Republican Hypocrisy? Perish the Thought

Republicans believe in states rights -- unless they're pro-labor.

Paul Krugman Says WMD-Gate is Worse Than Watergate

Paul Krugman is pissed off too. So am I. And rightfully so....

The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions....In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Molly Ivins & Al Franken on Ergonomics, Shrub and Liars

Here is a link to a panel discussion from Book Expo America 2003 with columnist Molly Ivins, Fox "News"man Bill O'Reilly and comedian Al Franken. The whole thing (at least Ivins and Franken) are worth listening to. But I want to highlight the section starting at minute 7:50 when Molly Ivins discusses talking to catfish processing workers who clean 12 catfish a minute about the repeal of the ergonomics standard.

You also get to hear Al Franken call Bill O'Reilly a liar. And that Republicans and Conservatives have made a habit of lying and we've been taking it too long. And then Franken and O'Reilly almost get into a fist fight. The whole thing is about an hour and a half, but it's worth every minute. Thanks to Buzzflash for bringing this to my attention. Speaking of which, you should subscribe to Buzzflash. They'll send you a few of the best news articles every day. Check it out.

Labels: Ergonomics

The Price of Fish

Article about a photo exhibit, "The Price of Fish," by labor photographer Earl Dotter "meant to enlighten people about the dangers of fishing and what crews are doing to improve conditions."

Dotter has been documenting hazardous working conditions for more than 30 years. In the 1970s, he lived among coal miners. Later, he expanded his work to steel mills, textile mills, construction, logging, health-care facilities, farming, maximum-security prisons and, most recently, emergency responders working on the pile at Ground Zero in New York City after 9/11.

If you happen to be in Portland, Maine, check it out. You can also see exerpts from this exhibit and many of Earl's other photos on his website.

The Republican Matrix

Check out Tom Tomorrow's "The Republican Matrix." Tom also references an article claiming that the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz thinks that Sadaam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing too.

Sure, I believe that. I hear he was also behind Pearl Harbor, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, Bhopal, and remember the Maine?

Right to Know About Anthrax

In response to a Government Accounting Office report that concluded that the Postal Service did not notify Wallingford postal workers of anthrax contamination, the Connecticut Senate voted last week "to require all employers to immediately notify workers in similar situations."

What they don't know CAN hurt them

Good article here about efforts to teach immigrants their legal rights in Maryland, and here about efforts by unions and religious organizations in Minneapolis to fight for immigrants' rights.

Anti-Ergonuts: Someone Please Drive a Stake Through Their Cold Hearts

About 50,000 people in the state of Washington suffer preventable musculoskeletal injuries at work every year, costing the state workers’ compensation fund $400 million annually. The cost of this No. 1 source of workplace injuries is a major factor in driving up employers’ L&I premiums, making it harder to create and maintain good jobs. Nationwide, while the total number of ergonomics-related injuries is falling, they make up one-third of all work-related injuries year after year.

But like the living dead, foes of Washington State's ergonomics standard never give up. They tried to stop the standard before it was issued, to no avail. They've tried to legislate it to death, but failed. And the Governor threatens to veto any bill that reaches his desk. They've taken it to the courts and lost badly. Just a few weeks ago, they took it to the Washington State Supreme Court. (No word yet).

Now the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIA), a well-financed business lobbyist group that represents commercial home builders, is leading a campaign to get enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot that would repeal the ergonomics standard. And they're not letting anything like the truth stand in their way.

A Bellingham Herald editorial described the lies told by representatives of the company gathering signatures for the BIA:

Signature gatherers for Initiative 841 were telling people in Spokane recently that under the rules adopted by the state Department of Labor & Industries that carpet layers and drywallers wouldn't be able to work more than two hours per day. Laborers could only lift one load weighing more than 75 pounds. Workers can't have their arms above their heads or their elbows above their shoulders for more than two hours per day. Mariners catcher Dan Wilson might not even be able to catch an entire game.

There's only one problem. None of this is true.

The company gathering the signatures admitted that the statements were false, as did the the BIA which contracted with the company that is gathering the signatures. The Herald isn't buying it.

The statements originated somewhere long before the initiative drive began and the BIA has an obligation to track down where the misinformation came from and explain how it got spread through its ranks and ultimately ended up as "talking points" for signature gatherers.

The Herald magnanimously states that "We have no reason to believe the BIA was involved in intentional deception. But a more complete explanation would go a long way toward restoring credibility to the organization's campaign."

Personally, I wouldn't be quite so charitable after looking at the BIA's webpage. The lies they tell there are just as bad as the ones described in the Herald. First they make the same old tired claims that the standard will bankrupt the construction industry in Washington. Then, packing into one short sentence more lies and distortions than entire industry webpages, they write that the high cost of the regulation is why "the U.S. Senate in 2001, led by democrat Tom Daschle (SD) voted to repeal the ergonomics rule being considered by the federal government, which was far less restrictive and less expensive than Washington's." (emphasis added)

For those of you reading this who have already forgotten one of the first high crimes of the Bush administration and have not understanding of the American political process, allow me to dissect this paragraph:

1. The federal OSHA ergonomics standard was repealed in March 2001. The Senate at that time was still in Republican hands. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) had not yet defected, throwing the Senate into Democratic hands.

2. Although they are trying to imply that Tom Daschle led the Senate to repeal the ergonomics standard, at that time Daschle was Senate minority leader and a vigorous supporter of the ergonomics standard. Had the Democrats been in control of the Senate, it is very likely that millions of American workers would today have effective protections against ergonomic hazards.

3. The federal ergonomics standard was not being "considered," it had already been issued.

4. The federal standard was in many ways much broader than Washington's. It contained medical monitoring and work removal protection which provided wage replacement for workers who could not work due to work-related musculoskeletal injuries. The only reason the BIA thinks is was "less restrictive and less expensive," is that it didn't cover the construction industry. For BIA members, therefore, it was much less restrictive and expensive.

