Confined Space

WSJ Spews Bile on WA Ergo

Well, they just couldn't help themselves. It took almost two weeks for the Wall St. Journal to come out with an idiot-torial gloating over the loss of the Washington State ergonomics standard.

There are so many deeply disturbed things about this piece that you all should be grateful that I can't link it. Nor will I bother to go into all of the lies and distortions. Anyway, you've heard them all before. (Over and over again.) For the life of me, though, I can never figure out whether they actually believe the lies, or they're really just the cynical cretins they appear to be. Delusional, evil or just stupid? Or all three?

But there are a few areas in this column so profoundly low that I can't help holding them up for the idiots that they are.

The Journal is apalled that
The rules would have applied to a huge swath of the state's economy, everyone from grocery checkers to landscapers, couriers and even nursing home employees.
"Even nursing home employees?!" If there is any justice in the universe, the editors of the Journal will spend eternity lifting slippery, uncooperative 300 pound nursing home patients onto the toilet, then be stricken with back injuries and end up unable to support their families or play with their children. Over and over and over again.

Yeah, I know, it's mean to wish that on anyone, but that's the fate to which they've condemned thousands of nursing home workers -- nursing home employees who will hopefully drop their fat carcasses on the floor every day when they end their sorry lives being cared for by the workers that they didn't give a shit about.
"Naturally, the vagueness of the regulations would have been tested in court." They already were tested in court, you idiots, and you lost.
The word "Patronizing" comes to mind: "No one doubts that 'repetitive stress' injuries are real, and the writer of this very editorial has felt a twinge or two in his own typewriting thumb and arms."

"Yeah, yeah, yeah," the industry folk are saying as they read this (I know some of you are lurking out there in cyberspace.) "Boo fucking hoo. We won, you lost. So cry me a river."

And they're right. They beat us. And they did it by being sensitive to the voters' fears. The state AFL-CIO had found the initiative losing badly just weeks before the election.

But voters were swayed by arguments that the rules would place Washington at a competitive disadvantage with other states and perhaps lead to further job loss. Washington has already lost 96,000 jobs, or 3.5% of its workforce in the past two years. The state's seasonally adjusted jobless rate was 7.6% in September, well above the national rate of 6.1%.

Voters were afraid of that the ergonomics standard would cause job loss and the bad guys effectively used lie upon lie to stoke those fears.

But then the writer couldn't help slipping back into his delusional reverse universe:

Forces favoring regulation typically have the easier political task because they are advocating things ("safe workplaces") that everyone wants. But if they're given the right information and arguments, voters are smart enough to understand that government regulation also has costs."

This is a true statement. But only if by "right," they mean "whatever works to convince people that lies are true." And if by "smart" they really mean "vulnerable."

In other words, if that sentence read "But if they're given ~~the right~~ incorrect information and arguments, voters are ~~smart~~ vulnerable enough to ~~understand~~ believe that government regulation also has costs."

There, that's better.

"If ergonomics rules can't pass in Washington, they probably can't pass anywhere." This may also be true. But we (unions, public health activists, and maybe a few deep pockets) have the power to turn that statement into a lie as well.

Personally, after reading this editorial and hearing about their campaign, I don't know how these guys can look their children in the face.

I wouldn't be able to.

Labels: Ergonomics

Poetry Break

Not enough poetry in this Blog. Here's an excerpt from "Report to the Stockholders" by John Beecher (sent to me by Mark Catlin at SEIU)

he fell of his crane
and his head hit the steel floor and broke like an egg
he lived a couple of hours with his brains bubbling out
and then he died
and the safety clerk made out a report saying
it was carelessness
and the craneman should have known better
from twenty years experience
than not to watch his step
and slip in some grease on top of his crane
and then the safety clerk told the superintendent
he’d ought to fix that guardrail

More poetry submissions will be accepted. Who says we got no culture here at Confined Space?

Is Eliot Spitzer the Only Activist Having Fun These Days?

Everyone complains to me that this Blog is too depresssing. I agree. Here's some good stuff.

If you haven't heard of New York state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, start paying attention. You'll be hearing more about him in the future (When't the next election for Governor of New York?)

I first met him testified in support of a particularly controversial section of the federal ergonomics standard -- work removal protection. Opponents claimed that the OSHA proposal, which would have required pay to people unable to work due to ergonomcs injuries, was a violation of the OSH Act which prohibits OSHA from affecting state workers compensation practices. Spitzer not only came down to Washington to testify at the OSHA hearing, but organized a whole group of state Attorneys General to sign a statement supporting the ergonomics standard.

He has been regularly featured for going after Wall St. firms who violate the law, but are not prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He has an op-ed in the New York Times today that talks about the failure of the Bush Administration's regulatory enforcement and the need for the states to pick up the slack.

Much of the piece deals with weak SEC enforcement, but he also addresses the administration's environmental failures:

With two decisions in the last two weeks, the Bush administration has sent its clearest message yet that it values corporate interests over the interests of average Americans....It is not surprising that the commission would sanction a deal that ignores consumers and is unsatisfactory to state regulators. Just look at the Bush administration's decision to abandon pending enforcement actions and investigations of Clear Air Act violations.

Even supporters of the Bush administration's environmental policy were stunned when the E.P.A. announced that it was closing pending investigations into more than 100 power plants and factories for violating the Clean Air Act — and dropping 13 cases in which it had already made a determination that the law had been violated.

Regulators may disagree about what our environmental laws should look like. But we should all be able to agree that companies that violated then-existing pollution laws should be punished.

Those environmental laws were enacted to protect a public that was concerned about its health and safety. By letting companies that violated the Clean Air Act off the hook, the Environmental Protection Agency has effectively issued an industry-wide pardon. This will only embolden polluters to continue practices that harm the environment.

My office had worked with the agency to investigate polluters, and will continue to do so when possible. But today a bipartisan coalition of 14 state attorneys general will sue the agency to halt the implementation of weaker standards. In addition, we will continue to press the lawsuits that have been filed. We have also requested the E.P.A. records for the cases that have been dropped, and will file lawsuits if they are warranted by the facts.

And as promised:

A coalition of 14 states plus the District of Columbia filed papers in federal court today in an effort to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from introducing a new rule that the states say will seriously weaken the provisions of the Clean Air Act and send more pollution into the atmosphere.

***

The 14 states states that sued today want the new rule to be put on hold while the case is brought to trial to determine whether or not the regulations are legal. The new rule "violates the plain language of the Clean Air Act, conflicts with Congressional intent, and contradicts longstanding court rulings," the states said in a statement today.

"It is a sad day in America when a coalition of states must go to federal court to defend the Clean Air Act against the misguided actions of the federal agency created to protect the environment," the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, said. "But in this matter, the E.P.A. is standing with polluters instead of with the people it is supposed to protect, and the states have no choice but to take this action."

Weapons of Mass Destruction Found -- In Our Backyards

Click onto the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) chemical plant security website and you'll be asked the question:"Two years after the terrorist attacks on our country, Americans understandably are asking 'Are we safer?' "

Those of you who watched "60 Minutes" last night saw a frightening spectacle of reporters with cameras wandering casually through an unguarded chemical plant filled with hazardous substances that, with a bit of help from a home-made bomb, could have killed and injured thousands of nearby residents.

Reporters from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and 60 Minutes inspected over 50 chemical plants over the past six months.

Are we safer now than two years ago? Judge for yourselves.

"60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft and a CBS cameraman strolled to the tanks of lethal boron trifluoride at Neville Chemical Co. on Neville Island. Crossing through open or unlocked gates, they spent more than 30 minutes at the unguarded works during two undetected visits. Plant officials called the police only after the journalists confronted Neville's security chief with their findings. Neville Township police then cited the men for defiant trespass. According to Neville's filings with the Environmental Protection Agency, a catastrophic release of the corrosive vapors would threaten the lives of nearly 38,000 within three miles.

These weren't isolated problems. The reporters fround example after chilling example:

Federal officials were most concerned about the easy penetration of security at the nation's potentially deadliest plants. At the mammoth Sony Technology Center in Westmoreland County, an unsecured gate, distracted guards and unconcerned employees let a reporter reach 200,000 pounds of chlorine gas. No one stopped him as he touched train derailing levers, waved to security cameras, and photographed chlorine tankers and a nitric acid vat. If ruptured, one Sony railcar could spew gas 13 miles, endangering 190,000 people. Two other plants penetrated by the Trib and "60 Minutes" -- Univar and Millennium Chemical in Baltimore -- each put more than 1 million neighbors at risk of chlorine poisoning.

As faithful readers of Confined Space know, chemical plant security and competing formulas for addressing the problems have been frequent subjects of this Blog. To summarize, Senator Jon Corzine has been pushing legislation since 9/11 that would force the chemical industry to implement, where possible, inherently safer technologies (e.g. substituting safer chemicals, storing smaller amounts of hazardous chemicals, etc.), along with increased traditional security measures. The American Chemistry Council and their clients in Congress managed to kill Corzine's bill and instead are favoring an approach that focusses almost entirely on traditional security (guns and fences), and relies on compliance with voluntary guidelines developed by the American Chemical Council.

“My bill was crushed by the American Chemistry Council. It was crushed by those who were looking after their private interests and not the public interests,” says Corzine.

The ACC has an extensive chemical security program as part of its "Responsible Care® Security Code, which addresses site, transportation, and cyber security."

He contends that members are doing everything possible to ensure plant security.

“I think that one of the things that everybody has to understand about the business of chemistry is that we're in the risk management business,” says Greg Lebedev, the president of the American Chemistry Council, which represents 150 of the largest chemical companies in America.

Really? I thought they were in the chemical production business. So do their stockholders.

So what's the problem? Plant workers seem to have a pretty good handle on the root causes of chemical plants' failure to secure their facilities.

A reporter easily canvassed the sprawling Allegheny Ludlum mill in Brackenridge three days in a row, following a path down a bluff, across the railroad, behind a guard shack and up to 100,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride, a lethal toxin used to "pickle" stainless steel.

Longtime Brackenridge employees blamed lax security on recent guard cutbacks and indifference. If released, the mill's acid could waft nearly a mile and threaten more than 16,000 residents with blindness, severe burns and death. A spill also would jeopardize water supplies drawn from the Allegheny and Ohio rivers.

Allegheny Ludlum officials declined to comment.

"I know they put in surveillance cameras, but we don't know if anyone is really watching," said Gerard Magoc, a Brackenridge steelworker for 31 years. "They put on a big show about searching cars, though. They're big on theft. ... They care more about protecting their toilet paper than they do about their hazardous materials."

I'm shocked.

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

Terminating Pollution Lawsuits

Those of you who used to be fans of Terminator movies (when that was not politically incorrect) remember that the plot involved sending a "terminator" back through history to eliminate the leader of the rebellion against the ruling machines.

Republicans in Congress seem to have taken that plot line to heart. A little noticed item in the energy bill that has emerged from a House-Senate conference committee contains a little item that attempts to change history:

In a decision that surprised advocacy groups following the measure, a provision protecting producers of a gasoline additive blamed for groundwater contamination was made retroactive to Sept. 5, potentially disrupting a number of actions to recoup cleanup costs that have been filed since then in New York, California, New Hampshire and elsewhere.

Robert Gordon, a Manhattan lawyer who has filed some of the cases involving the additive, MTBE, said the bill neutralized the kind of product-defect claim that has been the most successful argument used against the producers. He said he and others were stunned by the Sept. 5 date, saying it would throw into question lawsuits he has filed since then on behalf of 100 local governments and water companies seeking cleanup money.

Never let it be said, however, that Republican members of Congress aren't looking out for the downtrodden and abused of our society. Petroleum companies are complaining that they started using MTBE "because the federal government promoted the additive as a fuel oxygenate to ease air pollution," and therefore the government should assist them in making the transition away from MTBE. OK, maybe that makes some sense. But like the little piggies that they are, MTBE producers argued that if a little assistance is good, more must be better.

In protecting manufacturers of MTBE, the bill also grants them a possible $2 billion in transition aid to switch from MTBE, an increase over the $800 million they were expected to get. The substance could remain in use until 2015, when it would be banned unless the president intervened.

And who are the backers of these provisions? One guess. Right!

The provisions for MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, were promoted by Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, and Republican Representatives Billy Tauzin of Louisiana and Joe L. Barton ofTexas. Both states are home to MTBE producers.

Those concerned about protecting our environment should understand that, with the governments retreat from regulation and enforcement, the ability to sue polluters is one of the only weapons left in our arsenal. Undermining that system with "back to the future" tactics bodes ill for environmental, worker and community safety and health.

Between the MTBE provisions and other "goodies" for the energy industry hidden in the bill,

"The big winner is big oil. The big loser is anyone who breathes, pays a utility bill or drinks water," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for the United States Public Interest Research Group, which has been fighting new energy legislation since a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney issued the Bush administration's energy policy in 2001.

Congress may vote on this legislation tomorrow. You know what to do.

"Definitely, it could have been prevented"

The only thing that makes me madder than fatal trench collapses are fatal confined space incidents, especially where, as in this case, one of the fatalities was the attempted rescuer.

This was your classic confined space tragedy where one worker goes down into a sewer line without any monitoring or compliance with OSHA's confined space standard. He passes out from hydrogen sufide exposure or oxygen deficiency and is swept down the sewer. A second goes in to rescue him. He also dies. A third worker when down to rescue them. He luckily survived.

Killed at the site were Francisco Hernandez, 24, and Javier Cruz, 22. They were employees of L&B Vector Service. They had been hired by Houston-based Jimerson Underground, which was repairing sewer lines for the city of Edinburg, Texas.

The one redeeming aspect of this article -- especially compared with the article below -- was the fact that Edinburg Fire Chief Shawn Snider was not shy about stating that "Definitely, it could have been prevented ... there is no excuse for not providing safety equipment for protecting your workers."

According to Jose E. Cruz, the accident victim's older brother

"They did not have the proper equipment....They have people working for the city or this utility company and they had no face masks, no goggles, no gloves, and in the case of an emergency, no hooks to get you out. Nothing for the safety of the employees. It was negligence."

