Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Target Can’t Seem to Escape the Crosshairs
The on-again-off-again nationwide boycott of Target has the retailer’s new chief executive, Michael Fiddelke, officer facing relentless pressure from activists on both sides of the issue. David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester, says Fiddelke can’t seem to move Target from the crosshairs despite slashing prices on thousands of products and investing in stores, workers, and technology. “Target remains a battleground for activists on the left and the right, and its new CEO hasn’t yet figured out how to extricate the company from this role,” Primo recently told USA Today. “Fiddelke already faces a huge challenge in turning around a company with significant operational issues. This certainly doesn’t help matters.” Target has reported 13 straight quarters of sluggish sales. Company officials have admitted that shopper anger has contributed. Activists in Minneapolis, where Target is based, organized a nationwide boycott last year over the company’s rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. From church pulpits to community gatherings, the policy about-face was widely viewed as a betrayal of Black Americans who had propped up the retail giant’s bottom line. Primo studies corporate political strategies, among other areas, and regularly shares his insights with business journalists and political reporters. His essays have appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and he’s been interviewed by many radio and television outlets, including Bloomberg and National Public Radio. Contact him by clicking on his profile.
Workplace jargon hurts employee morale, collaboration, study finds
You’ve probably heard it before in a meeting: “Let’s touch base offline to align our bandwidth on this workflow.” Corporate jargon like this is easy to laugh at — but its negative impact in the office can be serious. According to a new study, using too much jargon in the workplace can hurt employees’ ability to process messages, leading them to experience negative feelings and making them feel less confident. In turn, they’re less likely to reach out and ask for or share information with their colleagues. “You need people to be willing to collaborate, share ideas and look for more information if they don't understand something at work,” said Olivia Bullock, Ph.D., an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Florida and co-author of the new study. “And jargon might actually be impeding that information flow across teams.” Age made a difference, though. Older workers had a harder time processing jargon, but were more likely to intend to ask for more information to clarify the message. Younger employees were less likely to seek and share information when confused by jargon. “It gives credence to the idea that younger people are more vulnerable to these workplace dynamics,” Bullock said. “If you're onboarding younger employees, explain everything clearly.” Bullock and her co-author, Tiffany Bisbey, Ph.D., an assistant professor at George Washington University, published their findings Aug. 25 in the International Journal of Business Communication. An expert in communication research, Bullock has long studied jargon’s negative effects for talking about health and science. Then, faced with jargon in her own work, she started to ask how these arcane, technical words might get in the way of a smooth workplace. To find out, Bullock surveyed nearly 2,000 people who were told to imagine they had just started a new job and received an email with important directions. Half had to navigate a jargon-filled message about “intranets” and “EFT” payments. The other half had that jargon translated back into plainer language. The message packed with jargon, not surprisingly, made it harder for people to process the information, which can throw off an entire workday. “It doesn't just make them feel bad about the information they've been given. It makes them feel bad about themselves,” Bullock said. The study then asked people how they would respond to the jargon. The impenetrable language made them feel insecure and less likely to ask for help right when they needed it the most. “They weren’t as willing to collaborate,” Bullock said. “If you can’t ask for more information or share that information downstream, you’re creating silos, and that’s disrupting your workflow and environment.” Having studied jargon for so long, Bullock has one piece of advice for employers and employees alike. “Always reduce jargon,” she said. “The benefit of using jargon doesn’t outweigh the cost.”
