockwool Foundation, writes Information.

all in All, integrationsydelsen according to Jacob Nielsen Arendt, who is the research director of the Rockwool Foundation and stands behind the study, a relatively large employment impact for men.

It is clear that it is marginal, compared to how many that still do not work. But I would describe it as a significant employment impact for the men, says he to Information.

The socialist government, in the autumn of the so-called Ydelseskommission, which should come with recommendations for a new kontanthjlpssystem.

President of the european commission scientific director of Vive Torben Trans, who have read the new study. The data is according to him difficult, but the study looks solid out, and the commission will scrutinize the material more closely, he says.

There is a large employment impact, relatively speaking, with a doubling for men. However, it is not uncommon to get big relative effects when the groups starting point is very low, says Torben Trans for Information.

Integrationsydelsen was introduced in 2015 to get more refugees and immigrants into work and to reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to Denmark.

the Rockwool Foundations study of integrationsydelsen also shows that the low income have some unintended effects. It applies increased petty crime and more doctor visits among the women.

newly arrived refugees must, however, have nothing to do with a forsrgelsesydelse, as we know it today, says foreigners and integration, Mattias Tesfaye (S) for Information.

instead, those who are not in work, are offered an integration programme, where you get money for each hour you participate, he believes.

the Liberal partys rapporteur for the integrationsydelse, Morten Dahlin, is pleased to see that performance get more men in the work.

It is good news that we will have more with in the community, and it is once again a testimony to the low benefits it works, he says in a written comment to the news agency Ritzau.

Unfortunately, the study also, that the women still hangs after. It is not good enough. Much suggests that in several cases is the case of social control in environments where we see a very high proportion of unemployed immigrant women, says Morten Dahlin.

/ritzau/

See original here:

Studio: Integrationsydelse get more men in the job - The Global Domains News