Cruz said his younger brother was married with two young daughters, and his wife is expecting a third child.

"I don't see how a company, especially with a worker with two kids and a baby on the way, would let them work in conditions like that -- without protective suits and with toxic wastes," Cruz said.

One more interesting item. Both of these workers and the construction worker killed in the trench collapse that I wrote about below were working for companies contracting for municipalities. There are several ironies here. Both cities are in states that have no OSHA coverage for public employees, which means that had these employees been working for the cities, there would have been no OSHA investigation or citation because these workers would have had no right to a safe workplace.

On the other hand, being public employees, it is much more likely (at least in Ohio) that these workers were organized and therefore had much better access to information about safety hazards and some ability to take collective action to prevent these tragedies.

Although, we had plenty of confined space and trenching fatalities among our members when I was at AFSCME. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to study whether contractors for public entities have a higher injury and death rate than public employees doing similar jobs. We've clearly seen a trend, for example, in chemical plants and petroleum refineries and other industries. More and more of the most hazardous jobs are being contracted out, often to companies who pay less, provide fewer benefits, and little if any safety or health protections.

Labels: Trench Hazards

Man Killed In Trench Collapse. “Nothing could have prevented it,” Says Office Manager

Give me a break. I'd stake a considerable amount of money on betting that something could have prevented it -- like maybe complying with the OSHA trenching and excavation standard.

This is a story abou the death of construction worker James Carpenter, 54, who was killed when a trench collapsed on top of him while installing a sanitary sewer line for the City of Zanesville This was not your typical trenching fatality. The company, Zemba Brothers, contracting for the City of Zanesville, OH, was using a trench box in the 12 foot deep trench. According to the office manager, Shala Zemba, (who apparently doubles as the safety director?), "It was a weird accident,” she said. “They weren’t even back to work yet. He was the only one in there. The trench box didn’t collapse — no dirt got into it. The dirt that trapped him was outside the box."

Now, I assume this means that the dirt piled up outside the trench collapsed into the trench. "Weird?"

“Nothing could have prevented it,” she said. “He was a wonderful employee who had lots of experience. It’s just a big mystery and a really tragic accident. We’re really going to miss him. He was the perfect worker — he was always very loyal, very wonderful. He will be entirely missed.”

A big mystery? "Nothing" could have prevented it?

How about OSHA standard 1926.651(j)(2) which states

Employees shall be protected from excavated or other materials or equipment that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling into excavations. Protection shall be provided by placing and keeping such materials or equipment at least 2 feet (.61 m) from the edge of excavations, or by the use of retaining devices that are sufficient to prevent materials or equipment from falling or rolling into excavations, or by a combination of both if necessary.

The paper also reported that a large amount of rain may have contributed to the collpase. Which may be the reason for OSHA standard 1926.651(k)(1)

... An inspection shall be conducted by the competent person prior to the start of work and as needed throughout the shift. Inspections shall also be made after every rainstorm or other hazard increasing occurrence.

Mystery solved.

One of the problems with stupid statements like "nothing could have prevented this" is that most people believe it. You who are reading this know that there is almost no such thing as a workplace accident that can be prevented, but the general public doesn't. And the more they are fed garbage like this, the less public outrage there is over workers getting killed on the job. Much more on this theme here.

Labels: Trench Hazards

Never Never Land

Iraq: Where Conservative Dreams are Realized

If you're paying attention, you may have noticed new articles the Bushistas' attempt to remake Iraq in the same conservative image that they are trying to impose on the folks back home. They're privatizing everything in sight and are even imposing a "flat tax."

And then there's one more sacred conservative icon: anti-unionism. David Bacon writes in the Los Angeles Times of the attempts by U.S. occupation authorities to squash any sign of union activity in Iraq.

In plants and factories all over Iraq, workers are quickly organizing unions. They want better wages. They want shorter hours (workers at the refinery and elsewhere often work 11- and 13-hour shifts without additional pay). They want safety shoes, goggles, masks and other protective gear. Most of all, they want a voice in the future of their jobs.

But in their quest for what they see as simple fairness in the workplace, they are encountering a determined foe: the Coalition Provisional Authority. Whenever the new unions try to talk with the managers or ministries that operate the plants, they're told that a law passed by Saddam Hussein in 1987 is still being enforced by the CPA. This law says that workers in state-owned enterprises (where the majority of Iraqis work) have no right to form unions or to bargain for contracts.

The law violates at least two conventions of the United Nations' International Labor Organization. But on June 5, CPA chief L. Paul Bremer III backed up this decree with another that Iraqi union activists say bans strikes and demonstrations that would disrupt economic activity.

U.S. funding in Iraq seems primarily focused on two things — an overwhelming military presence and the transformation of the Iraqi economy from one in which the bulk of industry is state-owned to one in which it is in private hands. Both are key parts of a plan to make the country attractive to foreign investors, who, Bremer seems to feel, might find the presence of unions a disincentive to investment. And nothing can stand in the way of privatization.

Privatization of Iraqi industry is also not very popular among Iraqi workers:

Iraqi workers view the prospect of privatizing their workplaces with dread, fearing the sell-off will bring massive layoffs in order to maximize profits. Al Daura's manager, Dathar Al-Kashab, predicted that with privatization, "I'll have to fire 1,500 [of the refinery's 3,000] workers. In America, when a company lays people off, there's unemployment insurance, and they won't die from hunger. If I dismiss employees now, I'm killing them and their families."

Outside the gates, the unemployed go hungry and even homeless. Some 70% of Iraqi workers have no jobs. Though Congress may have appropriated billions for "reconstruction," Nuri Jafer, the deputy minister of labor and social affairs, says he can find "no country willing to fund our plans" for a minimal system of unemployment benefits. Reconstruction itself is invisible on the streets. Work may be proceeding on the pipelines and ports necessary to get oil exports restarted, but huge piles of the war's rubble lie untouched.

Well, if you can't find any weapons of mass destruction, you can always go after the weapons of mass organization.

The Perils of Privatization in Iraq

Great idea: focus the military on what it does best -- fighting. All the rest of the jobs can be contracted out to Bechtel, Haliburton and lots of other smaller civilian government contractors. Right?

One problem. They may not be soldiers or even government employees, but they still get killed:

Unarmed, apolitical and supposedly on missions to help the populace, the thousands of contractors here nonetheless have become targets for those who are angry with the occupation. Nine civilians working for the government have died in attacks here since the war began. Twenty-nine others have been wounded and dozens have had close calls.

As a result, security costs -- guards, armored cars, alarms, barbed wire perimeters, hazard insurance premiums -- are increasing the price of reconstruction projects by at least 2 percent. For Bechtel alone, it has added $50 million to the cost, officials said.

Anyone at OSHA working on this?

Poison Pill

To continue the series of topics not directly related to workplace safety: Medicare and Prescription Drug Bill. Because even if workers live to retirement, it's looking increasingly likely, if the Republicans get their way, that they won't have adequate health insurance to get through old age.

To listen to President Bush, the failure of Congress to pass a prescription drug bill is all due to (Democrat induced) partisianship.

"The choice is simple: Either we will have more debate, more delay and more deadlock, or we'll make real progress," Bush said in an appearance at Walt Disney World here. Urging lawmakers to break the stalemate, he added: "We've come far. Let's finish the job."

Well, at least he picked an appropriate place to make this statement.

The reality, however, is much, much different, but it's a reality shrouded in technical issues that almost no American will have the patience to decipher, even if they have the ability to find the information in the first place.

That's why NY Times columnist Paul Krugman is a national treasure. His ability to reduce complicated issues to terms that are short enough and clear enough for most people to understand is a talent that few politicians or journalists possess.

A Congressional conference is now trying to agree on prescription drug legislation. But beware of politicians bearing gifts — the bill will contain measures that have nothing to do with prescription drugs, and a lot to do with hostility to Medicare as we know it. Indeed, it may turn out to be a Trojan horse that finally allows conservative ideologues, who have unsuccessfully laid siege to Medicare since the days of Barry Goldwater, to breach its political defenses.
***

Meanwhile, another proposal — to force Medicare to compete with private insurers — seems intended to undermine the whole system.

This proposal goes under the name of "premium support." Medicare would no longer cover whatever medical costs an individual faced; instead, retirees would receive a lump sum to buy private insurance. (Those who opted to remain with the traditional system would have to pay extra premiums.) The ostensible rationale for this change is the claim that private insurers can provide better, cheaper medical care.

But many studies predict that private insurers would cherry-pick the best (healthiest) prospects, leaving traditional Medicare with retirees who are likely to have high medical costs. These higher costs would then be reflected in the extra payments required to stay in traditional fee-for-service coverage. The effect would be to put health care out of reach for many older Americans. As a 2002 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation judiciously put it, "Difficulties in adjusting for beneficiary health status . . . could make the traditional Medicare FFS program unaffordable to a large portion of beneficiaries."

What's going on? Why, bait and switch, of course. Few politicians want to be seen opposing a bill that finally provides retirees with prescription drug coverage. That makes a prescription drug bill a perfect vehicle for smuggling in provisions that sound as if they have something to do with improving Medicare, yet are actually designed to undermine it.

OK. Now I understand what's going on and what's at stake. The problem is how we get that message to everyone else who doesn't read the op-ed page of the NY Times every day?

It's Always Something

Change of topic. This health and safety stuff gets so depressing sometimes. Let's talk about other depressing issues. And why not? Without the ability to vote or civil rights, what's the point?

I've been noticing, but not closely following the controversy over computerized voting machines. (I have to ration what I get upset over.) I am a computer-nerd, however, so when I saw this nice, concise, but terrifying article in the NY Times computer section, I took note. You should too.

Then came last Sunday's New York Times, which presented a terrifying report on Diebold, a leading maker of paperless touch-screen voting machines. Eight million of us will be tapping on Diebold computers in the next Presidential election.

So what's wrong with that?

Wrong Thing 1: Wally O'Dell, the company's chief executive, is a Republican fundraiser. He writes letters to wealthy Bush contributors vowing to "deliver" his state's electoral votes to the Bush campaign. He hosts campaign meetings at his house. He's also a member of Bush's "Rangers and Pioneers" club (each member of whom must contribute at least $100,000 to the 2004 re-election campaign).

No matter what your politics, you can't deny that there's a strong whiff of conflict of interest here

Read it. It only gets worse.

And then there's a rather terrifying speech by Al Gore on November 9 at a MoveOn Conference. It's good. If Jimmy Carter is the nation's best ex-President, Al Gore is the nation's greatest near-President.

Or, to take another change – and thanks to the librarians, more people know about this one – the FBI now has the right to go into any library and ask for the records of everybody who has used the library and get a list of who is reading what. Similarly, the FBI can demand all the records of banks, colleges, hotels, hospitals, credit-card companies, and many more kinds of companies. And these changes are only the beginning. Just last week, Attorney General Ashcroft issued brand new guidelines permitting FBI agents to run credit checks and background checks and gather other information about anyone who is “of investigatory interest,” - meaning anyone the agent thinks is suspicious - without any evidence of criminal behavior.

So, is that fine with everyone?

Listen to the way Israel’s highest court dealt with a similar question when, in 1999, it was asked to balance due process rights against dire threats to the security of its people:

“This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day they (add to) its strength.”

I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

Because it is simply not true.

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy.

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.

In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.

Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people – while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion.

But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens. Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.

Comments: Let me hear from you

As you can see, in an attempt to make this more interactive, I've added a comment link to the page. You can add your two-cents, others can read it, and add another comment supporting you or tearing you to shreds. Sounds like fun. Use it. Seriously, I think a little more reader participation would be a good thing.

FLASH! Auto Mechanics: Don't Worry, Be Happy. Asbestos is Safe.

Another in a continuing series on lies and lying liars who are trying to kill workers.......

(This story has been flashing through my e-mail for a couple of weeks, but like a faint memory of a bad dream, I've avoided reading it...until now)

True or false: Asbestos is still used in this country.

While Confined Space readers would get the correct answer to this question, most Americans would probably say "false."

They are wrong. Although the major car makers say they no longer use asbestos, the brakes on many older cars contain the fibers. More than $124 million worth of asbestos brake material was imported into the United States last year. Thus, the potential danger will exist for decades as replacement brakes containing asbestos continue to be put on vehicles.

The Post-Dispatch talked to about two dozen St. Louis mechanics or garage managers. All but two said that asbestos had been banned and is no longer in brakes.

A little background. Not too long after I began working at AFSCME over 20 years ago, EPA (Reagan's EPA) came out with the "Gold Book," and accompanying videos describing the dangers of working with asbestos-containing brake linings and ways to prevent exposure. We invited in for demonstrations several manufacturers of equipment that encased the wheels and vacuumed up the dust while mechanics worked on the brake linings through a glove bag. Pretty nifty, considering we couldn't get rid of the asbestos.

Fast forward 17 years. Fearing lawsuits from workers or home mechanics made ill by asbestos in brake linings, industry lawyers are claiming that working with asbestos-containing brake linings is perfectly safe.

Yes, you read that right. The lawfirm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius has petitioned "the Environmental Protection Agency to stop distributing warning booklets, posters and videotapes that give mechanics guidance on the need to protect themselves from asbestos."

The main target in their petition is a thin gold-colored EPA pamphlet titled "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics." Tens of thousands of copies of the Gold Book and other asbestos warning material have been distributed to schools, garages, auto dealers and unions since they were first published 17 years ago.

For two years in the mid-'80s, the EPA and asbestos experts from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration gathered extensive research on exposure to mechanics from leading government and civilian scientists.

The petition says that the EPA has it all wrong and that brake repair work is safe.

"The continuing availability of the Gold Book, and its alarmist and inflammatory tone continues to hinder a fair-minded assessment of the hazards, if any, imposed to users of asbestos-containing friction products," the petition states.

I find this astonishing. One of the most hotly debated issues in Congress lately has been asbestos compensation legislation which is seeking to rescue firms from inherited asbestos liability. And the origin of that liability was the fact that asbestos companies had covered up the hazards of the material for decades. And what are they basing this piece of garbage on?