AI gives rise to the cut and paste employee
Although AI tools can improve productivity, recent studies show that they too often intensify workloads instead of reducing them, in many cases even leading to cognitive overload and burnout. The University of Delaware's Saleem Mistry says this is creating employees who work harder, not smarter. Mistry, an associate professor of management in UD's Lerner College of Business & Economics, says his research confirms findings found in this Feb. 9, 2026 article in the Harvard Business Review. Driven by the misconception that AI is an accurate search engine rather than a predictive text tool, these "cut and paste" employees are using the applications to pump out deliverables in seconds just to keep up with increasing workloads. Mistry notes that this prioritization of speed over accuracy is happening at every level of the organization: • Junior staff: Blast out polished looking but unverified drafts. • Managers: Outsource their ability to deeply learn and critically think in order to summarize data, letting their analytical skills atrophy. • Power users: Build hidden, unapproved systems that bypass company oversight. A management problem, not a tech problem "When discussing this issue, I often hear leaders blame the technology. However, I believe that blaming the tech is missing the point; I see it as a failure of leadership," Mistry said. "When already overburdened employees who are constantly having to do more with less are handed vague mandates to just use AI without any training, they use it to look busy and produce volume-based work. Because many companies still reward the volume of work produced rather than the actual impact, employees naturally use these tools to generate slick but empty deliverables." "I believe that blaming the tech is missing the point; I see it as a failure of leadership. Because many companies still reward the volume of work produced rather than the actual impact, employees naturally use these tools to generate slick but empty deliverables." The real costs to organizations and incoming employees Mistry outlines three risks organizations face if they don’t intervene: 1. The workslop epidemic "These programs allow people to generate massive amounts of workslop, which is low-effort fluff that looks good but lacks substance. It takes seconds to create, but hours for someone else to decipher, fact-check, and fix," Mistry notes. "This drains money (up to $9 million annually for large companies) and destroys morale. As an educator, researcher, and a person brought into organizations to help fix problems, I for one do not want to be on the receiving end of a thoughtless, automated data dump, especially on tasks that require real skill and deep thinking." 2. Legal disaster He also states, "When the cut and paste mentality makes its way into professional submissions, the risks to the organization are real and oftentimes catastrophic. Courts have made it perfectly clear: ignorance is no excuse. If your name is on the document, you own the liability. Recently, attorneys have faced severe sanctions, hefty fines, and case dismissals for blindly submitting fake legal citations made up by computers." Click here for a list of cases. 3. A warning for incoming talent For new graduates entering this environment, Mistry offers a warning: Do not rely on AI to do your deep thinking. "If you simply use AI to blast out polished but unverified drafts, you become a replaceable 'cut and paste' employee," he says. “To truly stand out, new grads must prove they have the discernment to review, tweak, and challenge what the computer writes. The hiring edge is no longer just saying, 'I can do this task,' but 'I know how to leverage and correct AI to help me perform it.'" Four ideas to fix it To survive and indeed thrive with these new tools and avoid the unintended consequences of untrained staff, organizations should: 1. Reinforce the importance of fact-checking and editing: Adopt frameworks that teach employees how to show their work and log how they verified computer-generated facts. 2. Change the incentives: Stop rewarding busy work, useless reports, and massive slide decks. Evaluate employees on accuracy and results. 3. Eradicate superficial work: Don’t use automation to speed up ineffective legacy processes. Instead, use it to identify and eliminate them entirely. 4. Make time for editing: Give yourself and your employees the breathing room to actually review, tweak, and challenge what the computer writes instead of accepting the first draft. Mistry is available to discuss: Why AI is causing an epidemic of corporate "workslop" (and how to spot it). The leadership failure behind the "cut and paste" employee. How to rewrite corporate incentives to measure impact instead of volume in the AI era. Strategies for implementing safe, effective AI policies at work. How new college graduates can avoid the "workslop" trap in their first jobs. To reach Mistry directly and arrange an interview, visit his profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
Canadians remain passionate about exploring new destinations, but changing global dynamics are reshaping how and where they travel. According to CAA’s Travel Wise survey, more than half of Canadians (51 per cent) now say geopolitical and economic factors, such as instability abroad, a perception of the U.S. as being less welcoming, and rising travel costs, are influencing where Canadians choose to travel. Shifting Destinations and Attitudes Travel patterns are evolving. The survey conducted in 2025 shows that only 22 per cent of Canadians planned to visit the U.S., an 11 per cent drop from 2024. Instead, many are opting to stay within Canada (40 per cent) or explore international destinations. The perception of the U.S. as less welcoming, coupled with rising travel costs and global instability, is prompting Canadians to reconsider their travel plans. "Canadians are adventurous by nature, but today’s travellers are having to make thoughtful decisions," says Kaitlynn Furse, Director of Corporate Communications. "We’re seeing a clear trend toward exploring closer to home and seeking out new international experiences, all while keeping an eye on safety and value." Travel