The BIA also claims that the standard will "encourage frivolous lawsuits against employers by employees," conveniently forgetting that employees are not allowed to sue their employers for work-related injuries. They're also SHOCKED that the standard was "adopted by unelected bureaucrats....with no input from elected officials." (I hope these guys are American citizens, because I doubt that they could pass the citizenship test.)

(Of course, it may not really be all that amusing. Lies can be effective, as anyone who has been politically conscious for the past couple of years knows.)

Interestingly, the entire construction industry is not backing Prop. 841. The Associated General Contractors of Washington are remaining neutral. In a letter titled "AGC protects workers and contractors through ergonomics training and research," Roland Dewhurst, CEO/Executive Vice President of the Washington State AGC states that

As an organization we are committed to continue implementing the [ergonomics] programs we have published and completing the research we have begun. In the long run, we believe that is a better solution than taking a "one way or the other" approach. We believe we can help reduce worker injuries and protect contractor rights at the same time.

The Washington State AFL-CIO is leading a vigorous "Think Before You Ink" campaign to keep the referendum off the ballot.

As I've pointed out before, although it has flaws, the Washington State ergonomics standard is the most effective of the two existing state ergonomics standards. (California is the other. Because of its serious weaknesses, the California AFL-CIO is engaged in a campaign to strengthen it.) The anti-ergonuts are making repeal of the Washington State standard a top priority, realizing that if they can kill it, those forces favoring a federal standard, as well as more state standards, will lose their only effective regulatory foothold.

Meanwhile, back at the fort...

The anti-ergonuts are also trying to kill American National Standard Institutes proposed consensus ergonomics standard which has been under development for over ten years. The ANSI Z365 Ergonomics Committee is administered by the National Safety Council (NSC) and includes representatives from business, labor, academia and professional societies. The NSC is finally getting close to finalizing the standard. But the anti-ergonuts have been pressuring the NSC to abort the standard under the threat of a lawsuit. So far the NSC is resisting.

Stuck even further in the dark ages than Bush's OSHA, the anti-ANSI forces persist in denying that there is any basis for a connection between work and musculoskeletal disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome. Ignoring the thousands of studies, including two National Academy of Sciences reviews, the flat-earth type society persists in citing a "lack of scientific and medical consensus on the proper diagnosis and treatment of work-related musculoskeletal injuries." Although industry opposition is by no means universal, the foes of the ANSI standard argue that because some are opposed, there can, by definition, never be any "consensus."

The other tactic the anti-ergonuts are using is to charge the NSC with process violations. Larry Halpern, attorney for the National Coalition on Ergonomics charges that the process lacks openness, balance, due process as well as consensus. Procedural violations are one of the tactics that the anti-ergonuts used to fight OSHA's ergonomics standard. (They charged that OSHA had improperly compensated consultants to defend OSHA's proposed standard, even though all regulatory agencies -- under Republican and Democratic administrations do the same thing.)

I've served on the ANSI Z365 committee and it's open (anyone, including observers, can contribute), balanced (labor, academics and industry) and has due process out the wazoo. As far as consensus, many of the industry participants agree with the process and with the need for a standard. Halpern and a few of his cronies don't want a mandatory or a voluntary standard and they're trying to use the same tired old objections to try to block consensus.

The problem is that these guys don't want anything -- no OSHA standard, no voluntary consensus standards. They don't even like the Bush administration's voluntary ergonomcs guidelines because they accept that there is a connection between workplace conditions and msuculoskeletal injuries.

According to Inside OSHA, "Halpern said the only way to resture due process to the effort of crafting a consensus ergonomics standard is 'would be for the standard to be withdrawn and the committee to be dissolved.'" Yeah, that's the ticket. The committee should see the error of its ways and commit suicide. Then we could reappoint another committee made up solely of representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Food Marketing Institute, maybe the Mercatus Institute and the Republican National Committee for good measure. At least then we'd have consenus.

The bottom line is that this is not about ergonomics, it's not about the process and it's not about the science. It's about right-wing ideology. It's about industry associations like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers raising money and building political power on the backs of workers.

And it's about time we stop them. These regulatory "debates" and political battles rarely make the front pages, and almost never make the evening news. While the news covers the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy, battles are being fought behind the scenes that directly affect whether workers will come home injured or healthy, alive or dead from a day at work. There are good guys and bad guys. This is information that everyone needs to know -- especially as we enter an election year.

Labels: Ergonomics

Pivotal Organizing Drive

Good article here about UNITE's Cintas organizing drive. The health and safety issues of the organizing drive were mentioned in a Washington Post article that I wrote about last week.

Let's Tell It Like It Is: What Language do They Speak At OSHA?

OSHA Press Release: Failure to Develop Procedures for Confined Space Entry Leads to $146,000 Fine for Menomonie, Wis. Employer

What Actually Happened: Brave Harvestore, Inc., a company that builds and services grain and silage silos, killed an employee because it didn't train him or provide him with the proper equipment to enter an oxygen deficient confined space.

Better Headline: Menomonie, Wis Employer Fined $146,000 for Killing Worker in Confined Space.

OSHA Press Release: OSHA Cites Two Contractors for Lack of Fall Protection at Panama City Hathaway Bridge Project; Proposed Penalties Total $49,300

What Actually Happened: An unsecured ladder slipped, dropping an employee 60 feet onto a concrete surface where he hit his head and then rolled through a gap into the water, 60 feet below.

Better Headline: Two Contractors Cited for Killing Employee by Failing to Provide Fall Protection

The Latest Administration Atrocity: OSHA Drops TB Standard

This is outrageous. Not only has TB not gone away (and tends to reappear with a Vengence when the guard is let down), but a TB standard would also have protected against SARS. More later.

A Preventable Death

It's nice to see newspaper editors get it right sometimes.