The lawyers took their action under an obscure law passed in 2001 called the Data Quality Act. It demands that government agencies work with the White House's Office of Management and Budget to establish a process that permits "affected persons" to challenge information gathered and disseminated by the government.

The Data Quality Act was yet another effort by business-backed right-wing, Republicans to "to ensure accountability to the taxpayer." As long as the taxpayer isn't inhaling asbestos fibers.

The fear, of course, was that the Act would be used to undermine workplace safety and and environmental protections. And as with most of the "good ideas" of this Congress and this Administration, our worst fears are generally exceeded.

OSHA is supposed to enforce regulations protecting workers from exposure to asbestos, but the agency hasn't been much help.

An examination by the Post-Dispatch of 31 years of OSHA inspection records shows that nationwide, fewer then ten gas stations a year had been cited for asbestos problems.

Richard Fairfax, OSHA's director of enforcement, said in a telephone interview that OSHA does not have a national program on asbestos exposure.

"I know we've done sampling. Going through the old inspection reports I found a couple that I did," Fairfax said. When asked when his were done, he answered: "A long time ago. In the '70s."

In 20 phone calls to various OSHA regional offices and some of the states designated to do their own OSHA inspections, the Post-Dispatch found no one who could recall the last time they'd actually tested for asbestos in a gas station or garage.

"Most of the operations are small businesses and do not have a lot of employees. Our targeting system is geared at employers with 40 or more workers," Fairfax said.

Senator Patty Murray, who has introduced a bill to ban asbestos completely, has sent a letter to EPA urging them to reject the petition. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has also sent a letter signed by five Congressmen to EPA and OSHA strongly opposing the petition.

The "funny" thing is that the company behind the lawfirm's petition is too embarrassed to allow the lawfirm to reveal its name. Personally, I can't blame them, although according to OMB Watch, this failure to take responsibility may present a legal problem:

It should be noted that it is unclear for who or for what specific reason this law firm has filed this petition. Under the EPA’s data quality guidelines, requestors seeking a correction of information must explain how they are affected by dissemination of the information. Nowhere in the petition does Morgan, Lewis & Bockius establish that they are an affected party. EPA would be well within the guidelines to simply reject the petition on these grounds.

The Tullhoma News (Tennessee) sums it up well

Even in this cynical age, when legislators exhibit greater concern for the financial health of polluters than for the physical well-being of their workers, the law firm's actions display a level of misanthropic malevolence rarely seen outside the tobacco industry. Scientific evidence gathered over the past 17 years confirms the deadly results of inhaling asbestos fibers. Federal and state governments should be doing more, not less, to warn and protect workers.

"Misanthropic malevolence." I like that.

Or, as my friend said below: A level of despicableness beyond imagining.

----------

More information on the hazards of asbestos in brake linings can be found here.

A Seattle Post-Intelligencer article from three years ago describing the extent of asbestos contamination in auto repair shops can be found here.

Labels: Asbestos

New Jersey Steps into Chemical Plant Security Debate

Governor James McGreevey of New Jersey is reportedly on the verge of issuing a memorandum of understanding between the state and three chemical industry organizations that would address chemical plant security and allow chemical companies to avoid state regulation.

Senator Jon Cozine (D-NJ), who has introduced legislation into the Senate requiring stronger federal regulations, is not pleased. A spokesman for Corzine stated that "Senator Corzine believes we need a strong regulatory approach with strong requirements and serious teeth."

Environmental and worker advocacy groups are also unhappy:

The memorandum would require chemical plants to adhere to the Responsible Care Security Code, a set of guidelines crafted by the American Chemistry Council. The DEP would develop a program to inspect facilities and determine whether they are living up to those standards, a draft of the memo said. Any companies choosing not to participate would be subject to state security regulations, which have yet to be created but presumably would be harsher.

Jamie Conrad, a lawyer for the American Chemistry Council, said the Responsible Care standards run hundreds of pages, providing extensive guidance on plant security.

"There's an enormous amount of detail in these guidance documents as to how to do it," Conrad said.

But Rick Engler of the Work Environment Council, a group that links organized labor and environmental issues, said industry should not be able to write its own rules.

"We think it's outrageous," Engler said. "It's kind of ironic that this secret deal is being cooked up in the home state of Senator Corzine, who is leading the fight for national standards."

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

AFSCME/SEIU Endorse Dean

A number of good articles today in the Washington Post , LA Times, NY Times and Christian Science Monitor on the endorsement and the reasons behind it.

More blog commentary on AFSCME/SEIU endorsement here and here and here.

Association of Washington Business Continues to Lie and Distort

"A level of despicableness beyond imagining"

Even as they celebrate their victory over workplace safety -- a campaign based on lies -- the Association of Washington Business (AWB) still can't seem to tell the truth.

Check out their post-election Press Release.

“We believe that employers and workers should address injuries related to ergonomics,” AWB President Don Brunell said. “Our problem is with L&I’s rules which were wide open to interpretation and which no one fully understood.”

No one? Well maybe not 53% of the voters who actually believed your distortions.

“While Gov. Locke provided a six-year phase-in period, the fundamental problem was with the ambiguity and sweeping impact of the rules themselves,” Brunell said. “There are extensive federal, state and local laws and rules on the books today which protect worker safety. Therefore, if someone is willfully violating laws or regulations, they will be penalized.”

Lies, lies, lies. There are no federal, state (with the exception of a weak California regulation) or local ergonomic laws or rules on the books. And they know they're lying.

By delaying the implementation of the rules as the Governor did, there were some questions about which rules could be enforced when it came to ergonomics and worker safety. AWB believes the passage of I-841 clarified that issue.

Bullshit. There was no question in anyones' mind except the ones you dishonestly planted there.

AWB also believes the passage of I-841 strengthened the court challenge the “We Care Coalition” filed to suspend the rules. We Care believed the regulatory process in which the rules were adopted was flawed. “We feel the courts now will have a clearer sense of the public’s mood toward the regulatory process and that will help employers, workers and citizens in general.”

Oh yeah, since when does any self- and law-respecting court base its decision on the public mood? If the U.S. Supreme Court had done that, Al Gore would be president today (and we'd still have a national ergonomics standard).

AWB is launching an ergonomics education effort through its foundation (Institute for Workforce Development and Sustainability) and scheduled its first Ergonomics Solutions Workshop for Nov. 20 in Olympia.

Yeah, and O.J. is hot on the trail of the real murderer.

Think I'm exagerating about their evilness? Judge for yourself. I received this note from a friend in Washington after the election:

Saturday before the election I was getting my hair cut. I asked the guy who cuts my hair if he had voted yet. When he said no, I asked him if he knew about the initiative related to ergonomics. He asked, "Oh, is that the one about kids' health insurance?" I thought I had heard him wrong, but as this was the only initiative on the ballot, I didn't pursue his confusion, and just launched into my discussion of what ergonomics is all about, what the rule did/didn't do, etc.

Much to my amazement, when I mentioned this to my husband, who had been sick one afternoon, came home early and watched the local evening news--that was the tag line on the TV ads!!!! The ad never explained how they reached that conclusion. (Presumably it was linked to the allegation that people would lose jobs due to the ergo rule, or maybe that the ergo rule would cost so much employers would no longer provide health insurance to employees.) The ad was full of cute kids swinging on swings, and there was apparently a banner at the bottom of the screen that warned voters that if they didn't repeal the ergo rule that thousands of kids in Washington state would lose their health insurance coverage! (Like anyone in the residential construction industry, which sponsored the initiative, provides any employee with health insurance....even if you were persuaded that the rule would put anyone out of business, which we all know it wouldn't have.)

It seems to me they have stooped to a level of despicableness that is beyond imagining.

Amen

Labels: Ergonomics

Chemical Plant InSecurity

More on chemical insecurity from the Progressive. I've written several times before about Senator Jon Corzine's (D-NJ) attempt to pass a bill address chemical security issues. Corzine's bill, initially introduced following 9/11, would have required companies using large amounts of dangerous chemicals to consider "inherently safer technologies.

As you may recall, following unanimous Senate committee approval of the Corzine bill,

An alarmed chemical industry sprang into action, "mounting daily assaults on the Republican members of the [Environment and Public Works] committee throughout August," reported John Judis in The New Republic last January. An August 29, 2002, letter, signed by thirty members of the chemical and oil industry lobby and sent to Republican members of the committee, deplored the new bill, particularly its proposal to "grant sweeping new authority to EPA to oversee facility security." The lobbyists objected strongly to a particular provision that would have required plants to use "inherently safer technologies." This would "allow government micromanagement in mandating substitutions of all processes and substances," the letter stated, adding that it could "result in increased security risks."

By September 10, seven out of the nine Republican members on the committee bowed to the pressure, issuing a letter against the Corzine bill, claiming it "severely misses the mark" (emphasis in the original).

During that same summer, members of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) "gave more than $1 million in political contributions, most of it to Republicans. Eight Senators who were critical of the Corzine bill have received more than $850,000 from the ACC and its member companies," according to a Common Cause report dated January 27, 2003.

Not only did the EPA, the White House and Congress succumb to chemical industry pressure, but the Department of Transportation caved as well.

Toxic chemicals are regularly transported through well-populated areas. DOT had proposed to address this problem through a regulation stating that "Routes should minimize product exposures to populated areas and avoid tunnels and bridges, where possible."

The chemical and petroleum industry successfull lobbyed to remove this language:

"There's nothing really in there that says anything about restricting transport at any time," says Hind. He expected the rule at least to require constraints on dangerous chemicals in heavily populated areas during orange alerts. "But they didn't even do that," he says.

In September, the Sierra Club photographed a rail tank car carrying chlorine near the U.S. Capitol. Greenpeace took notice. "We are formally requesting immediate action by the Secret Service to address a near and present danger to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and all other national leaders living and working in Washington, D.C.," Rick Hind, legislative director for the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign wrote to the Secret Service. By the EPA's own worst-case estimates, a leak from one ninety-ton rail car of chlorine could kill or injure "people in the Congress, the White House, and any of 2.4 million local residents within fourteen miles," Hind wrote.

Greenpeace isn't the only one raising alarms. On June 20, FBI Special Agent Troy Morgan, a specialist on weapons of mass destruction, addressed a chemical security summit in Philadelphia. "You've heard about sarin and other chemical weapons in the news," he said, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "But it's far easier to attack a rail car full of toxic industrial chemicals than it is to compromise the security of a military base and obtain these materials."

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

Supermarket Workers: They're Striking For All of Us

This about says it all: "For the cashiers and stockers on the picket lines, the fight to fend off large-scale concessions is a struggle to avoid being thrown into one of America's lowest castes, the working poor." Check out the article.

And, as the headline says, they're striking for all of us:

"The stakes are enormous," said Ruth Milkman, chairwoman of the University of California Institute for Labor and Employment. "If the employers succeed in their effort to extract large concessions, they will turn these into low-wage jobs, and other employers across the nation will see this as a green light to try to do the same thing."

Check out the UFCW strike page for more information about the strikes and some things you can do (like send e-mails to Safeway, or send money to the strike fund.)

Safety Training Offered

AFL-CIO George Meany Center

Attention union activists, staff, and local union health and safety representatives who would like to teach their membership about workplace health and safety issues. The George Meany Center for Labor Studies will offer two six-day Train-the-Trainer health and safety programs next year.

The first is a Train the Trainer Program on Workplace Health and Safety For Bi-Lingual (Spanish-English) Union Trainers February 8 – 13, 2004. Click here for flyer and here for application.

The second class, for English speakers runs from May 2 – 7, 2004. Click here for flyer and here for application.

Topics of both classes include

Worker and Union Roles in Workplace Safety and Health
Identifying Hazards in the Workplace
Legal Health and Safety Rights of Workers and Unions
Recordkeeping (OSHA 300 Log) Requirements
Introduction to Ergonomics
Effective Health and Safety Committees

The costs of the classes are $1000, which includes a single room for six nights (Saturday-Thursday) and all meals (cost per person for a double room is $730). For commuters, the cost is $250, which includes lunches and dinners. There is no charge for tuition or materials.

For more information, Sharon Simon at the George Meany Center at 301- 431-5414, or at ssimon@georgemeany.org.

Sign up soon. Space is limited.

Labels: AFL-CIO

Workers Sensed Danger Before Collapse of Parking Garage

This is chilling:

ATLANTIC CITY, Nov. 7 — They are construction workers, not engineers or safety experts. But George Tolson, Norman Williams and John Pietrosante Jr. found themselves focusing on a common thought: something unsafe or at least unsettling was going on as they rushed to complete a $245 million expansion of the Tropicana Casino and Resort.

The job had gotten off to a slow start, given bad weather last winter. As the April 2004 deadline approached to complete the new 502-room hotel, a 10-story, 2,400-space parking garage and a sprawling retail and entertainment complex called the Quarter, each could feel the pressure building to quicken the pace. But not just the pace of work disturbed them.

Mr. Tolson and Mr. Williams, laborers who helped install so-called pole shores — metal pogo-sticklike devices that temporarily hold up the concrete floors until they harden enough to support themselves — could see that half a dozen or so of these poles had somehow been bent out of shape. The implication was unmistakable: the floors, even if just so slightly, were moving.

"The concrete was too green," Mr. Tolson, 60, said he told his foreman, using slang to describe concrete that has not fully hardened. Mr. Williams, 49, recalled thinking: " `There is too much weight on those shores.' "

Mr. Pietrosante, 25, saw a similarly disturbing condition: cracks in the concrete floors and columns he was helping to build, at an unusually rapid pace. "Usually you pour one floor of concrete every three weeks, but we were being pushed to do a floor a week," he said. "This job was rush, rush, rush."

Hmm. "an unusually rapid pace," "rush, rush, rush." Maybe this is that "productivity" they've all been talking about (see below.)

Unemployment Down. Good News?

So unemployment is now down. Good news for American workers? Not necessarily:

Even though economic growth surged at a rapid annual rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, business executives around the country say they are still cautious about expanding their work forces and building factories.