Insurance: A Critical, Yet Overlooked, Safeguard While Canadians feel confident travelling within their own country, many assume “home turf” means low risk. This misconception leaves millions exposed to unexpected costs when trips don’t go as planned. The survey found that 64 per cent did not have travel insurance on their most recent trip when travelling within Canada. “Recent stories have highlighted Canadians facing unexpected medical bills, trip interruptions, and emergency expenses while travelling within Canada, often because they didn’t realize their regular provincial health coverage or credit card benefits had limits,” says Furse. “If something were to happen, provincial healthcare only partially covers you outside of your home, and sometimes, not at all, covering only basic emergency medical services when travelling in another province.” Among those who travelled uninsured, 44 per cent believed coverage wasn’t needed, and 29 per cent thought their provincial government’s health plan would suffice. However, provincial healthcare only partially covers emergency medical services in other provinces, and sometimes not at all. “One of the biggest misconceptions we see is the idea that travelling within Canada comes with less risk,” says Furse. “Unexpected medical costs, trip interruptions and emergencies can happen anywhere, and many travellers are surprised to learn they’re not fully covered.” With recent geopolitical incidents in Cuba, Mexico and the Middle East, Travel Wise is focused on helping Canadians understand risk, avoid misinformation, and make decisions grounded in facts rather than fear or speculation. Here are some tips: Understand what an “avoid non-essential travel” advisory really means: Travel advisories reflect real-time safety risks, and an “avoid non-essential travel” signal indicates rapidly changing conditions that may change quickly, and support may be limited. Know that advisories can affect your insurance and your exit options: Travelling against government advice can limit your travel insurance, including medical care or emergency evacuation. Coverage must be in place before conditions deteriorate. Flexibility is essential; review cancellation and change policies now: Travellers should proactively confirm cancellation deadlines, refund eligibility, rebooking options for all reservations and understand the limits of credit card protections, employee benefits, and pension coverage benefits. Stay connected to Canada while abroad: Canadians should monitor official updates from Global Affairs Canada and register with the Registration of Canadians Abroad service before departure or while on location if something arises. Rely on reputable sources and be cautious of misinformation online: Canadians should rely on official government sources, established travel organizations, and verified news outlets for travel guidance. For many travellers, cancelled or delayed flights remain a top concern. CAA’s Air Passenger Help Guide offers a straightforward resource for travellers facing disruptions. The online survey was conducted by DIG Insights from September 29 – October 8, 2025, with 2,0210 Canadian travellers aged 25 to 64 who have travelled outside their province of residence in the past three years and plan to travel again in the next five years. Based on the sample size of n=2,021 and with a confidence level of 95%, the margin of error for this research is +/- 2%.)
Expert Insights: Environmental Risk in Times of Regulatory Change & Litigation Pressure
Environmental risks are becoming a central concern for organizations as regulations tighten, public expectations rise, and litigation related to environmental claims grows more common. Companies today must navigate a complex landscape where regulators, investors, and advocacy groups are paying closer attention to how environmental impacts are managed and reported. Recently, J.S. Held published the article, Environmental Claims and Disputes: Navigating Regulatory Change and Litigation Pressure, led by environmental risk and compliance expert Kimberly Logue Ortega. In this article, experts from J.S. Held share practical insights for insurance professionals and legal advisors on identifying environmental risks across industries and preparing for environmental disputes before they escalate. It examines how this increased scrutiny is creating new legal and financial pressures, particularly when organizations fail to comply with evolving regulations or when environmental claims made in public disclosures are challenged. A key issue is the growing focus on corporate environmental statements and sustainability reporting. Businesses face potential consequences whether they overstate environmental achievements, commonly referred to as “greenwashing" or avoid discussing them altogether. Without strong governance systems, clear internal oversight, and transparent reporting processes, organizations may expose themselves to regulatory penalties, legal disputes, and reputational damage. The article emphasizes that effective environmental governance is no longer simply a compliance exercise but an essential part of responsible corporate management. Kimberly Logue Ortega specializes in environmental risk and compliance. With over fifteen years of experience in the areas of environmental and natural resources law, Ms. Logue provides consulting and expert services for industrial facilities and law firms throughout the country. She has extensive experience with assessing and managing potential and ongoing compliance obligations. She routinely supports clients and media on rulemaking and legislative efforts focused on environmental and natural resources issues. View her profile As environmental regulations and stakeholder expectations continue to evolve, organizations that proactively strengthen their compliance frameworks and reporting practices will be better positioned to manage risk and build trust. The full report offers deeper insights into how companies can navigate regulatory change, reduce exposure to environmental claims, and develop stronger governance strategies in an increasingly complex landscape. To explore the topic further, simply connect with Kimberly through her icon below.