I ran across this article the other day and thought I should check it out, but never got around to it. The title read: "Greensboro considers changing safety policies after worker deaths." The story was about a sanitation worker, Edmond Davis, who fell off the back of a garbage truck and was run over and killed when the truck backed up over him. What struck me was this:

The death comes less than two years after a similar incident, which resulted in an [OSHA] fine against the city.

Assistant city manager Mitchell Johnson says sanitation workers have been instructed not to ride on the back of the truck when its in reverse. He says the city will review what it has done and what it needs to do to keep it from happening again.

The city was cited under OSHA's General Duty Clause, referring to an ANSI standard: "Caution-Do not use riding steps when the vehicle is exceeding 10 mph or operating in reverse or when the distance travelled exceeds 2/10 mile." Amazingly, the city appealed the original OSHA citation and a hearing will be held next month.

What's wrong with this picture? Greensboro considers changing safety policies? After the second death? After already being cited for the first one?

I wasn't the only one who thought there was something odd.

The Greensboro News and Record also smelled something rotten:

A casual observer would say the policy review following sanitation worker Edmond Davis' death shouldn't last long.

It takes little time to see that losing two city employees in less than two years to nearly identical, preventable deaths calls for substantial change. It takes even less time to see that the Band-Aid placed on the problem after Stephen Antwoine Allen was killed - admonishing workers not to ride the rear of garbage trucks that are backing up - was terribly ineffective.

The easiest solution would be barring employees from riding on the backs of trucks at all, until the city's entire fleet could be automated.

But then the city's self-reflection needs to go deeper. Why wasn't it sufficient to spark change when the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined the city $6,300 last year? And why did the city seek an appeal rather than pay the fine quickly and change the rules to ensure employee safety?

Briefly, after Allen's death, employees were required to stand on the ground. Had that policy stayed in place, Davis likely would be alive today.

But that wasn't OK with the city. After evaluating the problem, "the city decided to push the envelope, permitting workers to mount the trucks - but only when they were moving forward. Had that policy been strictly enforced, perhaps Davis would be alive today."

The News and Record isn't settling for any lame excuses:

Before the temporary ban on rear riding, the city's safety manager complained that the practice was safer than having workers on the ground at risk of being hit by passing traffic. And the city quibbled with OSHA's interpretation of the safety guidelines, saying the rules only applied to riding on the side of trucks, not the rear. As if one couldn't fall beneath a wheel just as easily from either rickety perch.

Surely such callousness will not be repeated this time.

Whether the reforms come in equipment, policy (strict rules keeping sanitation workers on the ground or in the cab) or elsewhere, something must change this time around.

In a way, Greensboro workers are lucky. If Edmond Davis and Stephen Antwoine Allen had been killed in Pennsylvania or Massachusetts or over half the states in this country where public employees have no OSHA coverage, there would have been no OSHA investigation and no fine for either death.

So what's the city doing while waiting for its old appeal and new citation? Workers were given the day off and "have been asked to stay off the back steps of the rear-loading bulk-waste trucks 'for right now,' and employees are being asked to redouble their focus on safety.

'We're asking them to step back and think of everything they're doing,' said [environmental services director Jeryl] Covington."

Too bad. Just one of those things when workers aren't being careful.

Florida to Injured Workers: Deal With It.

California isn't the only state having workers compensation problems (see below). It's not bad enough that you get injured on the job, now Republicans in Florida are making sure that injured workers will have a hard time finding legal assistance to fight for their claims.

By literally stopping the legislative clock, Florida Republicans rammed through a bill to limit workers comp expenses primarily by limiting lawyers fees -- lawyers for workers, but not legal fees for the insurance companies fighting workers' claims.

"It's tremendous," said Bill Herrle, a lobbyist for the Florida Retail Federation. "It chases out the attorneys that are only in there only to hold a case up."

"The insurance companies made out like bandits," said Dwayne Sealy, an AFL-CIO official who served on the governor's study commission.

Florida workers get paid less when they get hurt on the job than virtually any other state, and Florida businesses pay the nation's second-highest rates for injury insurance.

Under the bill, a convenience store clerk raped at gunpoint would be limited to six months of psychiatric care.

That same clerk would have a more difficult time trying to sue any insurance companies that delayed or denied claims. The bill now limits fees her attorney would collect from the insurance company if she succeeded and would force her to pay the insurance company's legal fees if she lost.

There were apparently a few Republicans with a conscience, but their qualms were put to rest:

Republicans managed to quell growing opposition in their own party by adding a few last-minute amendments, including one of the most controversial provisions that would have required an injured worker to lose both arms, both legs, both hands, both feet, both eyes, or a combination of any two to qualify as permanently disabled for life.

Instead, they kept the existing definition of "catastrophic injury" that allows a person who loses one appendage to qualify. But Democrats noted that the bill included language that allows insurance companies to deny those benefits if the carrier or employer can prove the injured worker is "physically capable of engaging in at least sedentary employment" within 50 miles of his or her home.

Even the clocks were mysteriously on the Republicans' side:

Democrats also threatened to railroad the bill by stopping the Senate from extending the session past the chamber's legal 7 p.m. adjournment time. It takes a two-thirds vote to extend the adjournment time, and Democrats voting as a block could have run the clock out.

At one point the Senate clock stopped at 6:27 p.m. and stayed that way for about 15 minutes. King said there had been mechanical trouble with the electronic voting board where the clock is located.

Washington Post Discovers Workplaces are Dangerous

The Washington Post, in an article entitled "New Occupational Hazards," has discovered that it's not just the old "dirty, smelly, hazardous" jobs that are dangerous. SARS, AIDS and workplace violence have suddenly made "safe" work more hazardous:

Broadly speaking, the U.S. workplace has become markedly safer since 1971, when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created. Workplace fatalities have been cut in half, and injury and illness have fallen 40 percent.