And a new economic study, prepared for the United States Conference of Mayors, concludes that wages are significantly lower in the service sectors that are adding jobs than in the manufacturing industries that have been losing jobs.

According to the study, prepared by the economic consulting firm Global Insight, the biggest job growth over the next two years will be in the areas of administration and support services, health care, travel and tourism.

The average wage in those sectors over the next two years is expected to be $36,000, the study concluded. By contrast, the average wage in manufacturing sectors that lost jobs is $43,000.

Individual companies also aren't as optimistic as the Administration:

The Union Pacific Corporation, the big freight rail company, is preparing for a year of strong growth. But although the company is hiring, it expects productivity gains to allow it to keep its overall work force around its current size of 46,300 people or somewhat fewer.

"We're going to handle more business with fewer people," said Jim Young, Union Pacific's chief financial officer.

In its regular survey last month of chief executives at large companies, the Business Roundtable found that 71 percent of the executives expect their sales to increase in 2004 but only 12 percent expect to expand their work forces.

"Productivity continues to astonish everybody," said Henry A. McKinnell, chief executive of Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical producer. While executives are far more optimistic about next year than they were just a few months ago, he said, their mood is still "not ebullient."

In themselves, the new job numbers are not that impressive. By comparison with the rebound in jobs after other recessions, including the so-called jobless recovery of 1991, the pace of job creation now remains anemic.

Happy days are here again.

Better than a Political Novel

Major environmental disaster. Government investigates. Cabinet Secretary overseeing agency conducting investigation married to Senator from that state. Official in investigating agency alleges whitewash, no bid contracts, etc. Agency threatens to fire whistleblower.

Plot of the latest political novel? No, according to the NY Times, the latest alleged scandel of the Bush Administration.

The Bush administration has notified a mine safety official who has sharply criticized federal mining policies that it intends to fire him, according to documents and the official's lawyers.

The official, Jack Spadaro, the superintendent of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy in Beckley, W.Va., has been an outspoken critic of a federal investigation into a huge spill of coal sludge in eastern Kentucky three years ago. The accident, at the Martin County Coal Company, is considered one of the biggest environmental disasters in the Appalachian region.

Mr. Spadaro accused political appointees in the Mine Safety and Health Administration of cutting the investigation short, playing down the coal company's culpability and not holding federal regulators accountable for weak oversight. He was a member of the team investigating the spill before he resigned in protest in 2001.

Mr. Spadaro has also raised questions about no-bid contracts that he contends were awarded to friends and former business associates of David D. Lauriski, the assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, and other senior mine safety officials. His complaints led to an investigation by the Department of Labor's inspector general.

The dispute has become a flashpoint between the Bush administration and critics of its mining policies, who contend the administration has tried to weaken environmental and safety regulations to help big coal companies that contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Mr. Spadaro's firing, the critics contend, is retribution for his outspokenness.

Hmmm. First OSHA goes after one of its Regional Administrators who turned whistle blower, now MSHA. Yawn. So what else is new?

California Fire Photos

Many more amazing photos can be found at the L.A. Times.

Mark Boster / LAT

Gina Ferazzi / LAT

The Weekly Toll

Another long list of workers killed on the job over the past couple of weeks.

I also want to point out another group who lost large numbers in the past two weeks on the job. Those are the military men and women just doing their job in Iraq. I've already written a long article about the fact that astronauts and the military get so much more attention than the larger numbers of regular workers who die every day on the job.

This week, for example, there has been much attention paid (and rightfully so) to the high number of soldiers lost in Iraq (over 30) even though many times more men and women were killed in American workplaces over the same period of time with much less press attention.

Construction worker dies in fall from condo project

A construction worker fell to his death from the eighth floor of The Waterfront on Venice Island condominiums Friday. The incident happened at 8:26 a.m.

Killed was William J. Molinaro, 44, 1000 block West Baffin Drive, Venice. He is survived by a wife and three children, according to Venice police investigators. Molinaro worked for Associated Interior Drywall, Sarasota.

Venice police Sergeant Mike Treanor said the man was putting drywall in an eighth-floor unit.

"He stepped out and apparently leaned against the two cables stretched across the balcony," he said. "The lead anchors holding the cables pulled out of the wall when he leaned on them." More Here.

Power Line Kills Man

Queens, NY -- A worker was killed and two others injured yesterday when they were electrocuted in a construction accident, police said.
The incident occurred shortly after 3 p.m. when three employees of CAC Industries were attempting to secure a metal cable swinging from a crane at a construction site.

Authorities suspect that while performing that task, either the crane or its cable somehow came into contact with a nearby power line, sending a powerful electrical current through the cable and shocking the workers.

Thomas Tierney, 35, was rushed to Peninsula General Hospital, where he died an hour after suffering burns throughout his body. Anthony Nelson, 42, was standing in a puddle of water at the time and was injured. Mitchell Gust, 40, was also shocked. Both men are in stable condition.

2 workers killed when crane touches power line

St. Clair Shores, MI -- The St. Clair Shores construction company that was involved in a double fatality Wednesday morning has no previous safety violations in the three years it has been in business, according to state records.

Two workers were electrocuted and a third injured when a crane they were working on either came near an overhead power line or touched the line, sending a powerful electrical current through them.

The incident happened as a Klee Construction crew was lifting roofing trusses with an estimated 100-foot crane on a canal in the area of 10 Mile Road and Jefferson, investigators said.

The victims were identified as Edward Spaccarotelli, 25, and Ryan Surant, 19, both employed by Kree Construction. Company workers said the men were "like family."

A preliminary report issued by the Michigan Occupational, Safety and Health Administration indicated the men were erecting a truss for a two-story house when the crane being used to lift the trusses into place made contact with an overhead energized electrical line.

Apparently Surant was holding a metal cable lifting the truss while Spaccarotelli was the crane operator.

Witnesses told reporters that Surant was unable to release the energized equipment as Spaccarotelli desperately tried to pull him away, only to be electrocuted himself.

More here.

Local man killed in Wallingford industrial accident

WILLIMANTIC CT— The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is currently conducting an industrial investigation into an accident that caused the death of a local man.

Philip F. Hopkins, 55, of Pennywood Lane, died Monday as a result of the workplace accident in Wallingford.

According to Lt. Marc Mikulski of the Wallingford Police, Hopkins was working at Infra Metals when a chain-driven crane in the plant was exchanging a Dumpster filled with scrap metal for an empty Dumpster.

For some reason, the filled Dumpster tipped over and fell off the crane and spilled its cargo, causing Hopkins’ death.

Mikulski said he believes Hopkins was struck by both the Dumpster and its contents.

Worker Killed in Plant Explosion

At the Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co., workers and managers are repairing their plant, damaged in a deadly explosion on Oct. 22, in hopes of resuming production of ethanol -- and their prized product, Shakers vodka -- within a couple of weeks.

But no one wants to celebrate when the next batch of the hot-selling Shakers Original American Vodka, now being marketed coast to coast, rolls off the line.

The Benson, Minn., plant is mourning the death of a welding contractor in the blast while opening its doors and records to Minnesota safety inspectors who will determine whether the plant was at fault.

The explosion killed Robert Olson, a 20-year-old welder from Granite Falls, Minn., who worked for Lundin Construction of Hanley Falls. At the request of Benson plant officials, Olson was cutting into the roof of a corn-mash storage tank when a flammable vapor inside ignited, according to the state Fire Marshal Division in St. Paul. More here.

Worker Dies In Fall At Louisville Airport
Victim Employed By Oklahoma Company

LOUISVILLE -- A man was killed early Thursday while working on a construction project at the Louisville International Airport. The man fell through the framing of a skylight in Concourse B at about 2:30 a.m. and landed on the floor below.

Source of plant blast eyed in Huntington

Huntington, IN -- Investigators continue to look for the origin of a fatal explosion at a Huntington wheel manufacturer.

About 8:30 p.m. Oct. 29, an explosion ripped through the Hayes Lemmerz International factory on Huntington's western edge. One worker was killed and two others were seriously injured.

A maintenance worker, David Ripplinger, remains in critical condition in the St. Joseph Regional Burn Center, said Geoff Thomas, spokesman for Lutheran Health Network.

Death inquiry may take a month

No witnesses in MMNA fatality

BLOOMINGTON, MI -- Results of a federal investigation into the Oct. 23 suffocation death of a Mitsubishi Motors North America worker likely won't become public for at least a month.

John Foster, 42, of Metamora was killed when he was pinned between pieces of equipment while he was performing preventative maintenance. He had worked at the plant for 15 years.

Worker Dies in Fall

(Janesville-AP) -- A worker who died in an accident at the Janesville General Motors plant is identified as 44-year-old Douglas Mellom.

An autopsy by the Rock County Coroners office conducted today found Mellom died yesterday morning when he fell from the top of an elevator shaft.

Mellom was working on repairing equipment when he fell down the shaft 18 feet.

Four Killed In Casino Parking Garage Collapse

ATLANTIC CITY -- Engineers and safety inspectors are beginning the delicate and dangerous work needed to stabilize the ruins of a parking garage that collapsed in New Jersey.

Crews worked through the night using steel cables to stabilize the building because they feared another collapse.

The garage was under construction at the Tropicana Casino in Atlantic City when the top five floors on the 10-story structure collapsed Thursday, like a house of cards. The collapse occurred while workmen poured concrete on the top floor of the structure. Four construction workers died, and 20 people were injured. More here, here and here.

Ohio man killed in plant accident

WINFIELD, W.Va. -- A welder died Friday after falling at least 70 feet from a catwalk at the John Amos Power Plant.

Tim Siders II fell at about 7:30 a.m., said Sharyn McCaulley, a spokeswoman for The Babcock & Wilcox Co. of Barberton, Ohio, a contractor installing a pollution control system at the plant, which is operated by American Electric Power.

Siders, 27, of Gallipolis Ferry, was taken to a Charleston hospital but died during surgery, McCaulley said.

Salem man dies after hitting wire

A heavy-equipment operator was killed Thursday when the machine he was operating touched a live wire near Bonneville Dam.

Luther Stinson Jr., 34, of Salem was operating a piece of machinery with a large boom that drives guardrail posts into the ground. Oregon State Police Lt. Dale Rutledge said Stinson was putting rail posts in the park area, near exit 40 on Interstate 84, when the pile driver touched a live wire about 2 p.m.

Explosion at oil production site in Donna kills 1
OSHA investigators called in to look into the blast

DONNA, TX — An explosion at an oil production site north of the city killed one person Thursday morning and seriously injured another.

Ernesto Garza, 22, died en route to McAllen Medical Center after sustaining injuries from an explosion involving a compressor, officials said.

The other man, whose identity was not released, remained in critical condition late Thursday at the hospital.

OSHA Launches Probe into Workers' Fatal Fall from Ladder

Northport, Alabama-- Investigators with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are looking into the death of a Tuscaloosa man who fell while working on a restaurant sign.

OSHA said 40-year-old Robert Daniel Stone, an employee of Knight Sign Industries, was changing bulbs at a McDonald's restaurant in Northport when the extension ladder he was using collapsed.

Road worker killed in construction zone

Pittsburgh -- A motorist struck and killed a construction worker Wednesday morning along a busy stretch of Painters Run Road in Mt. Lebanon.
James Vena, 48, of Meyersdale, Somerset County, was taken to St. Clair Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 9:20 a.m., about a half-hour after the accident near the road's intersection with Cedar Boulevard. An autopsy is expected to be completed today.

Authorities identify worker who died after fall

FARGO - A man who fell about 40 feet to his death while working on power poles has been identified.

Cass County authorities say Toby Windels, 21, of Sebeka, Minn., died after he fell from a bucket truck near Horace, south of Fargo.

Indiana County Power Plant Worker Killed

NEW FLORENCE, Pa. -- A man working at an Indiana County power plant was killed when he slipped or was dragged by suction into a coal stock pile.

Officials from the Conemaugh Generating Station in West Wheatfield Township say 36-year-old Michael Kuhns, of Fairfield Township, was found buried beneath the coal in a bin that feeds a conveyer belt. Kuhns, a subcontracted painter, was trapped in the bin around 3 p.m. Monday.

Construction worker dies when dump truck backs over him

STUART, FL — A construction worker died this morning when a dump truck loaded with fill dirt backed over him at a building site on Central Parkway.

Stuart Police said the worker was doing some surveying work and he didn't notice the truck. It wasn't known Tuesday morning if the truck was equipped with backup warning signals.

OSHA probing Ark. man's cell-tower death

LEOMINSTER -- State police and the federal Office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) this week are continuing to investigate the death of a man who fell from a cell tower Friday.

"Cell tower work is particularly dangerous because the elevations are so high and there are so many of them going up because of consumer needs," said regional OSHA director Ronald E. Morin. (Ed. Note: Did that statement provide any useful information?)

William R. Clist, 24, of Yellville, Ark., died Friday when he fell from high atop a Sprint PCS cell tower under construction in west Leominster, according to Elizabeth Stammo, spokeswoman for District Attorney John Conte's office.

Safety officials review fatal fall in new arena

Federal workplace safety authorities are looking into the death of a Florida man who fell from a ladder last week while preparing a fireworks display in Toyota Center for the Houston Rockets' home opener on Thursday.

Christopher Boyd Spang, 47, of Auburndale, Fla., was working on a rocket to be fired from the scoreboard when the accident occurred about 5 a.m. Friday, said a report by the Harris County medical examiner's office.

For tree-removal workers, Isabel's dangers persist

VIRGINIA BEACH -- It should have been a routine job, one that Ed Monroe had seen done hundreds of times before.

But it wasn't.

Thursday's job for Green Tree, a local tree-removal company, would claim the life of one of Monroe's employees. He was one of four tree-trimming and logging professionals to die on the job in Virginia this year. With cleanup from Hurricane Isabel continuing, officials fear more such accidents.

Omar Garcia, 19, a crew member of three years, was killed Thursday afternoon while taking down a tree in Virginia Beach. Garcia's best friend was in the tree, as a climber, when a piece of the tree came down and struck Garcia.