Ocean Tomo Releases 2025 Intangible Asset Market Value Study Results
Global consulting firm J.S. Held announces the release of the Ocean Tomo Intangible Asset Market Value (IAMV) study. With this release, the study now reflects a panel of 50 years of data in the US market and 20 years of data in foreign markets. The study examines the components of market value, specifically the role of intangible assets, across a range of global indexes. IAMV is shown as of calendar year end by subtracting net tangible asset value from market capitalization. Commenting on the Components of S&P 500® Market Value, economic expert and study author Matthew Johnson observes, “the composition of corporate value has undergone a fundamental transformation over the past five decades.” In 1975, tangible assets—property, plant, equipment, inventory, and other physical capital—represented 83% of the market value of companies comprising the S&P 500 index, with intangible assets accounting for only 17%. By the end of 2025, this relationship had completely inverted: intangible assets now constitute approximately 92% of S&P 500 market capitalization, while tangible assets have been reduced to a mere 8%. Johnson adds, “This 75 percentage point shift represents what Ocean Tomo has defined as ‘economic inversion’— a wholesale transformation in the nature of value creation whereby economic worth has migrated from what can be ‘touched’ to what can be ‘thought’." The magnitude and implications of this transformation are comparable to the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Just as the Industrial Revolution fundamentally restructured economic activity from agrarian and craft-based production to mechanized manufacturing, the intangible revolution has redefined the sources and measurement of corporate value in the 21st century. Ocean Tomo Co-founder and J.S. Held Chief Intellectual Property Officer, James E. Malackowski observes, “While the Industrial Revolution required a century to unfold fully, the intangible revolution has occurred within a single human lifespan, with particularly rapid acceleration occurring in the 1985-2005 period when intangible asset market value increased from 32% to 79%—a remarkable 47 percentage point surge in just two decades.” The 2020-2025 period deserves special attention: S&P 500 IAMV remained stable at approximately 90% despite the Federal Reserve implementing the most aggressive monetary tightening cycle in four decades. Dr. Nikki Tavasoli, PhD, shares, “Traditional financial theory predicts that intangible-intensive firms should be highly sensitive to interest rate changes due to their long-duration cash flows and limited collateral value.” She adds, “The observed stability challenges this prediction and requires explanation, which we address in a forthcoming paper.” In 2005, the IAMV study was expanded beyond the S&P 500 to explore the components of value in several key international markets. Stock market indexes from Europe, China, Japan, and South Korea were selected and analyzed to determine the comparable role of intangible assets. To learn more about the 2025 Intangible Asset Market Value Study, please visit: Media Contact Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held 1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com JSHeld.com
Jesse Jackson: The Activist Who Turned Protest into Political Power
Few figures bridge the worlds of street-level activism and presidential politics like Jesse Jackson. For more than six decades, he has stood at the center of America’s ongoing struggle for racial justice, economic fairness, and political inclusion. His legacy isn’t just historical, it continues to shape today’s debates about voting rights, coalition politics, economic equity, and the power of grassroots organizing. From Civil Rights Foot Soldier to National Leader Jesse Jackson rose to national prominence as a close associate of Martin Luther King Jr., working with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. He was present in Memphis in 1968 during King’s assassination, a moment that profoundly shaped his path forward. After King’s death, Jackson focused on translating civil rights gains into economic opportunity, founding Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), later merging it into the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. His central message: political rights mean little without economic power. The 1984 & 1988 Presidential Campaigns In 1984 and again in 1988, Jackson ran for the Democratic presidential nomination — becoming one of the first Black Americans to mount a serious, nationwide campaign for the presidency. His 1988 campaign was especially historic: He won 11 primaries and caucuses. He finished second in the Democratic race. He built what he called a “Rainbow Coalition” — uniting Black voters, Latinos, labor groups, farmers, progressives, and working-class Americans. Jackson expanded voter registration efforts and brought millions of new voters into the political process, laying groundwork for future candidates, including Barack