To Save Many Black Lives, Should We First Save the Lives of 20 Million Black Workers and Their Families?

Bill Gates at the World Health Assembly 2011, sponsored by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. U.S. Mission photo by Eric Bridiers.

Today, American cities are alive mostly with the sounds of protestors seeking modern day justice for all Blacks who are citizens or residents of the US. Indeed, Black lives do matter. Black workers have contributed enormously to creating the best country in the history of mankind. If their safety is protected throughout the remaining course of the COVID-19 crisis, they will also contribute greatly to the nation’s recovery (1) from decades of institutional and systemic bias and prejudice, (2) from the pandemic and (3) from the collapse and re-collapse of the US economy. How will we now reward that exceptional contribution to America? Protection? Or, reckless disregard? How much are America and her employers willing to spend?

Going safely2prosperity™ will require that our Black workers—workers who fill much of the lowest-paid base of each of America’s company’s workforce and of the nation’s overall workforce—be protected. So, to save Back lives, are we mandated to start by first saving the lives of 20 Million Black workers and the members of their families? Does America recognize the critical importance of doing this? Will one tide, the protection of Black workers and the members of their families, lift all boats, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and white?

What do you think here and about the many dozens of additional questions that I ask throughout the rest of this short article? If so, why? If not, why not? If you answer a question in the affirmative, please write me and tell me why. And, vice versa. I will treasure your feedback, either way. (To avoid redundant requests for feedback in ever paragraph, I have very sparingly done so throughout the article. But, I am sure you get the point. I would love your feedback on EVERY question to which you feel you have an answer.)

Are there both real and present major dangers, AND real and present major solutions that can be crafted, installed and fully executed to accomplish just that? Should people who live paycheck-to-paycheck be given more priority over others who contribute far less and are at far less risk? Less priority, as they are with so many other things in today’s American society? Are Black workers likely to suffer most, especially if they are stuck at the bottom of the priority list, and therefore require and deserve higher priority?

The Size of the Problem and the Size of Its Fully Comprehensive and Complete Solution

What if there are over 100 million US workers, of which some 20% are Black workers (a large number of whom are very low-paid workers), who might benefit greatly from one of the now available and ready to use “fully comprehensive and complete COVID-19 mitigation-program solutions”—ones containing many bundles and sub-bundles of very high-grade, best-of-breed, mitigation platforms, software, user interface and the rest of what likely is jointly needed—to comprehensively and very aggressively keep some 99% of actively contagious workers from entering the workplace and their own workspace or the workspaces of their coworkers. Does this new fact possibly change your mind?

If so, what amount of money might you be willing to spend as a nation (and as a taxpayer) AND as an employer (and as a consumer) to save Black lives? If the country (taxpayers) and/or a majority of employers (consumers) are not willing to spend this much to save Black lives, are they just being “penny wise and pound foolish?” If so, why? If not, why not? Isn’t America’s stellar workforce (including its mostly Black base) one of America’s most valuable assets?

*Vacant plants left vacant too long tend to deteriorate quickly.*

What Constitutes a “Comprehensive COVID-19 Mitigation Program?”

Must we think through what constitutes a “comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program?” Is it far more than the 30% or at most 40% effective daily heat gauge and CDC questionnaire test set that some employers believe is more than adequate? If not, what more must be added to make a comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program solution—comprehensive? Must every worker

be certified-tested at least once a month (and more frequently, if they fail a far less expensive daily test, such as a fever test or a questionnaire test) before they are allowed to go beyond the gate?

What might a minimum bundle (often a set of sub-bundles) consist of under America’s new social, ethical, moral, and/or legal standards of care? American courts use “the current standard of care,” possibly a statutory standard but most often a common law (judge-made) standard to assess the strongest driving force of employer (and insurer) accountability and action: LEGAL LIABILITY. Will employers get away with just social-posing anymore? Might a truly comprehensive monthly bundle of mitigation devices and other products sufficient to “save Black lives” contain at the very least the seven top-of-breed items, in conjunction with an added serious employer bundle-administration platform, app, and user interface? Might the best tactic be to assign, monthly, one basic bundle to each of the following personnel or potential personnel:

(1) workers (even those that remain working out of their homes, especially if they plan to/hope to come to the facility at least once that month)

(2) contracted and about to return-to-work-soon workers, and

(3) furloughed/unemployed workers who are likely to return to the employ of that employer, soon?