Garcia's brother was also on hand, the site's CPR Supervisor, but there was little he could do to save his badly injured brother.

Garcia is the second local professional with a tree-removal company to be killed within the past two months

Mining accidents: 'Alarming trend'--Deaths of supervisory personnel raise red flag

Two mine-related fatalities in the state within a four-day span, including one at Holly Hill's Holcim Inc. plant, have Mine Safety and Health Administration officials digging for answers and clues as to the underlying causes for the back-to-back incidents.

Most disturbing, officials say, is the nature of the fatalities. Both involved experienced employees in supervisory roles.

"We have had a number of fatalities this year, and about 50 percent have involved supervisors," said Mike Davis, district manager of the southeast region MSHA, metal and non-metal division. "This has caused the greatest amount of concern this year. It is an alarming trend."

The first metal and non-metal fatality occurred Sept. 22 at Holcim when Antonio Gonzalez, 39, of Ridgeville was using a back-hoe to dig out along the side of a building to replace a retaining wall. The victim and the two co-workers were in a 15-foot-deep hole when the bank caved in, burying the victim. A second employee received minor injuries while a third co-worker escaped injury.

The fatal accident was the second at the plant in under two years. A worker was killed in February 2002 during the construction of a cement kiln at the site.

American Military Killed in Iraq Since October 26. There are 33 names here, and at least six more have died since. Photos and additional information can be found here.

James Anderson Chance III
Paul Fisher
James R. Wolf
Jose A. Rivera
Robert T. Benson
Francisco Martinez
Daniel Bader
Ernest G. Bucklew
Steven D. Conover
Anthony D. D'Agostino
Darius T. Jennings
Karina S. Lau
Keelan L. Moss
Brian H. Penisten
Ross A. Pennanen
Joel Perez
Brian D. Slavenas
Bruce A. Smith
Frances M. Vega
Paul A. Velazquez
Joe N. Wilson
Benjamin J. Colgan
Joshua C. Hurley
Maurice J. Johnson
Todd J. Bryant
Algernon Adams
Michael Paul Barrera
Aubrey D. Bell
Steven Acosta
Rachel K. Bosveld
Charles H. Buehring
Joseph R. Guerrera
Jamie L. Huggins

Labels: Weekly Toll

Our Their government at work.

Rejection of 'Earmarks' Angers Democrats
GOP Subcommittee Chairman Says He Won't Honor Party's Projects in Bill

Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), who chairs the subcommittee that controls spending on education, health and jobs programs, recently stunned Democrats by announcing plans to reject every "earmarked" project they are seeking in the final, compromise version of the bill, which funds the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor.

His reason: When the House passed the bill on July 10, all 198 Democrats present voted against it, several of them saying it shortchanged education programs. The bill passed, 215 to 208.

***
Democrats say the real victims of Regula's policy will be the poor. Of the nation's 50 poorest congressional districts, 42 are represented by Democrats. Democrats say schools and community groups in these districts often need help from their member of Congress for worthwhile projects.
Hoyer had hoped to get $400, 000 -- the same as last year -- for a group called Rebuilding Together. The nonprofit organization works with volunteers to rehabilitate homes of the poor, elderly and disabled.

White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats

The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.

For La. Lobbying Firm, a Victory on Workers' Comp

A Louisiana firm scored a quiet lobbying victory this week when House and Senate negotiators decided not to transfer a compensation program for ill weapons-lab workers from the Energy Department to the Labor Department.
***
Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) inserted language into an energy and water spending bill that would have transferred control of the DOE program to Labor, which they say has more experience working through such claims. They said the DOE has not properly implemented the program, creating a seven-year backlog of claims.

They wrote the top Senate negotiators, Sens. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.): "Based on DOE's own publicly available data and the General Accounting Office's evaluations so far, it is plain that this program is failing."

But Science and Engineering Associates -- which in 2001 obtained a non-competitive contract worth more than $15 million to process the DOE claims -- fought back. It brought in heavy hitters such as former House Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.) to make its case on Capitol Hill. It also increased its political contributions between 1998 and 2002 from $4,000 to nearly $50,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

(Ed. Note: By “their,” government, I don’t necessaryliy mean the R’s as much as I mean business money. In this case the “good guy” was a Republican, and those bought off were Democrats.)

White House to End Power Plant Probes
Move Follows EPA Easing of Enforcement

The Bush administration confirmed yesterday that it will close pending investigations of 70 power plants suspected of violating the Clean Air Act and will consider dropping 13 other cases against utilities that were referred to the Justice Department for action, following the Environmental Protection Agency's decision in August to ease enforcement rules.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

NFIB's Agent In Government

Sometimes you have to admire the Republicans for their candor.

Check out this quote from the Small Business Administration's Chief Council for Advocacy, Thomas Sullivan. Sullivan was executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation, "which guides small businesses on legal issues and promotes their interests in the court," when he was appointed SBA by President Bush in 2002.

Even while in government, however, Sullivan is keeping his eyes on the prize:

"I am doing the exact same thing as chief counsel for advocacy," Sullivan said, "only NFIB does not have to pay me now."

Isn't that nice.

The fact that the Bush administration is doing the business of the business assocations is not exactly shocking news to us, but it's always nice to have someone come right out and admit that NFIB has just switched it's office over to government housing, and is billing the taxpayers for its payroll.

In an interview with the San Antonio Express News where he was in town to address the effects of immigration policy on small business, Sullivan boasted about the clout of the SBA:

The office always had clout. It helped stem the burdensome ergonomics rule from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that could have bankrupted many companies several years ago.

Well, not exactly. He seems to be confusing the SBA with his previous job at NFIB. Which is easy to do these days. Business. Government. Business. Government.

NFIB, the parent organization of the Legal Foundation, was one of the main forces behind repeal of the federal OSHA standard and behind the Washington State initiative repealing their ergonomics standard.

In fact, NFIB likes to boast that in the week before the vote against the federal standard, they

sent 70,000 fax alerts against the ergonomics regulation to its members outside of Washington, asking them to turn up the heat on undecided lawmakers.

"Our fax machines have been running almost nonstop, printing letters that small business owners sent to their elected representatives and then shared with us," Senior Vice President Dan Danner told The Washington Post the week before the vote.

The NFIB Legal Foundation's website boasts that the Foundation

was recently part of a full-court press that successfully challenged the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) ergonomics rule. Responding to the NFIB Legal Foundation lawsuit against OSHA and an intense lobbying campaign by NFIB, Congress repealed this law that would have cost small business owners more than $40 billion.

Even before Bush, small business had a "special place" in government, although not quite this special. A bit of background might help explain.

The Gingrich Congress of the mid-1990's, responding to their deep concern about ~~contributions from~~ the fate of small business in this country and the risk that overburdensome regulations may ~~hurt their profits~~ drive them into wreck and ruin, thoughtfully passed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in 1996.

SBREFA gave small business, represented in government by the Small Business Administration, an early bite at the regulatory apple even before the regulatory proposals were issued, which is when the rest of the public gets to comment. ( Editorial Note: We here at Confined Space have always wondered why workers don't get a similar early bite at the apple, but the answer to that question is probably too obvious for us to figure out.)

Selected small businesses, as well as small business associations, chosen jointly by OSHA and the SBA, would participate on the SBREFA committee that would comment on the pre-proposal, or "SBREFA Draft" of OSHA regulations. And "frank and candid" discussions would continue throughout the process as SBA representatives played the role of "the loyal opposition."

Of course having the NFIB right inside the bureacracy makes things so much more efficient.

P.S. Sullivan's quote has been unanimously selected by the entire staff here at Confined Space as the

QUOTE OF THE WEEK,

entitling him to a Confined Space T-Shirt, if such a thing existed. Congratulations Tom

Labels: Ergonomics

Green Labor

This is an article by Dave Foster, Director of United Steelworkers of American District 11, about his trip to the Artic National Wildlife Refuge:

I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is bad energy policy (all the oil in the refuge would supply the nation's oil needs for only six months), disastrous environmental policy to the land, and a serious human rights violation. I arrived at this conclusion, not apart from the concerns for jobs and workers' rights that fill my daily life, but as an outgrowth of them. Preserving and equitably distributing our planet's dwindling resources, honoring the diversity and history of our planet's many cultures, and working to create a society where waste is minimized, not pursued, are values that guide my work at the United Steelworkers.

And while you're at it, check out the latest edition of Green Labor, a newsletter dedicated to building coalitions between labor and environmentalists. The first edition, which also contains and article by Foster, can be found here.

Nurses: Long Hours = Danger for Patients

Bush, Nursing Home Industry: 'No Problem'

The National Academy of Sciences is picking up on something that those of us who work with (or as) nurses have known for a long time.

Many hospitals and nursing homes are endangering patients by allowing or requiring nurses to work more than 12 hours a day, the National Academy of Sciences said on Tuesday.

Such long hours cause fatigue, reduce productivity and increase the risk that the nurses will make mistakes that harm patients, the academy said in a new report commissioned by the federal government.

NAS recommended that nurses work no more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period or more than 60 hours a week, yet over one quarter of nurses work more than 13 consecutive hours at least once a week.

As usual, the Bush Administration has come down on the wrong side of this issue

The Bush administration said last year that it had no plans to set minimum staffing levels for nursing homes, in part because such requirements would generate billions of dollars in additional costs for Medicaid, Medicare and nursing homes.

But the National Academy of Sciences said the administration should do what it declined to do last year: set "minimum standards for registered and licensed nurse staffing in nursing homes."

The American Hospital Association and the American Health Care Association (which represents the nursing home industry) see now problem either.

Pamela Thompson, chief executive of the American Organization of Nurse Executives, a subsidiary of the American Hospital Association, said it was "an accepted practice" for nurses to work 12-hour shifts.

Alan E. DeFend, vice president of the American Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes, said: "The shortage of nursing assistants has reached crisis proportions. Sometimes there's just no alternative to overtime."

To address the problem, the report came up with a radical solution, one that's also no surprise to those familiar with work in nursing homes (or any other workplace): "To reduce such errors, the panel said, nurses should be more involved in the day-to-day management of hospitals and nursing homes."

Washington Ergo Initiative Post-Mortem (1)

Jobs, Demagoguery and Cash

Why happened? Several observations.

From an SEIU Organizer:

in a statewide election, TV seems to be decisive. The industry really carpetbombed the airwaves the last week. I rarely watch television but in the few moments I did I saw their spots about four times. I never saw any of our spots.

And the Seattle Post Intelligencer agreed:

Washington state's sweeping workplace ergonomics rules - which survived lawsuits and a multiyear assault in the Legislature - succumbed to a million-dollar initiative campaign....After paying signature-gatherers to get the measure on the ballot, the BIAW spent heavily on a television campaign that portrayed the rules as job-killing regulation run amok.

The observations of John Gastil and Ned Crosby, Seattle Post Intelligencer columnists, bring back a whiff of Florida, November 2000:

Initiative 841 spurred more than $2 million in campaign spending, but after hearing the initiative's full ballot statement, 39 percent of voters surveyed had no idea what its effect would be and 8 percent had it backward ("enact ergonomics regulations"). Given its apparent margin of victory, if 8 percent made that error statewide, correcting that misunderstanding alone would have changed the fate of this initiative. Many of those who described its impact relied on messages they had heard from one side or the other ("It will reduce workplace safety" or "It will cost us jobs")....

The vast majority did not know the initiative's estimated fiscal impact, despite its prominent appearance in the official voters pamphlet. Only one in four voters knew that the federal government lacks similar rules, even though this is a key pro-841 argument. Forty-nine percent of voters believed that the regulations directly limited the hours spent at hazardous jobs, a misconception that the anti-841 campaign tried to address.

One pollster argued that the success of initiatives in Washington was a sign of frusted voters taking back the political process. But as one article pointed out:

But the initiatives aren't exactly coming from the voters these days.

Ergonomics was the only subject forced to the ballot by a statewide petition drive this year. The Building Industry Association of Washington spearheaded the drive, deriding as "job-killing regulation" the rules aimed at limiting injuries caused by heavy lifting, repetitive motion and awkward work positions. The campaign started with a paid signature drive and ended with an expensive flood of television commercials.

Initiative 841, which has drawn 53 percent of the vote so far, marked the second year in a row that the politically powerful homebuilders' association used its financial muscle to force a vote rolling back an action of state government that it disapproved of. Last year it forced a referendum vote on an unemployment tax overhaul imposed by the Legislature, which helped prompt lawmakers to craft a more business-friendly rewrite of the system this year.

More initiatives are likely in the works, said Tom McCabe, the association's executive vice president.

"We've got to keep fighting," McCabe said. "I don't think we're going to stop now."

Among the possible subjects: limiting lawsuits, or even a "dismantling of the Department of Labor and Industries," McCabe said.

Ultimately, what we have is a combination of legitimate concern over jobs, fueled by demagoguery and supported by lots of money. And as unfair and dishonest as that may be, that's the field we need to learn to play on:

"I think what's making the difference is you have small business owners who say, 'We can't take this; this is the ultimate regulatory nightmare.' Then they're telling their friends and neighbors ... who listened," said Carolyn Logue, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, which backed I-841 on grounds that it was too expensive for businesses.

The Building Industry Association of Washington led the I-841 coalition to raise $1.4 million. Randy Gold, a Wenatchee homebuilder and president of the BIAW, said the initiative was leading because "we had a better message and because I think our message was the truth. We can't afford this regulation."

But Rick Bender, president of the State Labor Council, blamed BIAW's television ads, which he said were rife with scare tactics about job losses.

"They probably did three or four times the TV we were able to afford to do," Bender said. "The economy is tough right now. People are scared about losing their jobs."

But this headline gives me an idea......

Initiatives batting 1,000 since 2000

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Every citizens' initiative that has reached the statewide ballot in the past three elections has passed, despite knotty, opaque subjects such as the repeal of workplace ergonomics standards that voters embraced on Tuesday.

Hmmm.... If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Labels: Ergonomics

The Wonders of Wal -i- World

Latest in a long string of recent articles about Wal-Mart. This one about the foreign workers imported into the country, working seven days a week without a day off, then kicked out of the country.