But while some jobs have always been pretty dismal because they are dirty, smelly, hazardous or pay poorly, the emergence of new kinds of health risks -- from terrorism to SARS -- are making some formerly good jobs bad, and some formerly bad jobs awful.

Postal work, for example, was reliable but boring government employment, until postal workers started dying from anthrax spores. Package delivery seemed like a steady line of work, until workers had to start screening innocent-looking parcels in an effort to determine whether they contained bombs or explosives. Nursing has always carried a certain prestige along with some risk. But now a combination of orange alerts and a raft of infectious diseases is adding new stress to the job. Flight attendants were never highly paid, but the glamour of the job and the opportunity to travel the world made up for it, at least in the days before Sept. 11 and SARS.

Of course nurses who have spent their entire careers suffering from back injuries, toxic chemicals, infectious diseases and violence might dispute the fact that SARS has "suddenly" made their workplaces dangerous. As would a postal worker, who is no stranger to dangerous machinery, musculoskeletal injuries and other workplace hazards.

The article quotes Harvard Professor Kip Viscusi who is representative of a collection of conservative economists who argue that the market -- and not government -- will take care of health and safety: companies will be forced to pay workers more for dangerous jobs than safe jobs (giving them an incentive to make their jobs safer). If a job is dangerous, but the employer refused to pay workers more to get sick and die, the worker will simply find another job that is either safer or or a job that pays them more to get cancer or lose their limbs. (Why workers should have to choose between higher pay and their lives is not addressed. Those simple working folk probably don't value their lives or limbs as much as academics.)

For more information on this Adam Smith-inspired theory of job safety, check out Capitalism.com (I'm not kidding) where you will find an article by nutcase George Reisman on the Frontline/NY Times McWane series. Here's Reisman's summary of the problem:

While one cannot help but feel the greatest sympathy for those whom the series describes as having lost life or limb or suffered disfigurement, and utter horror at the manner in which they suffered, one must also identify the series for what it is, namely, a totally misguided attack on the profit motive and call for further government intervention to overcome the alleged evil of the profit motive....The purpose of this article is to show that if the safety of workers is the goal, the free market, and not government intervention, is the solution.

Problems with the economy? Reisman:

The great run up in business costs over the last thirty years or so, on account of so-called safety and environmental legislation, has played an enormous role in worsening economic conditions for large numbers of wage earners and ordinary people in general. Those seeking an explanation of such things as the growing need for two breadwinners in a family need look no further.

Anyway, even Viscusi admits that in this economy, "Most at-risk workers won't be paid more anytime soon, particularly in today's sluggish business climate, said W. Kip Viscusi, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School. If history is a guide, he said, "people will just quit their jobs." Sounds simple enough.

Luckily, there is a more sensible solution: union. (Those of you with the print edition of the post will see a large photo of workers holding a UNITE! banner). The article describes organizing efforts at Cintas Corp., a Cincinnati-based laundry and uniform rental company, partly in response to workers' concerns over blood-tainted laundry. Cintas, according to the Post, is not amused:

We get high marks for our corporate culture," Karen Carnahan, vice president and treasurer of Cintas Corp said. "We would have taken care of that, there's no doubt in my mind. . . . If there was something, an exposure, our people would handle it properly." She said Cintas has been targeted by outside union organizers involved in "a desperate effort" to gain members at a time unions are in decline.

But never fear. In case the "desperate efforts" of "outside union organizers" fail, OSHA is riding to the rescue, armed with a fearsome battery of power-point presentations and fact sheets that are sure to leave negligent employers quaking in fear:

"We will be doing more," [Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, John] Henshaw said. "Will we be writing regulations for these things? Probably not. . . . The important thing is not to go through a lengthy rule-making process but to get information out as quickly as we can in easy-to-read format so people can put it out at their workplaces."

In early May, for example, the department began posting on its Web site a PowerPoint presentation for employers to use in discussing the risk of SARS with their workers, including links to other agencies tracking the disease. In April, the agency posted information for employers to use to plan for emergency workplace evacuations.

So, if you or one of your kids was starting a job with these "new" (or more traditional) safety and health problems, which of the three possible solutions would you choose: the free market, OSHA information, or a union?

Workers Comp Crisis

This is a rather disturbing article about the workers compensation crisis in California. [Note: The LA Times requires (free) login.] Because of sharply rising medical costs, other states -- Florida, West Virginia, and others -- are also reaching a breaking point.

California is particularly bad: "Employers in California pay more for workers' comp coverage than in any other state, yet their injured employees receive some of the skimpiest benefits in the nation....Because workers' comp costs are directly linked to the size of payroll, some employers are responding by freezing the size of their staffs, reducing hours or laying off workers."

Although California has some built-in mechanisms to save workers and employers whose workers comp companies can't make it, even that system is breaking down

The semipublic California Insurance Guarantee Assn., which pays workers' comp obligations when carriers become insolvent, is so overwhelmed with claims that it recently required an emergency bailout to keep money flowing to injured workers. Meanwhile, the State Compensation Insurance Fund, a public, nonprofit workers' comp insurer that by law cannot turn any California company away, now controls more than half the market. The fund hasn't been able to grow its capital fast enough to keep up with this torrent of new business, heightening the risk that it won't be able to pay all future claims.

"The state fund is very sick and getting worse," said California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi. "The entire system is broken."

The construction industry has been particularly hard hit:

Some roofing firms are paying rates in excess of $99 for each $100 of payroll on their least experienced workers, said Doug Hoffner, executive director of the Roofing Contractors Assn. of California.

Hoffner says that has led some less reputable firms to game the system. Some are paying workers under the table to trim their payrolls, and thus their premiums. Others are dropping all coverage, an illegal tactic known as going bare.