Obama. Coalition Politics Before It Was a Buzzword Long before diversity became corporate language, Jackson was preaching multiracial, multi-class political alliances. His philosophy emphasized: Economic justice alongside civil rights Voting access and political representation Corporate accountability International human rights engagement He also engaged in diplomatic efforts abroad, including negotiating the release of American hostages in conflict zones — demonstrating how civil rights leaders could operate on the global stage. Controversies and Complexity Jackson’s career was not without controversy. Critics pointed to past inflammatory remarks and political missteps. Yet even his detractors acknowledge his role in permanently expanding the boundaries of American politics. He forced national conversations about race, poverty, and representation — and shifted the Democratic Party’s platform toward broader inclusion. A Legacy That Endures Today’s conversations about: Structural inequality Voter suppression Grassroots political mobilization Multiracial coalition building … all carry echoes of Jackson’s work. Whether viewed as a trailblazer, a bridge between eras, or a polarizing figure, Jesse Jackson helped redefine what political participation looks like in America. Connected with an expert Find more experts here: www.expertfile.com
When individuals sign up for direct-to-consumer genetic testing, the extent to which they ever think about their genetic data is likely in the context of the service for which they paid: information on predisposition to a genetic illness, or confirmation of an ethnic background, for example. But that data doesn’t just sit on a shelf, and while the most mainstream concern for such services is the privacy of your data, there is also the question of what else the companies do with it, and how. Ana Santos Rutschman, SJD, LLM, professor and faculty director of the Health Innovation Lab at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, is particularly interested in the latter. In June 2025, she co-authored an amicus brief centered on data protection and patient’s interests amid genetic testing company 23andMe’s bankruptcy proceedings. In December, many of those same co-authors published a paper in Nature Genetics, highlighting 23andMe’s bankruptcy as “an inflection point for the direct-to-consumer genetics market,” especially as it pertains to the broader corporate use of individuals’ scientific data. The reason? “How that data is used all depends on the policies of the individual companies,” she said. Genetic Testing Companies Use Your Data For More Than The Services You Pay For Those who utilize genetic testing companies—for any reason—are likely also consenting, often unknowingly, to other unrelated items. This includes acknowledgment of information related to how your data might be further used or monetized. “Most people don't think about secondary and tertiary uses of their data,” said Professor Rutschman. “[What they consent to] is displayed on the website somewhere, but it’s not easily understandable and accessible. It’s fine print.” Such companies often operate beyond the traditional “fee for a service” relationship with consumers. Yes, they will give you the information you paid for—finding out whether you have German ancestry or are predisposed to certain genetic disease—but instead of that genetic data just being stored somewhere, it’s often sold for research purposes. Today, in the age of AI big data, that might look something like this: The company puts your data in a box with parameters, along with thousands of others. Perhaps they are then able to observe a pattern that, until all that data was compiled, was previously unknown. They come up with a diagnostic or a medicine and patent it. That patent is licensed to somebody else, and the company makes money on the product. The use of that data for scientific purposes—even ones that turn a profit— is not problematic in itself, says Professor Rutschman. “Some people may even choose a company that allows scientific research over one that doesn’t. Many people may not care, but some will. The uses are not common knowledge, and that is worrisome. The public should be well-informed about what’s happening.” Deeper problems may arise when they aren’t informed of those potential uses of their data. Professor Rutschman cited the infamous Henrietta Lacks case, in which Lacks’ cells were, and continue to be, one of the most valuable cell lines in cancer research. Neither Lacks nor her family were paid for the widespread use of her genetic material until a settlement was reached long after her death. “When you have biologics involved, a concern is that if you have something potentially valuable, you may not see any money from it.” Bankruptcy Can Cause Policy Upheaval To understand the role bankruptcy can play in all of this, one needs to refer back to the power of individual company policy in this space. There are no external laws that dictate how these companies can further monetize their data, says Professor Rutschman, as long