The "up"side

The use of illegal workers appeared to benefit Wal-Mart, its shareholders and managers by minimizing the company's costs, and it benefited consumers by helping hold down Wal-Mart's prices. Cleaning contractors profited, and thousands of foreign workers were able to earn more than they could back home.

And the downside:

But the system also had its costs — janitors said they were forced to work seven days a week, were not paid overtime and often endured harsh conditions. Foreigners got jobs that Americans might have wanted. And taxpayers sometimes ended up paying for the illegal workers' emergency health care or their children's education in American schools.

And of course, there's no workers comp:

One night, he recalled, a co-worker sliced his hand open on a floor-scraping blade and was rushed to a hospital in Red Bank. He had problems paying the $800 bill because his job did not provide health insurance and his employer shunned the workers' compensation system. The hospital swallowed the cost.

(Actually, we, the taxpayers, covered the cost that should have been borne by Wal-Mart.)

But then there's the bottom line

Robert, a Czech who runs a Web site to attract Eastern Europeans to janitorial work, said using foreign cleaners was good for Wal-Mart and for American consumers.

"No American wants to do this job," he said. "If they hired Americans, it would take 10 of them to do the work done by five Czechs. This helps Wal-Mart keep its prices low."

And low prices are what America's all about. Of course, we could always get rid of the minimum wage entirely. And while we're at it, maybe we should re-institute slavery. That would keep the prices really low.

Here's another good Wal-Mart web page: Wal-Mart Watch, sponsored by the UFCW.

Job Watch and Job Blackmail

The Washington State ergonomics standard was defeated largely because people believed the job blackmail arguments of the business associations -- that the ergonomics standard was a job killer.

Well, they were lying about ergonomics regs costing jobs, but peoples' fears about job loss are very real. Bush has succeeded in exploiting those fears by using the promise of job creation to justify his tax cuts for the rich.

I'm not one to criticize someone for creating jobs, but how do we know whether the Pres is telling the truth? Are his tax cuts really creating jobs? Enquring minds want to know.

To the rescue rides the Economic Policy Institute with its Job Watch web page.

JobWatch tracks job growth and measures it against the number of jobs the Bush Administration said would be created when their 2003 tax cut proposal was passed by Congress. Specifically, the Bush Administration has claimed that when the cuts went into effect the economy would create 5.5 million jobs from July 2003 through the end of 2004.

Oh, and to answer my question...I was shocked, SHOCKED to find out that Bush was ~~lying~~ wrong. From June through September instead of the 918,000 new jobs that were promised, 41,000 jobs were lost.

So that means, let's see...carry the one...that he's off by only 959,000 jobs.

And here's what the leader of the repeal of the Washington State ergonomics standard said yesterday:

"It absolutely means more jobs," said Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, repeating the theme the powerful homebuilders group used so often during the campaign. "Jobs was the message here, that message resonated with the voters."

Anyone want to volunteer to keep track?

Labels: Ergonomics

Washington Ergo Initiative on Lehrer

For what it's worth, here is a segment on the Washington State ergonomics referendum from last night's Lehrer Newshour on PBS.

Labels: Ergonomics

What Is To Be Done?

Any brilliant ideas for the future, silver linings, groundbreaking strategies re. ergonomics? E-Mail Me. Maybe I'll get out of my funk and be able to pull it all together and write something at some point.

The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing -- for the sheer fun and joy of it -- to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it.

-- I.F. Stone

Workplace ergonomics rules repealed

OLYMPIA -- Washington state's sweeping workplace ergonomics rules - which survived lawsuits and a multiyear assault in the Legislature - succumbed to a million-dollar initiative campaign.

Voters Tuesday approved Initiative 841, repealing rules aimed at protecting workers from injuries caused by heavy lifting, repetitive motion and awkward working positions in their jobs.

With more than half of the expected vote counted, I-841 was drawing 53 percent support.

Labels: Ergonomics

Worker's Getting Screwed...So What Else is New? In Houston, Someone Seems to Care

A collegue recently pointed me toward a continuing series in the Houston Chronicle about the conditions workers face today. The author of these articles, including the workers compensation article posted below, is written by Houston Chronicle reporter L.M. Sixel.

One of the best deals with safety incentive programs:

True path to safety is likely not lined with big prizes

For the past few months, employees heading into work at the Lyondell-Citgo refinery would walk past a shiny new four-door Ford pickup and Chevrolet Silverado parked at the front gate.

The trucks, loaded with accessories, were a delicious reminder that if the plant hit 1 million man-hours without a recordable injury, one lucky employee would win either the Ford or the Chevy or another $30,000 vehicle of his choice in a drawing.

Plant officials hoped that by giving away an expensive vehicle, like the Ford F150 pickup it awarded last year, the company could reinforce the importance of workplace safety. It was a way of staying focused, a refinery spokesman said.

But to some employees, the display of the fancy trucks was a subtle reminder not to report any injuries. Otherwise they'd face the wrath of their peers, who'd like to park one of those trucks in their own driveway.

"Unless you're bleeding or a bone is sticking out," most employees preferred to keep quiet and see their personal physicians, said process operator David Taylor, who is also a member of the Paperworkers, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Local 4-227 workers committee.

Others include

Efficiency's up but morale's down at Lyondell-Citgo

From all appearances, life looks normal at the Lyondell-Citgo Refinery on the Houston Ship Channel.

The PACE union flag flies in front of the sprawling refinery off Texas 225, and union members sit alongside management representatives on key safety committees.

But union representatives and rank-and-file employees say the atmosphere between labor and management has turned poisonous.

The workers say many of their colleagues have been unfairly terminated, a sizable portion of the plant has been disciplined and an atmosphere of fear has pervaded the refinery.

Hispanics still face more deaths, injuries on the job

It's a story I have written year after year. But for Hispanics, the dangers at work don't seem to decline.

Hispanics are more likely to die or get hurt on the job than any other ethnic group, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. And while the fatality rates for blacks and non-Hispanic whites have fallen over the past 10 years, it's barely changed for Hispanics.

To make matters worse, Hispanics are also less likely to have health insurance, so many don't get screened for major health problems such as diabetes and hypertension, according to a new study by Circadian Technologies, a Boston-based consulting firm.

The price for working at night may be your health

ABOUT 20 percent of us toil outside the traditional 9-to-5 routine as more and more companies embrace the concept of working around the clock. And according to a new study, that's causing major health problems.

As more people work evening and overnight shifts at call centers, retailers and bank processing centers, they're suffering from higher rates of gastrointestinal troubles, cardiovascular diseases and sleep disorders than their counterparts who are home in time to watch the 6 p.m. news.

State safety mandate little-know and less enforced

TEXAS has had a law on the books since 1989 requiring cranes to have insulators that prevent deaths from contact with power lines.

But those who should know about the device, which could have prevented some of the state's 30 construction-related electrocutions in the past three years, don't.

Safety consultants, union officials and some operators of the machines contend that few of the cranes working in Texas have the protective device.

And government safety experts and agencies differ on which is responsible for the problem.

And this is one of my favorites:

Law firm sees niche in 'dead peasant' policy defense

A few months ago, only a handful of people had ever heard of "dead peasant" life insurance.

But word has gotten out now that Wal-Mart and a few other companies have been sued for taking out secret life insurance policies on their employees and keeping the proceeds when the workers die.

This is great stuff. Makes you wonder why more newspapers aren't encouraging reporters to do the same thing.

Stop Bleeding and Sign Here

When workers compensation was created early in the last century, the deal was that workers would give up the right to sue and employers would compensate workers for any injuries (or illnesses?) suffered on the job, no questions asked. It hasn't worked out to be quite that clean, but that's basically the deal today. And in 49 states, employers are required to provide workers compensation insurance for their employees.

In the 50th state, Texas, employers can go without workers comp, but workers then have the right to sue. Or do they?

Martha McJimsey was pulling brains out of cow carcasses coming down the line at IBP in Amarillo when she split one of her fingers wide open.

But before a nurse would stop the bleeding and stitch her up, McJimsey had to sign a waiver promising not to sue the company now called Tyson Fresh Meats.

It didn't matter that her right hand -- her writing hand -- was dripping blood. A company representative simply put a pen in her left hand and told her to sign.

"You have to sign a waiver every time you get hurt," said McJimsey, who consented to four post-injury waivers during her 25 years at the plant. "The only excuse is if you're completely unconscious."

McJimsey said her union representative assured her not to worry because she was signing the waiver under duress and that should she decide later to sue, it wouldn't stand up in court. To her surprise, the 59-year-old, who has since left the company, later discovered the waiver was valid and she had no legal right to sue.

"NAM Members Score Another Major Victory on Ergonomics;" Workers Take It In The Teeth Again

From the NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) webpage. Need we say more than we've already said...except that I was too nice last time.

Labels: Ergonomics

WASHINGTON STATE ERGONOMICS REFERENDUM TODAY

Washington state voters will decide today whether or not to repeal the nation's only comprehensive, preventive ergonomics standard. As I've written before, the stakes are extemely high, not just for workering people in Washington state, but ultimately for workers throughtout the entire country.

This Olympian article describes the election as

A costly battle over Initiative 841 on Tuesday's general election ballot pits the state's grocers, home builders and other worried industries against the state's labor unions.

Actually, to be more precise, it pits industry associations and their misinformed members against hundreds of thousands of workers doing jobs every day that may lead to completely preventable disabilities, workers who have no one to speak for them except labor unions.

It's hard to know what will happen, or how big the turnout will be, but this column from The Olympian may describe how most voters are responding to today's election:

Initiative 841, which would repeal a Washington state ergonomics regulation and prevent the adoption of new regulations until a uniform federal standard is required, has some people scratching their heads.

"It's a confusing one for a lot of voters," said [said County Auditor Kim Wyman].

"People are asking simple questions, like what is ergonomics."

Despite the confusion of many voters, the referendum has shaped up into a titanic and expensive battle

I-841 has attracted a coalition of business groups led by the Building Industry Association of Washington, which has provided more than $800,000 of the coalition's $1.4 million campaign financing. The measure is on the ballot thanks to paid signature gatherers.

The Washington State Labor Council and other worker groups have lined up against I-841, raising more than $510,000 for their campaign.

Like the battle against the federal ergonomics compaign, the campaign to pass Initiative 841, as well as the process to encourage voters to sign petitions to put the referendum on the ballot have been supported by a back-breaking stack of lies by the business associations supporting I-841.

In the past week, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has come out against the initiative ("Initiative 841 runs roughshod over the working public's right to safety, the normal processes of government and the state's power, ") and the U.S. Navy has adopted the Washington state standard.

For what it's worth, the small town, conservative Wenatchee World is favoring repeal of the standard. What's interesting about the Wenatchee World's editorial is how the paper has been totally captured by the industry's most effective (il)logic. For example:

You might think, with Washington state's unemployment among nation's worst and its economy barely qualified as stagnant, our government would not volunteer us to pioneer efforts to regulate when, how, and for how long employees may do a particular job.

Two things about this paragraph.

1. Note the traditional job blackmail that industry has used since the dawn of time to oppose workplace safety and environmental regulations: Get rid of this job killer or you'll be out on the street.

2. By killing the federal standard and scaring other states out of passing new ergonomic standards, they are able to argue that Washington is a "pioneer" in a dangerous, unique experiment. Which is exactly why it's so important to defeat this referendum -- to give courage to other states to follow Washington's example.

Whether such a system will do much to reduce worker injuries is debatable.

3. Not really. The National Academy of Sciences has done two major literature review at the request of Congress, and NIOSH has also done a review, all showing the connection between workplace stressors and musculoskeletal injuries, as well as the fact that ergonomics measures prevent these injures.

But there is little doubt that for business the rules and dictates will add to an already considerable regulatory burden, and add considerably to the expense of putting people to work.

4. Au contraire. In fact, there is little doubt that these rules will save businesses far more in workers comp and other savings than they will cost to implement. (See here as well.)

Washington state is not in a position to add to the expense of employing workers. It is not in a position to be the only state in the nation with such workplace rules. Our growing reputation as a poor place to do business will only be enhanced. We will be known as the only state that put in force ergonomic regulations even more strict than those already rejected by the federal government as onerous. Having lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, it is irresponsible to put more at risk unnecessarily.

See Nos. 1 and 2 above.

How great the risks may be is difficult to discern. The business opponents of the ergonomic regulations, the proponents of the initiative, are called liars by their labor union opponents, and the compliment is returned. Estimates of the expense of implementing the regulations vary widely - $80 million, says the Department of Labor and Industries; $700 million say studies for business. Whichever figure is closer to truth seems irrelevant to the question of whether such regulations are wise in the current circumstances.

5. Actually, the supporters of this initiative ARE liars. It's been documented, proven and admitted.

6. True, there is some "controversy" over the true costs of this regulations. But, again, they are liars. And if you don't believe what the Department of Labor and Industries says, check out how even Bush's regulatory Czar, John Graham now confirms the propensity of both industry and government to overestimate the cost of environmental and workplace safety regulations.

7. How can the truth be "irrelevant" when the right decision will not only save employers money, but save workers' backs. What's not "wise" for businesses is to believe the propaganda and ignore the facts.

In fact, the regulations may serve no useful purpose. Businesses have immense incentive to make their workplaces safer and see to it workers are less likely to be injured.

8. Immense incentives? What? Like workers comp? That's a laugh. When you have plenty of low-wage workers, many of whom need a job, any job, and others of whom may be illegal, you have an "immense incentive" to get rid of the ones who are injured or complaining and sign up the next desparate crowd.

It's true that individual employers are learning the value of ergonomics, especially those with more highly skilled workers, but there are still far too many who are either too cheap, or find their low-income employees expendable, or believe the industry line that there is no science behind ergonomics.

The fact is that the Washington Department of Labor and Industries has gone far beyond the call of duty to study and explain the reasoning behind this standard and how to make it work.

And if the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation for Independent Businesses and Building Industry Association of Washington want to do their members a real service, they would hold up the Washington Department of Labor and Industries as a model of how regulations should be issued and supported.