Businesses that are playing by the rules say that's making it tough for them to compete. San Francisco roofing company owner Rich Lawson says he can't begin to count the jobs he has lost to low-cost competitors he suspects are cheating on their workers' comp obligations, while premiums for his 100-worker firm have quintupled since 1998 to more than $1 million annually

Meanwhile, the insurance companies blame everyone but themselves and the bad investments they made throughout the swinging '90's that made them vulnerable to the rising medical costs and poor economy that we're experiencing now.

So what are the solutions?

Behind Door #1: Merge workers compensation into a new single payer medical system. Costs come down, no insurance company profits and no insurance company bad investments. No hassling about whether an illness is work related or not; everything is covered for everyone,

or

Behind Door #2: The Orange Country register, calling universal health care "socialized medicine," kindly describes for us the Chamber of Commerce's favorite bills currently under consideration by the California legislature. The one I like best is AB 431, which would require "adequate evidence of a workplace injury to get a claim." I'm sure the intention must be to make it easier for workers to get compensation for repetitive strain injuries and other work-related injuries and illnesses.

Bottom line is that the system is broken, but the breakdown in the workers compensation system is only a symptom of the breakdown of our entire health care system -- plus that fact that workers keep getting hurt in preventable accidents. The ultimate answer? I'm not positive, but I"m sure it must have something to do with cutting workers' benefits (that will teach them not to get hurt), and, of course, MORE TAX CUTS will help any problem.

Contractor Publishes Final Version of Study Calling for Banning Asbestos

(From NYCOSH Update on Safety and Health)

The final version of the report, “Asbestos Strategies: Findings and Recommendations on the Use and Management of Asbestos,” prepared by a non-profit think tank under a contract with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was published last week.

The report concludes that the federal government should ban all importation and use of asbestos and do a better job of enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect people from the deadly mineral.

An earlier draft of the report, which was leaked three weeks ago, was the subject of several news articles, including one in the last issue of the Update on Safety and Health. Some occupational health activists expressed a concern that the final report would not be as critical of government policies as the leaked draft.

But the final report, which uses many different formulations and phrases from the draft, is substantively the same.

Among the points the final report makes

clearly defined legislative ban on the production, manufacture, distribution and importation of products with commercially-added asbestos is the most direct means to address concerns about remaining health risk”;

“A federal process should be undertaken promptly to clarify the definition of ‘asbestos’” to include the unregulated “asbestiform” minerals that belong to the same mineral group as asbestos, but are not considered to be asbestos because they have no commercial use;

“EPA, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and state regulators should focus on more stringent, predictable, and consistent enforcement of these existing [asbestos] regulations. . . . such an effort must continue for the long term. . . . [including] any step that EPA and OSHA can take to encourage enforcement of existing regulations at the local level.;

“A national mesothelioma registry is necessary. . . to evaluate the effects of asbestos exposure”;

“EPA and OSHA should consult with each other and leading scientists to obtain the best sense of the science [of assessing the health risk of exposure to asbestos] and then employ education and outreach to provide reliable risk information about potential risks to the regulated community and the public. Commentators indicate that following the World Trade Center attacks federal agencies may have underestimated the risks out of concern over a public overreaction to perceived risk. A backlash followed inside and outside some agencies, which may have overstated the actual risks.”

Labels: Asbestos

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Think these are just run-of-the-mill conservatives? Irritating, but ultimately not destroying anything that we can't put back together again? Paul Krugman says to be afraid; be very afraid: "The people now running America aren't conservatives: they're radicals who want to do away with the social and economic system we have, and the fiscal crisis they are concocting may give them the excuse they need."

Ergonomics Rears its Ugly Head

The Washington Post's "Regulator" column covers OSHA's recent grocery store ergonomics guidelines. Needless to say, labor has a problem with guidelines as a weaker alternative to the standard that was repealed by the Bush administration in 2001:

"They have gone to the lowest common denominator. It's a simplistic look at the whole issue," said Jackie Nowell, director of occupational safety and health for the food and commercial workers union.

Peg Seminario, director of the AFL-CIO's department of occupational safety and health, said the guidelines are too general. "The problems and the controls are all mushed together," she said. "There is no sense of priority. It ignores that real problems are there. This is a dumbing down of the guidelines."

She said she preferred guidelines OSHA issued in 1990 for meatpacking plants, which were written by the regulators, the industry and the unions. Those were followed by a major enforcement effort that resulted in numerous cases that led to millions of dollars in penalties. Also at that time, the Labor Department announced it would begin work on a mandatory ergonomics standard.

Even industry has problems with the guidelines, but for a different reason:

Randel Johnson, vice president of labor issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, worries that even the draft assumes a definitive relationship between developing a musculoskeletal disorder and a particular job.

"These are only guidelines, but they can set a precedent for a regulation later because it will be taken as gospel when it has . . . the OSHA stamp of approval," he said. He added that the agency relied on anecdotal reports from stores about how they fixed ergonomic problems and left the impression that "there is more clarity to these issues than there really is."

Imagine thinking that there is a relationship between work and musculoskeletal problems! Bookmark this under "reasons NOT to re-elect Bush in 2004."

Labels: Ergonomics

Greens Think Twice

Hmm. Seems that some members of the Green Party might be waking up to the fact that a Gore administration might have been better than Bush and wondering whether they want to head down that disasterous road again. Oh well, no harm done.

Senator Patty Murray Calls For Asbestos Ban

The Indestructible Mineral meets the Eternal Debate

In further asbestos related news, Senator Patty Murray has introduced a bill to ban asbestos from continued use in thousands of products that continue to use the cancer causing mineral.

Among other things, Murray's bill calls for a complete ban of asbestos in products within two years after the measure becomes law. It also provides for more research into the causes and treatment of asbestos-related cancers and requires the federal government to conduct a more aggressive campaign to educate the public about the risks of asbestos. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has introduced an identical version in the House.