as they don’t violate other laws, such as privacy laws. That means that when a company like 23andMe goes bankrupt, as was the case in 2025, new ownership could enact completely different corporate policies for use of their property. In their specific case, the company was essentially bought back by 23andMe founder and CEO Anne Wojcicki’s non-profit, all but ensuring policies would remain the same. But that is exactly why Professor Rutschman and others are highlighting this specific case. “Bankruptcy is bad in the sense that there's a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “In this instance, the person coming in was the person who was there before, so the policy is likely to continue. But that's very rare. There are a roster of companies with access to biological materials. 23andMe is a good example of something not going horribly wrong, but with the understanding that it absolutely could.” Ways in which that could happen could be new ownership undermining the original intent of the data use by cessation of the company’s previous policies, or charging exorbitant prices to other entities to use that data for scientific research. “Because there is no law, these new owners can essentially do as they please with their proprietary data, unless they do something incredibly careless that amounts to the level of illegal,” Professor Rutschman said. “And that is concerning.” Onus Falls to Companies to Enact Safeguards To ensure a worst-case scenario for such companies does not unfold in a bankruptcy situation, Professor Rutschman points to a number of safeguards they could enact to protect their original commitments, ensure equitable access to data for scientific research and promote fair trade. One of which is implementing a company policy stating that commitments from a previous iteration of the company need to be honored if ownership is transferred. Those could include, as the authors recommend, policies “honoring original research-oriented commitments under which the data were collected,” as well as not “enclosing the dataset for exclusive commercial use.” She also highlights the need for Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) voluntary licensing commitments, which are inherently more science and market friendly. “Companies in many sectors have committed to this approach, and we are saying it should apply in this space as well. You’ll charge your royalty, but it can’t be a billion dollars for a data set, nor would it be done by exclusively selling to one entity. You can get that billion dollars by selling to 15, 50 or 100 companies, and from a scientific research perspective, that’s what we want. Otherwise, you have a monopoly or duopoly. “There are a lot of different models that can be used, but ultimately what we are arguing is leaving this unaddressed is a really bad idea. It leaves everything exposed, and something bad is more likely to happen.”
Carney Cares. The Tax Code Doesn’t.
Retirement analyst and author Sue Pimento looks more closely at the just-announced "Canada Groceries & Essentials Benefit Program" in the broader context of the country's overall tax-and-benefit system. A closer analysis of steep GIS clawbacks layered on top of taxes shows that some seniors face tax rates comparable to those of the country's highest earners. Pimento argues that we should address this “participation tax” to ensure seniors earn more without being penalized for their work. Prime Minister Mark Carney just announced the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit. The intent is good. The relief is welcome. The tax code, however, did not get the memo. Important Disclaimer (Please Read) This article is for educational and discussion purposes only and does not constitute financial or tax advice. Canada's tax and benefit system is complex, highly individualized, and subject to frequent changes. Before making any financial or tax decisions, consult a qualified professional familiar with seniors' benefits, including GIS, OAS, CPP, and related clawbacks. Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk… Here’s a quick overview of what was announced. What the Canada Groceries & Essentials Benefit Program Covers Bigger Benefit Cheques: About 12 million Canadians will receive relief. Food Bank Relief: $20 million to food banks through the Local Food Infrastructure Fund. Food Supply: Immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings to bolster domestic production. Food Security: A national strategy including unit price labelling and enforcement by the Competition Bureau. Business Support: $500 million in supply chain support to help businesses absorb costs rather than passing them on to consumers. These ideas aren’t bad. Some are very sensible. Taken together, the Government estimates in its announcement that these measures would "provide up to an additional $402 to a single individual without children, $527 to a couple, and $805 to a couple with two children. They go on to say that at these levels, Canada’s new government will be offsetting grocery cost increases beyond overall