But these associations make far more money and generate far more dependent members by exploiting the fears of their members than by working out ways to make their businesses profitable while protecting their employees at the same time.

Good jobs, safe jobs, and successful businesses are not incompatible, as many businesses know. But this country is not about protecting only those workers who are lucky enough to work for enlightened employers. The right to a safe workplace belongs to everyone* and it sometimes takes regulations to make it happen.

We should all be thanking the state of Washington for having the courage to make it happen. Other states should use them as a model. And businesses -- large and small -- should wake up and force their associations to honestly represent their interests instead of just stoking their fears.

*except public employees in most states.

Labels: Ergonomics

One Year From Today...

The presidential election is only (only!) one year from today. But for those of you who are sticklers, only 444 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes, 22 seconds until Inauguration Day 2005, according to Smirking Chimp.

UAW Newsletter on Metalworking Fluids

In honor of their lawsuit against OSHA. Here.

Filbustering the Courts or Back to the Past

Nathan Newman has a good post on how the Bushniks want to use the courts to take us (even further) backwards in worker and labor rights and why keeping those right-wing nutcases out of the courts is important.

European Commission REACHES Compromise Agreement on Chemical Policy

As expected, the European Commission issued its proposal to overhaul the way Europe tests and approves potentially hazardous chemicals.

If adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, the REACH policy — Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals — will be the world's most comprehensive regulation governing the use of chemicals. It would have major effects on American industries that sell a variety of products in Europe, from computers to pesticides, and the Bush administration and U.S. chemical industry have joined forces to campaign against it

As I've written before (most recently here and here) this system would overturn the chemical approval system which currently considers chemicals innocent until proven guilty. As in the U.S., current policy requires new chemicals to undergo comprehensive testing, but existing hazardous chemicals are extremely difficult to restrict.

One in every five high-volume chemicals lacks even basic toxicity data, while only 14% have good data, said Finn Bro-Rasmussen, professor emeritus of Technical University of Denmark. He estimated that almost half should be classified as hazardous. The authorization process is the most worrisome part of the proposal for U.S. industries. European Union officials estimate that 300 to 600 compounds would be withdrawn from commerce.

The proposal, already a product of compromise, still has many hurdles to overcome before it is finalized. According to the NY Times,

In a sign of the hurdles still facing the proposed legislation - which now must wend its way through a lengthy approval process in the European Parliament - environmental advocates accused the commission of caving to industry, saying the proposal does not go far enough in eliminating health risks.

Some chemicals companies in the multibillion euro industry, meanwhile, said the proposal would heap red tape and hefty expenses on them without providing any benefit to consumers or the environment.

The plan also met with resistance from Britain, France and Germany, homes to some of union's biggest chemicals companies. These countries have already expressed concern about the proposed legislation on the industry, according to a European diplomat.

The American Chemical Council declared itself "unimpressed" with the compromises made in the final proposal and warned of a trade war:

“Kafka would have been proud of the EU process. The Commissioners have said they want to create an efficient, workable and cost-effective system, but the present proposal is none of these, and they asked stakeholders for their opinion, which they immediately ignored,” said ACC President and CEO Greg Lebedev. “A few tweaks do not change a fundamentally flawed proposal.”

In tones vaguely reminiscent of the 1990's when American industry and Republicans in Congress called for repeated studies in order to slow OSHA's ergonomics and tuberculosis standards, Lebedev as called for a "a legitimate study of the impact of this proposal before the EU plunges headlong into a complicated new regulatory scheme that will confound its global trading partners.”

Lebedev might want to consult his own webpage which links the European Commission's Impact Analysis of the Revised REACH Proposal.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, on the other hand "voted 10-1 on Oct. 28 to adopt a resolution supporting a proposed European Union law to control hazardous chemicals."

"San Francisco recently became the first city in the nation to adopt the Precautionary Principle as a guidepost for city policy," according to San Francisco Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. "Now by supporting REACH we can take another step forward in protecting our communities from toxics chemicals."

Industry Butchers Perform Back-Alley Late Term Abortion on ANSI Ergonomics Standard

As predicted a couple of weeks ago, after 13 years and over a half million dollars, industry hacks have succeeded in pressuring the National Safety Council (NSC) into surrendering its position as Secretariat to the ANSI Management of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders committee.

A labor spokesperson criticized the NSC for succumbing to industry pressure and stated that if the NSC doesn't care about workes, then labor wouldn't bother participating in its activities.

The committee had been working since 1990 to adopt a "consensus" standard on upper extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Finally, after 13 years, the ANSI “Z365” committee was close to finalizing an ergonomics standard.

The final draft of the late standard can be found here. May it rest in peace.

For the few of you who don't read every word I write, you can read my previous rantings about this subject here.

In respect for the dead, I have nothing else to say. In lieu of flowers, send money to the Washington State No on 841 campaign.

Labels: Ergonomics

Happy Halloween: More Scary Stuff About Evil And The Wicked Rulers Of Our Fair Land

While we're on the subject of ergonomics and Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, here's a review of Bushwacked (as well as Joe Conason's book Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth) by another of our heros, Paul Krugman.

Here's one excerpt from the review, in reference to a recent Interior Department ruling in favor of the mining industry:

The point about the mining-waste ruling is that it isn't at all exceptional. Instead, it is typical of the Bush administration—in its callousness toward the general welfare, in the brazenness with which special interests were able to buy a decision to their liking, and in the contempt officials showed toward the public and the press. (Indeed, the ruling received only brief mention in the national press.) We're living in a replay of the Gilded Age, in which robber barons openly bought and sold government officials and their policies. And just as the Gilded Age brought forth a golden age of muckraking, our modern descent into money politics has brought forth a new wave of outraged reporters. Ivins and Dubose are worthy heirs of an honorable tradition.

Ergonomics: From Washington to Belzoni, Mississippi -- The Full Story

This is an excerpt from the complete chapter on the struggle for an ergonomics standard the the role of Eugene Scalia in killing it from BUSHWACKED by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

On the same March morning in 2000 when lawyer/lobbyist Eugene Scalia raced to the front of the Department of Labor hearing room to take the lead in the industry fight against ergonomic protection for workers, Durst got up and took her three-year-old son to the neighbor who takes care of him while she works. She then drove twenty miles to the Freshwater Farms catfish processing plant, just east of the Yazoo River in Belzoni. She put on an apron, a hair net, special latex gloves, and a pair of rubber boots. She walked into the refrigerated plant and took her station on the thin black rubber mat next to the conveyor belt. At the start of the conveyor belt, live catfish spilled out of holding tanks and began to move in Durst’s direction.

By the time the judge made his opening remarks and Scalia finished his first twenty minutes of testimony, Sherry Durst had skinned one thousand catfish. For eight to ten hours a day, Durst grabs a catfish off the conveyor belt, presses one of its sides against a set of blades mounted on a high-speed rotor, then flips the fish and repeats the process. Then she grabs another, and another, and another. If the line was running fast on March 13, 2000, Durst would have skinned twelve hundred fish before Scalia completed his brief morning testimony.

By the time Judge Vittone adjourned the ergonomics hearing at noon and the lawyers and lobbyists scrambled for cabs to make their lunches at the Red Sage or Olives, Durst had skinned between thirty-six hundred and four thousand catfish. Moments before each live fish arrives at the skinning station, it is stunned by electric shock, beheaded by one woman, and eviscerated by another, who jams each fish’s intestinal cavity against a stationary vacuum pipe called a "long gun." In order to keep her job at Freshwater Farms, Durst has to skin a minimum of twelve fish a minute. At times, a white supervisor stands behind her with a stopwatch, calculating minutes and catfish. Durst never falls below fifteen, at times hits twenty, and has skinned more than twenty-five catfish a minute.

'nuff said. Read this chapter, then buy the book.

Labels: Ergonomics

Seattle Paper Opposes I-841

Good editorial in the Seattle Post Intelligencer opposing Washington State Initiative 841 which would repeal the state’s ergonomics standard:

Washington voters could strain themselves trying to figure out the debate over the ergonomics initiative.

But let's go to the bottom line: Initiative 841 deserves a no vote. It represents more of the ballot nonsense that has paralyzed the state.

Initiative 841 runs roughshod over the working public's right to safety, the normal processes of government and the state's power. Instead of fine-tuning ergonomics rules adopted by the state Department of Labor and Industries, the initiative asks voters to bulldoze aside protections against repetitive injuries.

We have sympathy with business concerns over the state's ergonomics rules. Common sense, good will and modest adjustments limit most problems.

There may well be a case for eliminating or slowing the rules' implementation. But that should be based on study by Labor and Industries or by the Legislature.

The initiative is so sweeping because its writers couldn't restrain themselves from effectively throwing away the state's right to protect workers. The initiative says that Labor and Industries can't adopt new rules against ergonomic injuries except as required by the federal government. Legislators could still act -- but they don't typically write workplace rules.
Voters should resist I-841's quick fix. It will only buy us more trouble.

Time grows short. Call ALL of your friends in Washington and urge them and their friends to VOTE NO on I-841. I did.

Labels: Ergonomics

Aiming for the Amish?

The United Food and Commerical Workers union is mounting a legislative offensive against legislation, HR 1943 and S 974, that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow Amish children as young as 14 to work in sawmills for religious reasons.

This issue was covered a couple of weeks ago in a lengthy article in the New York Times (which you are downloading from the Taipai Times because the @#$@# Times charges for web articles after a week.)

"This is the 21st century," said John R. Fraser, who headed the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division in the Clinton administration and opposed the Amish exemption when it was first proposed in the late 1990s. "We should certainly respect and tolerate religious and cultural beliefs that date from centuries ago, but it would be irresponsible and dangerous to begin to tolerate 17th- and 18th-century practices with respect to child labor."

But while child-labor opponents seek to keep teenagers away from hazardous machinery, the Amish have an additional goal: to keep those teenagers busy with gainful work and so away from hazardous enticements.

In a letter to Congress, UFCW argues that

This legislation would undermine the existing child labor laws in a direct and simple manner. It would create a loophole in the existing law by permitting Amish youth as young as 14 years of age to be employed in Amish owned sawmills.

There are numerous problems with this proposal. It undercuts the existing child labor laws; it opens up what is already one of the most dangerous industries for adults; it has potential constitutional problems regarding the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and it would lead to unequal treatment of Amish-owned sawmills vis-à-vis non-Amish-owned sawmills. In addition, it would lead to the difficult and confusing situation of Department of Labor inspectors trying to verify the religious faith of the owners and the youth involved in potential child labor violations.

If your group would like to sign on to a letter opposing this legislation, please contact Tim Schlittner (pr10001@ufcw.org) or Michael J. Wilson (mwilson@ufcw.org) by this Friday October 31.

If It Ain't Broke, Break It

OSHA Training Grants Can Do Good; Let's Cut Them

"One thing they're teaching is not only training, but how to fight for our rights," Hernandez said. "It was awesome. Really awesome."

That statement is from Juan Carlos Hernandez,

a 22-year-old Mexican immigrant, was working as a line cook at a restaurant a couple of years ago when he sliced his index finger with a knife.

His manager rushed him, bleeding and in pain, to the hospital, sat with him while he waited, and paid for his stitches. And then he took him right back to the restaurant to resume his work.

"I thought he would drive me home to my house," Hernandez, dumbfounded, recalled one day last week. "He drove me back to the restaurant and said, 'Do what you can do.' "....

After the accident, he returned to the restaurant in pain, his hand wrapped in bandages, unable to lift boxes or hold a knife. The battle with his manager continued for days, he said, until he quit.

Hernandez was lucky enough to be part of the Latino Occupational Safety and Health Initiative, a project with New Labor, a New Brunswick worker training group and Rutgers University, funded by a $212,000 OSHA training grant.

The project has had some success helping workers -- most of whom are day-laborers -- who are difficult to reach.

New Labor ... has done what few other groups have been able to: It's become a gathering point for
the Spanish-speaking work force by offering English classes, social functions and, recently, workplace safety training.

Now let's take a moment and put all this in context. OSHA has been attempting, since the beginning of the Bush Administration to replace the $11 million worker training grant program with a $4 million web-based program. In fact, this scaled back training program was somehow justified as a major expansion of their immigrant outreach program. According to Assistant Secretary for Labor, John Henshaw,

Safety and health training grants are another tool OSHA will use to address the unique problems of non-English-speaking workers. In its FY 2003 budget, the Agency proposes to change the focus of its training grant program. Workplaces have changed significantly, and are employing an increasing number of workers from a myriad of cultures with different languages, literacy and educational levels. OSHA will provide grants to non-profit organizations and professional organizations, colleges, universities and community colleges as well as faith-based and community-based organizations. Grants will enable these groups to establish programs to train employees and small business employers in selected occupational safety and health topics; programs that can continue after the grant has ended. Materials posted on the web will have broad applicability and allow for easy access and training at the convenience of both employers and employees.

Now tell me please how that statement corresponds with the reality that immigrant workers face:

"It's the type of employment, the temp agency and day labor scene, where employees may be digging ditches one day or in a chemical warehouse pouring bleach the next," said Michele Ochsner, assistant director of the Rutgers Occupational Training and Education Consortium. "Contract labor or day labor tends to fall through the cracks."

Happily, the Senate has restored the full $11 million every year, realizing that Henshaw's fantasy of immigrant workers coming home from their day jobs and settling down for the evening in front of a their computer for a little web-based training in whatever job they may be doing the next day makes little sense in the real world.

New Labor uses the "small group" method of peer training where "participants not only learn technical information and skills, but also the problem solving, critical thinking, communication and teamwork skills."

As Juan Carlos Hernandez said at the beginning of this artice:"One thing they're teaching is not only training, but how to fight for our rights,"

Try learning that from a web page.

Wal-Martian Chronicles

The combination of the grocery strikes in California and other states, along with the arrest of hundreds of illegal immigrants at Wal-Mart stores last week has inspired a number of good articles about Wal-Mart, how it's abusing its workers, what it's dong to the economy and how it's forcing American citizens to subsidize its profit margin.