Asbestos is still used in brake shoes, roofing supplies, gaskets, floor tiles, piping and some types of insulation. Murray’s bill follows on an EPA alert that

formally cautioned homeowners against disturbing and inhaling vermiculite insulation used in attics and walls because it could contain low levels of microscopic asbestos. The agency is also beefing up a public-awareness campaign designed to help consumers determine if their home contains contaminated vermiculite. That effort came on the heels of a surprising report by an independent EPA panel that called for the ban of asbestos nationwide.

This is the second year that Murray has introduced this bill. While she is not confident about passage this year, she hopes to have a hearing and stimulate discussion. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called Murray’s effort “long overdue.”

Murray’s bill comes a day after talks between labor and the business community over asbestos compensation threatened to break down over Senator Orin Hatch’s threat to introduce the industry bill into Congress. (See below).

Hatch’s plan caused a sharp drop in the stocks of companies with large asbestos liabilities yesterday. Sweeney called Hatch’s bill

a major step backward. The Hatch bill is merely a vehicle to relieve businesses and insurers of hundreds of billions of dollars of liability while significantly short-changing the asbestos victims of the fair compensation they are due.

Labels: Asbestos

Hatch Expected to Introduce Industry's Asbestos Compensation Bill; Stocks Drop

The NY Times reports that Senator Orin Hatch, in an attempt to force labor and the business community to an agreement, planned to introduce the business version of an asbestos compensation bill today. Hatch's action brought a threat from the AFL-CIO to pull out of negotiations with industry representatives. The potential breakdown in negotiations has also apparently had a negative impact on the stock prices of companies with large asbestos liabilities, and possibly on Hatch's plan to introduce the bill:

Shares of USG Corp., Owens-Illinois Inc. and other companies with large asbestos liabilities fell as trust fund negotiations stumbled. USG shares fell $1.36, or more than 11 percent, to $10.55 on the New York Stock Exchange. USG rebuffed the exchange's request for a statement explaining the decline, saying it doesn't comment on unusual trading activity. Owens-Illinois Inc. shares fell 55 cents, or almost 5 percent, to $11.55.

According to the Times,

Under a proposal to be introduced today by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the groups would create a $108 billion asbestos trust....Business groups and insurance compa nies have praised Senator Hatch's proposal, which would include $45 billion in contributions from companies that made asbestos or used it in their products and $45 billion from insurers, as well as about $8 billion from other asbestos trusts and $10 billion from other companies with limited asbestos liabilities.

But Jon Hiatt, general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., which has played an important role in the negotiations, said in a statement that he was "deeply disappointed" in the bill, as well as the decision by Senator Hatch to introduce the legislation at a time when talks were continuing. The support of the AFL-CIO is vital if a trust is to win the votes of Democratic senators, who can block the bill in the Senate by a filibuster.

"The Hatch bill is a step backward," Mr. Hiatt said.

The legislation would require the primary defendants and insurance companies to contribute $90 billion, the same amount that those groups offered to pay months ago and an amount that labor groups and many businesses said was only a starting point for negotiations.

In addition, the payouts specified in the bill are less than what had been discussed in the negotiations and are much less than what some victims now receive. People with mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos, would receive $750,000 each under the bill. Negotiators had discussed $1 million or more, and the current system often yields multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and settlements.

The proposal by Senator Hatch does not contain a federal guarantee that victims of asbestos disease will be compensated if the trust fund is exhausted, a provision that labor views as vital. The legislation "is merely a vehicle to relieve businesses and insurers of hundreds of billions of dollars of liability while significantly shortchanging the asbestos victims of the fair compensation they are due," Mr. Hiatt said.

Companies with large asbestos liabilities are not happy with the prospect of no resolution to this issue if negotiations fall apart and Congress is unable to pass any legislation. According to Bloomberg.com,

Hiatt said labor would be able to line up among Democrats the 41 votes needed to block Senate action on the bill.

The labor federation said Hatch's plan includes restrictive requirements for determining whether a worker is eligible to file a claim for cancer and other diseases caused by exposure to asbestos.

"People will not even get in the front door'' to claim benefits, said Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO's occupational safety director.

The AFL-CIO also said the plan wouldn't provide adequate compensation for asbestos-related cancers that have resulted in larger court judgments.

As of this afternoon, Hatch, perhaps noticing the negative reaction of the stock market, still had not introduced the bill. Both sides agree, however, that a trust fund is the answer to the problem that, like the mineral itself, never dies.

Labels: Asbestos

Symbolic of B.S

Here is a letter (assuredly never to be published) that I sent to the Washington Post today in response to this paragraph that appeared in an article about Bush's "victory" on tax cuts:

The 2009 elimination of dividend taxes for poorer taxpayers is something of a symbolic gesture for Bush, since the bulk of dividends go to more affluent taxpayers. About 65 million households, with taxable incomes of $47,450 for couples and $28,400 for singles, file tax returns that top out in the 10 percent or 15 percent tax bracket, according to Brookings Institution economist Peter Orszag. Of those, about 9.3 million -- or 14 percent -- have some dividend income. About 80 percent of dividend income goes to higher-income households.

Dear Editor:

The Post writes that elimination of dividend taxes for poorer taxpayers is something of a "symbolic" gesture for Bush because the bulk of dividends go to more affluent taxpayers.

A more accurate word would be "dishonest," "deceitful," "mendacious or "fraudulent." Bush was selling his tax cut as a boost for middle and lower income taxpayers when he knew all along that only upper income taxpayers would profit.

Jordan Barab
Takoma Park, MD

">

What’s Going on in Congress?

For health and safety activists, this year might be known as “the year of McWane.” The Frontline/New York Times series on the health and safety tragedies caused by McWane’s callous disregard for worker safety, and OSHA’s inability to crack down effectively is still reverberating. OSHA has announced a new “enhanced” enforcement policy that will look at a company’s record on a national corporate-wide basis, instead of a facility basis.

