Corporate citizenship in the times of Black Lives Matter and COVID-19

Corporate citizenship from yesteryear was about paid time for employees to volunteer at a charity, sponsorship of local events, food and blood drives and other workplace initiatives.  Those are all good things.   But...

In the absence of needed federal action, local governments, along with for and non-profit corporations should be taking a stand, and not hiding behind the lack of federal guidance. 

Black Lives Matter and COVID-19 are very different, but powerful forces in 2020.  

While the timing and groundswell of Black Lives Matter protests was not predictable, the deeply rooted racism and oppression left no doubt our country (and world) would one day reckon with it.  Racism and oppression are pervasive through out our country. Some changes and reparations will be local, but federal guidance and minimum standards would be appropriate, though the current administration will be loathe to do so.  It is not my place (white woman of a certain age) to suggest appropriate benchmarks.  That being said, there is a groundswell of support for change NOW, that should not be denied nor wasted.

We're seeing plenty of corporations make pro-Black Lives Matter statements.  While this is a good start, even better would be actions consistent with those statements.  Most companies have, at some time, done some sort of equity and inclusion trainings.  Also, a good start, also not enough.  I am not an expert on this, but I'd sure like to see some tangible changes; professionally led discussions within companies, specific actions to empower people of color within the work place, initiatives not just to hire people of color, but to provide mentoring and education to those populations, giving them preparations and access to  employment opportunities.  And separation from, and rejection of biased practices, materials and business associates. 

COVID-19 seemed unpredictable in late 2019 and early 2020.  The early denial and utter lack of a coordinated national response left the United States vulnerable and unprepared.  Different states and municipalities have pulled together response standards; PPE, tracing, acceptable hospitalization rates, testing protocols etc.  Economic pressure (not to be under-rated) has states and counties opening at different times and based on differing criteria.  Certainly, dense urban areas have differing risk factors than rural counties.  Hot spots, usually in dense work or living environs, can be anywhere; urban or rural. 

While getting folks back to work is laudable, and in some cases necessary, there are plenty of ways companies can uphold necessary safety requirements.  Even if your municipality doesn't require masks, masks still do a great job of decreasing the transmission of COVID-19.  How about all companies require masks by employee, clients, contractors etc.  And just because it is "okay" for an office to open, is it necessary in order to conduct business?  Plenty of white collar jobs have been done from home, with reasonable success.  

Many states, including Oregon, are seeing both higher positive tests and higher hospitalization rates right now. No,  it is not merely due to increased testing.  If that were the case, we wouldn't be seeing an increase (80% increase in hospitalizations since May).  That businesses are opening has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with economics.  If your business can be done remotely, please keep that up.  Now is not the time to unnecessarily bring workers back in.  

Let's step it up.  In the absence of leadership, take some real responsibility, take meaningful action.

COVID-19 and housing preferences?

I've been thinking a lot about COVID-19 and distancing.  I live in a single family home, with a distinct front door entrance.  I easily control who enters.  My daughter lives in an apartment building with two secure, exterior entrances.  This means, she, the other residents and other residents' guests enter through those two doors.  There is one elevator, and two stairways.  From a germ exposure standpoint, were she staying there (she's staying with us), she'd be exposed much more than we would.

It seems that the density of living situations is playing a part in COVID-19 infections.  New York City is so dense, strict shelter in place rules aren't showing the same positive results as other places.  Similarly, with seemingly rampant cases, care facilities and nursing homes are struggling.  The assisted living place where my dad lives, was quick to keep residents in their apartments, and forbid outside visitors, but for essential personnel.  We're thankful this seems to be working.  But this is a place where all residents have their own distinct apartments.  Imagine working through this in a shared room environment.

As many of us think about "after" and "normal", I can't help but wonder if we'll see changes in housing preferences.  Do some folks realize working from home is great, if only they had a distinct home office?  Will people move to be closer to family, after having been unable to travel to be with family? Will people in shared living spaces want more control of their environment?

Will all off this influence housing amenities?  Buildings with secure entrances and elevators have been popular.  Will people now favor apartments and condominiums with distinct, outside entrances?  Will developers tout superior air handling capacity, mangers advertise aggressive cleaning protocol?  Will lobbies, roof decks and common rooms no longer be seen as desirable amenities?

As our journey to "after" is sure to be slow, possibly with some set backs, it may be years until we can look back to see changes to housing preferences.  That being said, has "stay home, stay safe" caused you to think about possible changes to your living situation (aside from I wish the fridge refilled itself and the laundry got magically done)?