If so, what are the seven COVID-19 mitigation devices that most likely should and will be included with the basic (undividable) bundle? Are they: sufficient if and only if the bundle contains:

A. For administration and use “outside the gate,” mitigation devices for:

1. Monthly COVID-19 testing (1% false negatives in very controlled environments such as labs and clinical trials, but due to user process-errors, and fraud, as high as 5% false negatives in the field, especially when performed at home or at work; and particularly if they are “self-administered,” which many will be, because of their very-low cost ): a handheld fully at-home/at-work , very low-cost (Small-Box) test sub-bundle, or in smaller plants and offices, a platform-based (Big-Box) test sub-bundle. A COVOID-19 test device is one of the two key assets in the mitigation bundle.

2. Weekly wellness (general immunity) testing: a handheld fully at-home/at-work wellness (general Immunity) test kit.

3. Filling the data gap in monthly COVID-19 testing caused by user process-error or by uncaught, unprevented or non-dissuaded fraud: a web-based assurance “test-process” oversight platform and app. A COVOID-19 test-process-assurance device is the other of two key assets in the mitigation bundle.

4. Workspace floorplan spacing: a 13x13 foot workspace demarcation product.

5. Informing and reminding coworkers to maintain social distancing: an appropriately worded desk-plaque, badge, and bracelet set.

6. Daily heat gauge testing: a standard heat gauge (annually for each team captain’s bundle).

7. Daily questionnaire testing: An updated and upgraded version of the CDC daily questionnaire test.

Should Employers Who Fail to Put in Place a Fully Comprehensive COVID-19 Mitigation Program Be Held Accountable Under Newly Established and Further Evolving Social, Ethical, Moral, And/or Legal “Standards of Care”?

Should employers who fail to put in place a fully comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program, be granted immunity, a status that some politicians are advocating? If so, why? If not, why not? Are there any assets that more important than workers?

Or, should such employers be held accountable to workers—especially low-paid Blacks (who by their nature are especially susceptible to infection), particularly if they work in small-workspace closed-in facilities—for (1) anxiety damages, (2) depression damages, or (3) even suicide damages? According to mental health studies and other research, some 11% of all workers are on the edge of hurting themselves, their family members, or their coworkers; that is an incredible number: this is some 1,000 workers, including many Black workers, especially low-paid Black workers, in a 10,000-worker plant or office? Wow! Are these numbers credible?

And, should these employers also be held liable for personal injury damages suffered by their unprotected workers themselves and by their unprotected family members—If they are infected by or attacked by a coworker who was not reasonably and adequately protected?

*Can America avoid catastrophic damages if its employers shut down a second or third time?*

How Might America Set a Best Example of the “Right Thing to Do?” Has 60 Minutes Led the Way?

Jeff Bezos, majority owner and CEO of Amazon have jointly employed going on 1,000,000 workers. That means that possibly some 100,000 workers are likely experiencing very serious anxiety of the “harm-self or harm-others” variety? Is Amazon especially at risk for any type of liability for harm to its workers? Is this an insurable risk? Should it be? If so, why, and what should Amazon be permitted do in exercise of that right (or even privilege) in terms of use of stop-loss coverage?

Is it a matter of poor public policy to allow companies and executives to obtain insurance for not doing the right thing socially, ethically, morally, best-business-practices, financially, legally, and policy-wise?

Same for Amazon senior executives and board members of such companies under Directors and Officers Liability Insurance? Should both or either have protections that are deeper and broader than the protections afforded to their workers? Is it fair if they do?

Should judges be imposing this above referenced proposed new standard of care as a matter of common law, or other expansive expressions of the law, which is within their power to do in federal courts and in most state courts. Are they likely to do this?

Does 60 Minutes’ (for some, the conscience of the nation; for others, often extremely biased and sometimes worse) recent blistering attack on Mr. Bezos, and Amazon, for allegedly doing far too little to protect its workers, especially its low-paid workers, and particularly its low-paid Black workers, change your mind? And, worse, not protecting low-wage Black workers’ family members. Now is your mind changed?

Is Protection of Family Members of Equal or Greater Importance?

Speaking of family members of workers, should they also be protected by a fully comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program? If so, why? If not, why not?

What are the reasonable arguments in favor of covering family members as part of a fully comprehensive mitigation program? Are there possibly three good arguments in favor of including in a comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program set up for workers’ protection, also protection for their family members. Might they be:

First, might this more expensive approach be definitely worth the additional cost? Might doing so eliminate the first and biggest source of worker serious anxiety and/or depression (their family members are at great risk of serious harm) at a reasonably low relative cost per worker and per employer? Might federal and/or state or charitable foundation subsidies be especially warranted here?

Second, if employers were thereby enabled to employ a double-sanctuary™ approach (one sanctuary at home and another sanctuary at work) might that be a very good thing? Might this new approach save many more lives, both at work and at home? Might this very new double-sanctuary™ approach, just now available, reduce the chances that there will be an actively infected but pre-symptomatic, asymptomatic, or very mildly symptomatic worker who unknowingly takes the virus home? And, vice versa: an unaffected worker becomes infected at home and takes it to work? If so, why? If not, why not?