The Bush administration seems to have no intention, however, of seeking other enhancements, such as stiffer penalties and an enhanced ability to seek criminal citations and jail time for employers who willfully disregard the law and injure or kill workers.

In fact, some Republicans seem to be heading in the exact opposite direction. You may remember Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA), elected with the “Gingrich Class” of 1994 after running on an anti-OSHA platform, who first made a name for himself by claiming that OSHA had “killed the tooth fairy” when it issued the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Norwood is now chair of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, the committee that oversees OSHA.

In response to the Frontline and New York Times stories of the crimes of the McWane Corporation and OSHA’s inability to bring criminal prosecutions or enforce the law effectively, Norwood has introduced a bill that would further weaken OSHA enforcement, H.R. 1583, the “Occupational Safety and Health- Fairness Act of 2003.”

Norwood claims that the bill give employers, especially small businesses, “new tools to defend themselves against Occupational Safety and Health Administration citations they believe are not justified."

New Tools. Just what they need.

And how does he propose to do this? First, before determining a fine, OSHA must consider “the size and financial condition of the business, as well as the “good faith of the employer.” (“I’m really sorry that 12 foot deep trench collapsed on those workers. We told them to be careful. Workers are our most important resource. I promise I’ll buy the equipment needed to make sure this never happens again…just as soon as we make enough money to afford it."

Does this mean that the lives of people working for a less profitable company are worth less than a more profitable company?

I guess now OSHA inspectors will have to take courses in accounting and psychology.)

And consistent with the “blame the worker” philosophy, OSHA citations would have to take into consideration “the degree of responsibility or culpability for the violation of the employer, the employees, and/or other persons.” (It is not clear whether “other persons” includes God or Mother Nature) So, if the employee was being careless, clearly the poor employer shouldn’t be cited.

Finally, to make sure that employers are “not forced into settlement when they believe OSHA is wrong, just because it is the most cost-effective option available,” Norwood’s bill requires OSHA to pay all fees and expenses of small businesses if OSHA loses the case. (The “funny” thing is that while I was at OSHA, there were numerous situations where the OSHA was reluctant to cite an employer – especially for poor ergonomic conditions – because the business – with the help of the Chamber of Commerce and other business associations – had much more money to spend on a case than OSHA did.)

So far, all Republicans on the committee have co-sponsored the bill. No Democrats have seen the (apparently well-hidden) virtues of this approach. Representative Major Owens (D-NY), ranking minority member of the Workforce Protections Committee, said that Norwood’s bill would give employers incentives to disobey the law,” according to Inside OSHA. OSHA has not stated whether it supports the bill or not.

Good News

But some sanity does exist in Congress. Senator John Corzine (D-NJ) is getting ready to introduce a bill that would significantly strengthen OSHA’s enforcement capabilities, according to Inside OSHA: “Corzine’s bill would increase from six months to 10 years the maximum criminal penalty for those who willfully violate workplace safety laws in the case of an employee fatality. In addition, the bill would increase from six months to one year the penalty for intentionally misleading an OSHA inspector." Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is considering a similar bill in the House.

Although OSHA can currently refer cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, Justice rarely prosecutes because their resources are spread thin and the penalties are so light

In March, Corzine sent a letter to OSHA Director John Henshaw “seeking his support for legislation he will introduce that would increase criminal penalties for employers who willfully violate safety laws.”

During OSHA’s House appropriation hearing, Henshaw, responding to a question by Rep. DeLauro, stated that OSHA had a good penalty structure, but that he was willing to “work with Congress,” A code-phrase for “that’s the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve ever heard, Congresswoman, but I’m can’t say that in a Congressional hearing.”

OSHA Appropriations

At the beginning of May, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, John Henshaw testified before the House Appropriations Committee on the Administration’s proposed FY 04 budget request. To summarize the testimony:

Blah blah, blah blah, for the first time... blah blah blah voluntary blah blah blah partnerships blah blah fair enforcement blah blah blah comprehensive ergonomics program blah blah voluntary guidelines blah blah blah outreach blah blah blah compliance assistance blah blah Hispanic workers blah blah blah consultation.

If you read between the blahs, you may notice that there was no mention of new standards – like the tuberculosis standard or the standard that would require employers to pay for personal protective equipment. Both of these were on the verge of being issued when the Bush Administration was selected. Both have been moved to the back burner. Earlier this month, UFCW petitioned OSHA to issue the PPE standard and AFSCME petitioned the agency to issue the Tuberculosis standard.

The bottom line is that OSHA is asking for $450 million for FY 2004, a 3.3 million cut from the FY 2003 budget. One of the areas that the Administration is trying to cut significantly for the third year in a row is worker training grants. The administration is requesting only $4 million for FY 2004, a 60% cut from $11.75 million allocated for FY 2003. The administration also tried to cut the grant funding last year, but the Senate put the money back in and ordered OSHA to continue funding its five-year grant program that was initiated in 2000 by then-Assistant Secretary Charles Jeffress.

According to Inside OSHA, Rep. Rosa DeLauro “pointed out that the grant program is consistent with the Bush administration’s ‘goal of non-enforcement’ because the funds are used for education”

Henshaw argued that OSHA could do more with less; that $4 million would create a “grater impact” than $11 million by moving away from “one-on-one training programs.” OSHA has stated in the past that instead of training actual workers, it would like to use the training funds to develop internet based programs, which would be especially useful for immigrant workers, who would presumably run home to their trailer parks from their jobs at the poultry plant, jump on their high speed internet connection, do a little “e-training” before feeding the kids, putting them to bed and running off to their second jobs.

That’s all for now. We’ll keep you posted.

Labels: Charlie Norwood

So Long Christie

Proudest Accomplishment: Protecting the Nation's Chemical Industry

I have to admit, I won’t be sorry to see Christie Todd Whitman go. I’m sure she had better intentions than the Bush Administration allowed, but good intentions and $1.10 will get you a non-rush hour ride on the Metro. Integrity, on the other hand, is worth something. I would have thought better of her had she sent a message to Bush blasting the obvious corporate control of the Administration’s environmental agenda. But that would clearly be too much to ask for.