inflation since the pandemic." On paper, this looks helpful. Unfortunately, paper has never had to buy groceries. But… You knew there was a “but” coming. Government announcements are legally required to include one. A Little-Known Tax Reality That Makes You Shake Your Head New research shows Canada's tax-and-benefit system disadvantages low-income seniors who work. The issue? It's hidden in the tax code. On January 28, 2026, a Zoomer Radio Fight Back discussion hosted by Libby Znaimer highlighted the issue. Guests included: • Gabriel Giguère, Senior Policy Analyst, Montreal Economic Institute • Jamie Golombek, Managing Director, Tax & Estate Planning, CIBC Financial Planning & Advice Their conclusion? Canada's tax system discourages low-income seniors from working exactly when they need income the most. Many seniors discover (usually the hard way) that a small side hustle doesn't always pay off. It can lead to higher taxes and benefit clawbacks. Work a little more, and Ottawa takes a lot more. Why Seniors Are Still Working Because the math doesn't add up. Either way. More than 600,000 older adults live below the poverty line. Meanwhile, rent, food, utilities, insurance, and property taxes are increasing faster than pensions ever did. More seniors are employed, particularly GIS recipients. MEI analysis indicates that GIS recipients with work income increased by 56% from 2014 to 2022, rising to 64% among those aged 65–69. These seniors aren't working for "fun money." They're working to keep the lights on and purchase medication. Reviewing the details reminded me of a long-standing issue in my research on income and cash flow for Canadians aged 55 and over. Many Canadians can’t make ends meet and are forced to work well past 65. Yet Canada’s tax system punishes low-income seniors for working—exactly when they need income most. To understand why, we need to look at the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Program for Low-Income Seniors Here's how the GIS benefits work: • A non-taxable monthly benefit on top of Old Age Security for low-income seniors. • Roughly one-third of OAS recipients also receive GIS—over 2 million Canadians. • For a single senior with no other income, the maximum annual benefit is about $13,000. (Source: Government of Canada GIS website) The program has done meaningful work. Combined with OAS, CPP, and private pensions, Canada dramatically reduced senior poverty over the past half-century. But there’s a catch hiding in the design. Think of GIS as a hug that tightens when you try to stand up. The GIS Clawback Problem for Canadians GIS recipients can earn only $5,000 per year in employment income before clawbacks begin. After that, GIS takes back 50 cents of every dollar earned—before income tax and payroll deductions. A partial exemption applies to the next $10,000, where 25–37.5% is clawed back. The program helps seniors—right up until they try to help themselves. How the GIS Clawback Works Against Working Seniors Let me illustrate this. Meet Agnes. She is about to learn more about marginal tax rates than any bookstore employee should. Agnes is between 65 and 69 years old, lives alone, and receives OAS and CPP. Rising costs push her to take a job at a local used bookstore. She works about 15 hours a week at roughly minimum wage. Here annual gross employment income is about $13,000 Here’s what happens: • Her employment income triggers GIS clawbacks once she exceeds $5,000. • She pays income tax, CPP contributions, and sometimes EI premiums. • Between taxes and clawbacks, much of her earnings disappear. Simple version: Agnes works more hours but keeps far less than expected. When you keep 20 cents on the dollar, even capitalism looks confused. Agnes didn’t go back to work for the thrill of alphabetizing mystery novels. She did it to afford her prescriptions. A Canadian Tax System That Punishes the Wrong Thing If we’re going to test income, test investment income. Fine. Tax it. But employment income? Showing up? Working? The system treats that like misconduct. Once you add income tax, CPP contributions, and the loss of other credits, low-income seniors can face effective marginal tax rates of 70–80% on modest earnings. Nothing says “fairness” like taxing a bookstore clerk harder than a boardroom executive. As Gabriel Giguère of the Montreal Economic Institute has noted, "this level of taxation normally applies to wealthy Canadians—not seniors living in poverty." In a well-researched economic brief, Giguère and Jason Dean, Assistant Professor of Economics at King’s University College at Western Ontario, present a compelling argument for policy change. This comment by Giguère and Dean nicely sums up their key findings: "For various reasons, including insufficient pensions to maintain their living standards, seniors are increasingly turning to work. Yet the current tax-and-benefit system merits reform as it undermines their efforts, with the harshest effect on low-income seniors." One-Time Credits Don’t Fix Structural Problems At Davos, Mark Carney famously said, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” Fair point. So why does our benefit system still behave as if retirement lasts ten years and ends with a gold watch? The system still thinks retirement lasts ten years and includes a gold watch. People are living longer. Many will spend 25 to 30 years in retirement. Some want to work. Many need to. A grocery credit helps. But a broken incentive structure still breaks people. Common Sense Tax Solutions the Canadian Government Should Consider 1. Raise the GIS earnings exemption The Montreal Economic Institute recommends raising it to around $30,000. Estimated cost: $544 million annually. Modest relative to the program’s size. 2. Exempt employment income from GIS clawbacks (at least partially) Keep testing investment income. Stop penalizing work. 3. Rethink retirement assumptions Policy built around “retire at 65 and earn almost nothing” no longer matches reality. None of these ideas are radical. They’re just… current. What to Ask Your Accountant About Your Tax Rate Get professional advice. Not generic advice. Not from Google. Not from your unemployed nephew. Ask specifically about: • Pension income splitting • Strategic RRSP contributions • Consulting or corporate structures where appropriate • Creative but compliant barter arrangements • CPP and OAS deferral strategies • Documentation. Lots of documentation. When clawbacks are involved, paperwork is your lifeboat. A Short, Honest Take Grocery relief is appreciated. The intent is good. But until Canada fixes a tax system that punishes low-income seniors for working, affordability will remain fragile. This isn’t about blame. It’s about aligning incentives with reality. Right now, it feels like we’re helping seniors swim by handing them bigger life jackets—while quietly drilling holes in the boat. And yes… I need to lie down. I feel another blog coming on. Apparently, exercising this much common sense counts as cardio. Sue Don't Retire...Re-Wire! Want more of this? Subscribe for weekly doses of retirement reality—no golf-cart clichés, no sunset stock photos, just straight talk about staying Hip, Fit & Financially Free.
How corporate competition can spur collaborative solutions to the world's problems
Why can’t large competitive companies come together to work on or solve environmental challenges, AI regulation, polarization or other huge problems the world is facing? They can, says the University of Delaware’s Wendy Smith. While it's difficult, the key is to have these companies collaborate under the guise of competition. Smith, a professor of management and an expert on these types of paradoxes, co-authored a recent three-year study of one of the most profound collaborations. Her team looked at the unlikely alliance of 13 competitive oil and gas companies that eventually formed Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), which works with experts worldwide to find innovative solutions for environmental and technical challenges in the region. Smith and her co-authors found that those companies were willing to collaborate, but only when collaboration was cast in the language, practices and goals of competition. Given the scope of our global problems, companies must continually work together to offer solutions. Creating that collaboration becomes critical, Smith said. This research offers important insight about how these collaborations are possible. Among the study's key findings: Competition can drive cooperation — if leaders harness it. It would make sense to assume that competition undermines collaboration. But the study finds that those who championed alliances used competitive dynamics to strengthen cooperation among rival firms. Rather than suppressing rivalry, leaders leveraged competition as a mechanism to enable joint action toward shared environmental goals. This reframes how organizations can manage tensions between competition and cooperation in partnerships. For example, COSIA leaders created competition between partners to see who would contribute the most valuable environmental innovations. Partners could only gain as much benefit from other company’s innovations commensurate with what they shared. A “Paradox Mindset” is key to complex collaborative success. The research identifies the importance of what the authors call a paradox mindset, which sees competition and cooperation not as opposites to be balanced but as interrelated forces that can be used in tandem. Leaders in the study who adopted this mindset were more thoughtful and creative about how to engage both competitive and collaborative practices in the same alliance. Traditional balance isn’t the goal — process over stability. Instead of pursuing a simplistic “balance” between competing and cooperating, the study shows that effective alliances evolve through process, where competition remains visible and even useful throughout the lifecycle of the alliance. To connect with Smith directly and arrange an interview, visit her profile and click on the "contact" button. Interested journalists can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.