Third, might the number of infected workers be so reduced by the accompanying extremely comprehensive mitigation program that the chances of taking the virus home (or vice versa) will be greatly further reduced and will further mitigate this risk?

*Is this where America is headed without employer-based comprehensive mitigation programs?*

Might Employers Spending Enough to Provide a Truly Comprehensive COVID-19 Mitigation Program Be Three-Times Blessed and Richly Rewarded?

Might it be that providing a truly, fully comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program not only greatly benefits workers and their family members but also greatly benefits CEOs and other senior executives? For example, do the psychological needs of employers (and their CEOs and other senior executives) play an important role here, too? What about the severe anxiety and other

enormous financial doubts and pressures (plus, tough choices also regarding managing additional tough risks, such as serious risks of brand, company, and CEO reputation damage) in deciding to provide a truly, fully comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program to ALL of their workers and their workers’ family members? Are they real?

How should employers, especially their CEOs, best manage each of the aforementioned risks? What are the limits on their authorities to do precisely what is widely considered to be the right thing? Should there be some?

Are Employers (and Their CEOs) Again at Serious Risk Here of Being “Penny Wise And Pound Foolish?”

Again, employers, and especially their CEOs, again at serious risk here of being “penny wise and pound foolish?”

Might CEOs who call things wrong either way: (1) they spend the money but their board does not give them credit for reducing the number of legitimate claims; or credit for mitigating other probable sources of harm to the employer, (2) the employers don’t spend the money and their workforce collapses, and this, at best, results in re-closure and loss of billions of dollars, or at worse leads to bankruptcy and even permanent closure. If so, might they be at serious personal risk? If so, what should they do?

Might CEOs lose their jobs if they call it wrong? If so, should they work harder at doing things right? If not, why not? What might most often be the smart thing for them to do? Do they have enough information and insight that they likely can find their way through “the fog of the COVID-19 war” to actually get things right? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Is Execution of This Plan a Unique Opportunity to Do Something of Immediate and Significant Impact While Discharging Unnecessary and Inappropriate Missteps?

In highly controlled environments, such as in labs and in clinical trials, the false negative rate is 1%, or one false negative in 100 negatives. But in the field, such as in homes and in employer-designated test-spaces, there might be data degradation, from user-error and/or fraud, of some 4%. If that happens, several other mitigation devices (in addition to the test) must be used to help close much of that data gap. If the data gap is not closed, workforce collapse, leading to bankruptcy, leading to disillusion is possible.

In other words, if the COVID-19 test’s false negative rate in the field is 5%, then the probability is that 5 in 100 negatives reported will be dangerous false negatives. Might this many false negative workers inside the gate prove disastrous? Possibly? Likely?

Employers Beware?

Should employers beware? Is this a very serious path filled with multiple traps, and you must thread your way through it? Again, employers and their advisors might ask and answer a fundamental question: is it an employer’s social, ethical, moral, and/or legal duty to take all the steps necessary, regardless of the amount of the initial costs, to help save many black lives—and, to do so, should employers step up and be first, by preventing serious psychological and physical harm to, and saving the lives of, 20M black workers and their families? Who will do it if employers do not now step up to the plate? Who else should do it? Should the feds, states, and health, personal injury, and life insurers subsidize the cost?

We cannot recover fully from the first and second waves of COVID-19 and prevent another workforce collapse without a sound mitigation strategy, can we? Without our lowest-paid workers, especially our Black workers, who are at the highest risk of catching COVID-19, we cannot avoid a third wave either, can we? If so, this truly comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program for ALL of our workers and ALL of our workers’ family members is not a charity program, is it? In fact, it is the smartest play for all Americans under a triage system, right? Again, isn’t it true that one tide lifts all boats, Black and all others? Can America get to where it needs to get any other way?

Have our mitigation strategies and practices to date been weak, especially at the macro level? Why don’t we stop using poor-likelihood alternatives, and get on with the correct plan for a complete rescue mission, now? Can we cut through the disruptive politics? Would Eisenhower, as commanding general during WWII, allow this mess of a partial response to carry on for over four months?

Is it true that a full bore truly comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program for ALL of our workers and for ALL of our workers’ family members, using a full-double-sanctuary™ approach is our only sane alternative left, when every other lower-cost—but lower only in absolute terms; but, many, many times far more expensive in relative terms—alternative approach has already failed, and failed miserably? Is a truly comprehensive COVID-19 mitigation program for ALL of our workers and ALL of our workers’ family members now an immediate go-to mission? Do ALL of our lives, especially the lives of our Black citizens and residents, depend on our getting it right this time? If yes, why? If no, why not? Let’s GO.