More knowledgeable minds than I will write her political obituary. I’ll settle for a few comments about this paragraph of her letter of resignation:

In addition, the Agency has played a key role in responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the subsequent anthrax attack and in promoting the security of our homeland. The work EPA did in the aftermath of those attacks will long be a proud chapter in this Agency's history. As the federal lead for protecting the Nation's water infrastructure and the chemical industry, we also have added significantly to efforts to reduce the vulnerability of those sectors to terrorist attack.

There are a lot of angry and sick New Yorkers who think that the EPA dropped the ball big time by dismissing within days of 9/11 any possible health threat posed by the virtual pulverization of the World Trade Centers. You can check out the NYCOSH website for more information on that subject.

But the real whopper is the last sentence, a Freudian slip when parsed: "As the federal lead for protecting the Nation's water infrastructure and the chemical industry." Protecting the Nation's... chemical industry?" Well, yeah, but I didn't think she was supposed to be quite so up front about it.

I'm charitably assuming she really meant "protecting the security of the nation's chemical industry [and] added significantly to efforts to reduce the vulnerability of those sectors to terrorist attack.” The only possible response to that claim is "Huh?"

The only significant act I remember coming from EPA on this issue was to drop the ball last October, claiming that EPA had decided not to regulate in the area of chemical plant security because they feared getting sued – by their friends. Wouldn’t want to issue any chemical industry security regulations if you thought your were going to get sued by the chemical industry. Wouldn’t be prudent, in the words of Bush the elder.

Oh and they organized a few visits to chemical plants to discuss their voluntary efforts prevent terrorist attacks -- without regulations or government interference, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, Back on the (Tank) Farm

Speaking of chemical plant security, the Wall St. Journal had a good article today (appropriately titled "Chemical Manufacturers Elude Crackdown on Toxic Materials"), unlike their atrocious editorial from a few weeks ago that I wrote about.

The article discusses the early days not too long after 9/11 when the push toward "inherently safer technologies" in Senator Corzine's bill made sense:

The logic won influential converts. Mr. Corzine's legislation set as one goal "reducing usage and storage of chemicals by changing production methods and processes." President Bush's Environmental Protection Agency drafted its own bill -- for internal administration debate -- with similar goals.

That was before the chemical industry, shocked that the bill cleared the Senate committee unanimously, geared up for battle.

While lawmakers went on vacation, the chemical lobby went to work. The ACC and the API called on other business groups to gin up broad-based resistance. When the new coalition met at the API's Washington offices in early August, Kendra Martin, the petroleum institute's director of security, says she asked them: "Are you aware of the Chemical Security Act and how onerous it might be?" On Aug. 29, 30 groups -- from truckers to paint makers -- signed a letter to all senators urging them to oppose the legislation.

Prodded by the Fertilizer Institute, farm lobbyists wrote a letter expressing concern about a ban on "chemicals responsibly used and needed by agriculture" such as ammonia, a vital ingredient in fertilizers. The 3,700-member National Propane Gas Association generated 8,500 letters warning of the demise of the backyard gas grill. The Chlorine Chemistry Council raised the specter of massive economic disruption, calculating in position papers that "chlorine products and their derivatives account for 45% of the nation's gross domestic product."

The Corzine bill didn't actually call for banning any of those materials, but opponents nevertheless warned of unintended consequences.

And then the "greenbaiting" started:

Seaver Sowers, a lobbyist at the Agricultural Retailers Association, says he made sure to tell members and legislators that Greenpeace backed the Corzine bill. The Ohio Chemistry Technology Council rallied companies to contact the state's senators to offset an "aggressive grassroots campaign" by "Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other environmental activist groups."

When Congress returned in early September, bipartisan support for the legislation unraveled. Seven Republican senators who had voted for the bill in committee now issued a statement saying the proposal "misses the mark." They declared: "We feel compelled to offer amendments to address concerns ... that have arisen from scores of stakeholders."

Of course, there's more and more evidence that the chemical industry is not really concerned

Companies have struggled to balance security and profits. DuPont Co. says that since Sept. 11 it has spent $20 million to bolster security, but the company is hesitant to undertake much more. "There is an endless amount of money we can spend on security," Charles O. Holliday Jr., DuPont's chief executive officer, says in an interview. "The question is: How do we have enough security and stay competitive?"

Critics worry that many companies are more focused on the latter.

And although Senator Inhofe (R-OK)has introduced a bill that the industry has labeled "a good start," House Republicans don't seem to anxious to do anything: "I think what the administration and private sector have done so far appears to be adequate," says Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of a key subcommittee handling the issue. "I don't personally see a need for legislation of any kind."

Good thing we had Christie Whitman taking care of things. Don't know how we'll possibly feel safe without her.

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

Ergonomics Comes to the Presidential Race: Dems Call for New Standard

According to this article from The Hill, one of the earliest crimes of the Bush Administration, the repeal of the OSHA ergonomics standard, has become a campiagn issue.

Eight of the nine candidates who are seeking the Democratic nomination have indicated they would seek a new regulation. Phone calls to the Rev. Al Sharpton's campaign were not returned.

At a time when some liberals complain that differences between the Republican Party and Democratic Party are vanishing, the regulation of ergonomic injuries is a standout issue. Every Republican in Congress voted to overturn the Clinton OSHA rule in 2001. The Senate voted 56-44 to reject it. The House vote was 222-198.

And it's even the issue in at least one Senate campaign:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted against the Clinton rule, but says OSHA should regulate ergonomic injuries. As an influential appropriator,
Specter infuriated business groups for years by repeatedly objecting to proposed budget language that sought to block OSHA's rule.

Meanwhile, Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) is mounting a bit for Specter's seat in the 2004 election, an