The holidays are approaching and lots of us will be heading back to the homestead where the friends and family will be jumping in the SUV to shop at Wal-Mart. Before they jump in the car, ask them if they knew that:

"Wal-Mart pays its in-house workers only $7 to $8 an hour. The federal poverty line for a family of four is $8.70 an hour. Wal-Mart's health insurance is so costly that fewer than half its workers can afford it. Many aren't even eligible." (1)
"Lawsuits pending against the company in 30 states charge that Wal-Mart routinely forces workers to work off the clock without pay, locking them in stores until they finish cleaning up." (1)

But isn't the point to keep prices low for consumers?
That's irrelevant. "A recent calculation based on payroll data showed if Wal-Mart gave all of its workers a $1-an-hour raise, the impact on prices would be one half of one cent." (1)
"Last year, Wal-Mart had profits of $8 billion. The CEO received $18 million in total compensation." (1)
Nearly 50 complaints have been issued against Wal-Mart by the National Labor Relations Board, "showing that Wal-Mart has prevented its employees from distributing union materials, interrogated and threatened employees who are trying to organize, taken unlawful disciplinary action and fired union supporters, and even gone to the extreme of closing entire departments in a community like Jacksonville, Texas, when Wal-Mart meat workers voted for a union." (1)
"With no health insurance, low wage workers are forced to go to emergency rooms for routine care. To make ends meet, they must apply for food stamps and rental assistance, use subsidized child care vouchers and draw on other government services. This means we the taxpayers are involuntarily subsidizing low-wage employers." (1)
"Wal-Mart's relentless drive to deliver low prices now directly saves American consumers $20 billion a year by one estimate -- and probably several times that sum once the indirect effect on competitors is factored in." (2)
But, "to win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process." (2)
"Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China, and its shelves bear little trace of the "Buy America" philosophy of its founder." (2)
Wal-Mart "now accounts for 35 percent of food sales, 30 percent of consumer staples, 25 percent of drug store products and 15 percent of magazines, books and apparel. Entire chambers of commerce have been wiped out with the arrival of a new "superstore," while "greeting customers at Wal-Mart" has replaced "hamburger flipping" in the national debate over wages and trade. " (2)

Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post attempts to answer the question how "a wealthy society to assure all workers a minimal standard of living."

I'm talking about a minimum wage that would put a family with two full-time workers above the poverty line in high-cost metropolitan areas -- and no doubt put upward pressure on wages at places like Wal-Mart.

Or how about requiring employers like Wal-Mart to provide all workers with affordable health insurance, including part-timers and recent hires.

And what about labor laws effective enough to prevent companies such as Wal-Mart that instruct managers never to hire anyone who once belonged to a union, that routinely fire any employee seen talking to a union organizer and that fly in special teams whenever a store's employees score too high on a "union probability index."

Yes, such measures would likely force Wal-Mart to raise the price of jeans and chicken wings by a nickel or two, slow its growth, and maybe even shave a fraction of a point off real GDP.

But that's not the issue. The issue we ought to be debating is what is an acceptable price to pay to restore a measure of fairness, equality and economic security to Wal-Mart nation. That is fundamentally a political issue, not an economic one.

My feeling is, if you can't beat 'em, organize 'em.

For more information about Wal-Mart and the grocery strikes, check out You Are Worth More.

Washington Ergo Vote A Week Away

As the final countdown begins in Washington state, the battle rages over the nation's only effective, comprehensive ergonomics ergonomics standard. If Yes on 841 wins, the ergonomics standard will be repealed, and the state would be barred from ever adopting another ergonomics rule unless required to by the federal government.

The vote on Initiative 841 comes a week from today. There has been no recent polling and there are no other major issues on the ballot, so both sides expect turnout to make the difference.

Before I proceed to rant and rave, a review of recent developments:

The U.S. Navy adopted the Washington State ergonomics rule last week. So much for the argument that the rule is based on junk science. (The Department of Defense, by the way, has also has very good ergonomics policies for some time.)
"We saw Washington's rule as a great tool to identify risk factors (for ergonomic injuries) so we wanted to adopt it for the Navy," said Cathy Rothwell, a Navy Ergonomics Program Manager based in San Diego. "The feedback we've gotten from people in the field is that they like the checklist. It is widely accepted and widely used as an easy way to identify hazards."
The bad news is that business lobbying groups financing Initiative 841 have launched a $1 million TV and radio advertising campaign. They are trying to scare Washington voters into repealing an important work safety rule and forbid the state from adopting another rule to prevent debilitating ergonomic-related injuries.

The I-841 campaign's high-priced California political consultants have recommended playing upon people's biggest fears: Loss of their jobs and loss of health care benefits. So I-841 TV and radio ads claim jobs will be lost and children will lose health insurance.
The good news is that the "Yes" side is falling short of their fundraising goals, having blown a good part of their wad on getting signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. To the rescue rides the National Coalition on Ergonomics, the D.C. based, Chamber of Commerce sponsored group that brought us the repeal of the federal standard. NCE has been actively fundraising, urging members to send check to "Workers Against Job Killing Rules, Yes on I-841." (Do I sense a whiff of job blackmail here?)

And what are they using to strike fear into the hearts of potential donors? The specter of labor advertisements. "If previous congressional ad-campaigns are anything to go by, you can expect ads with mothers unable to lift their children and other disabled workers who blame the lack of ergonomics rules for their situations." Such ads would not be surprising, considering the number of actual mothers who can't lift their children and other workers who are disabled because of the lack of ergonomics standards.

But even with their money problems, the good guys are still being outspent. Feel free to contribute.
You may recall a posting I wrote last month about an article written by confessed serial corporate "expert witness" Steven Moss where Moss admitted to being part of a group of highly paid expert witnesses who are hired and paid by one side in a case, and "get compensated for saying what the lawyers want to hear." And that Moss's firm, M.Cubed, was the consultant that came up with the notorious estimate that the Washington State ergonomics standard would costs the state $750 million.

Turns out the Association of Washington Business (AWB), one of the main backers of Prop 841, is SHOCKED, SHOCKED that a business consultant could possibly ever think that his lucrative contract might depend on his williness to "say what the lawyers want to hear."

As might have been expected, the AWB was not amused by Moss's article because it makes them and their cost figure look like idiots. In fact, they are so displeased that they are threatening to sue Moss to get back the money they paid for the "study." They didn't pay him to give them what they wanted to hear. No, no, they paid him for an accurate study done in good faith.

Accurate. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Moss is now claiming that when he wrote about his slimy profession and his foul deeds, he didn't mean this study. No, no no. This study was, in fact, accurate and done in good faith.

OK, that clears it all up.

Now, it's almost too easy to make fun of these organizations and their stupid arguments. But, as we have learned, stupid sometimes wins, especially when combined with money and organization. So make no mistake. This is deadly serious. As I've written before,

The stakes here are extremely high for a number of reasons. First, the ergo foes have failed so far to repeal the standard in the legislature or in the lower courts. The Washington Supreme Court is still considering an appeal by business to overturn the rule, but the good guys expect to win. The referendum is their last chance. If they lose, they are out of options. A win will have nationwide implications for workplace safety: the already difficult task of getting other states to issue ergonomics standards -- a process that could put pressure on the federal level -- will become very nearly impossible

But there are other reasons that it is imperative to defeat this referendum. Like the California gubernatorial recall, Initiative 841 is another example of big right-wing dollars being used to distort the referendum process and democracy itself. If not for the huge amounts of money used to hire professional canvassers and flood the media with misinformation, the referendum never would have reached the ballot.

Finally, like the repeal of the federal ergonomics standard, right wing ideologues are using lies, distortions and massive amounts of money to subvert the administrative process by which agencies comply with their mandates to do what Congress and the state legislatures intended for worker protection laws to do -- protect workers.

Having been through this fight a number of times before, it never ceases to amaze me how all the same stupid arguments continue to show up:

Businesses do accept that ergonomics standards are a good practice, but they would prefer to voluntarily adopt them. An enterprise could follow guidelines that would be customized to its specific type of business rather than be forced to follow Labor and Industries' strict approach.

In theory, this could work. There are indeed incentives to strong self-imposed standards. These include the avoidance of lawsuits by injured workers, higher workers' compensation rates, sick leave expense and the cost of training and replacing injured workers. No one wants injuries

What planet is this guy from? Sure voluntary is great. It would be great if we could have voluntary speed limits, voluntary securities rules, voluntary assault guidelines. We wouldn't need all of those damn police with their one-size-fits-all laws.

And since when can workers sue their employers for musculoskeletal injuries? And don't even get me started on how well workers comp functions as a safety motivator -- especially for musculoskeletal injuries. But hey, "in theory," voluntary standards could work. It could happen. Anything's possible.

But the people who actually do the work, like nurses, aren't buying it:

The American Nurses Association says every year, 12 percent of the nation's RN's leave their jobs because of back injuries. Maggie Flanagan blew out her back moving a hospital monitor and spent 8 months rehabbing.

"It was so bad, I didn't think I was coming back to work, that's why I'm so passionate, I know people that did not come back," says Maggie Flanagan.

***

"Bottom line, you take care of your workers and make sure they're protected," says Washington State Nurses Association's Barbara Blakeney.

But the nurses worry without ergonomic mandates, companies won't voluntarily comply, leaving no one to watch their backs.

And Judy Middleton isn't buying it either:

The ergonomics rule was intended to help people like Judy Middleton, a 60-year-old grocery checker from Kent. Middleton started working as a checker nearly 40 years ago and still puts in at least 80 hours a month to keep her health insurance.

With all of the bending, lifting and repetitive motions they have to do, grocery workers are among those most vulnerable to ergonomic hazards.

Over the past decade, Middleton said she has undergone surgeries for two hernias and for carpal-tunnel syndrome in both wrists. "My arms were sleeping and I wasn't," she said.

She had to miss six weeks of work for each of the carpal-tunnel operations.

Middleton, who until recently was oblivious to the fight over ergonomics, said she isn't sure whether it's something government should be trying to enforce. But she is convinced there are things grocery stores can do, such as better designs for check stands, to reduce the risk of injury.

At the QFC store where she works, checkers must lift items out of the customer's shopping cart and slide them across the scale or scanner. "All of it," she said. "The pumpkins, the turkeys, the watermelons, the six cases of beer. You ache when you go home."

Bottom line, of course, is that this thing has to be stopped. As most of you faithful readers can't vote in Washington State, you may be wondering what to do. Aside from sending money, call or e-mail any friends or relatives you have in Washington. Direct them to the No on 841 website. Urge them to vote against 841 and to spread the word to their friends as well.

One industry representative described Initiative 841 as their "last, best chance" to kill ergonomics rules in this country once and for all. Let's make sure that this will be the last we'll ever hear from them.

Labels: Ergonomics

Hepatitis C Plagues Inmates and Officers in Michigan Prisons

There was a chilling series in the Lansing State Journal reporting that

Between 12,000 and 18,000 of Michigan's 48,800 prisoners are believed to harbor the hepatitis C virus. Yet the state - citing cost and effectiveness of available drugs - is treating just 55. Prison officials say they don't know how many guards are infected.

Hello? Why don't they know how many guards are affected? How about confidential screening? Seems like important information to have.

Hepatitis C is nothing to scoff at:

Four times more prevalent than HIV, health experts say hepatitis C, a potentially fatal virus that attacks the liver, is now the infection causing the greatest threat to public health in modern times.

A third of all cases are among prisoners.

Consider these facts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
In the 14 years since its discovery, hepatitis C has become the most chronic blood-borne infection in the United States.

It's the No. 1 reason for liver transplants nationwide, accounting for about 1,000 procedures a year - about 50 of those in Michigan.

By 2010, hepatitis C will kill 30,000 people a year - twice as many Americans as AIDS.
"This is a huge public health issue that must be addressed, or it will only get worse," said Dr. Robert Griefinger, former chief medical officer for the New York State Department of Correctional Medical Services.

Hepatitis C is the only strain of the virus for which there is no vaccine or cure. But drug therapy can reduce the virus to undetectable levels in up to 80 percent of patients.

All The News That's Fit For Spit

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Buy Them

When I look at the situation that working people find themselves in today -- plant closings and unemployment, lack of health care insurance, weak health and safety protections, attacks on pensions and overtime -- as well as the general state of the economy, the balooning deficit, the war in Iraq, corporate/oil industry influence at the EPA and Department of Interior that is doing irreversable damage to the environment (OK, take a breath), I wonder why that joker in the White House has even a 5% approval rating, much less a 50% approval.

Then I ask myself, "Jordan, where do think most Americans get their news about government the economy? And what kind of news do they get?" The answer is that too many get it from the right-wingernuts (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc) on cable T.V. and radio.

The problem is that even those who actually still read the newspapers and watch "objective" T.V. news are getting a skewed view.

There are two excellent -- but disturbing -- MUST READ articles this week covering this issue. (Must Read means that you must click on the links below, print out these articles (the trees will forgive you), sit down in a quiet room with a highlighter, and study them. Then send them to friends.)

First, read the interview with national treasure Bill Moyers on Buzzflash. (I had been considering starting a Moyers For President campaign, but now I'm thinking that a Moyers for God campaign may be more appropriate.)

Moyers notes that the news (T.V. and print) is covering many fewer stories dealing with government and many more "entertainment" pieces:

Does it matter? Well, governments can send us to war, pick our pockets, slap us in jail, run a highway through our back yard, look the other way as polluters do their dirty work, slip tax breaks and subsidies to the privileged at the expense of those who can't afford lawyers, lobbyists, or time to be vigilant. Right now, as we speak, House Republicans are trying to sneak into the energy bill a plan that would prohibit water pollution lawsuits against oil and chemical companies. Millions of consumers and their water utilities in 25 states will be forced to pay billions of dollars to remove the toxic gasoline additive MTBE from drinking water if the House gives the polluters what they want. I can't find this story in the mainstream press, only on niche websites. You see, it matters who's pulling the strings, and I don't know how we hold governments accountable if journalism doesn't tell us who that is.

You get what James Squires, the long-time editor of the Chicago Tribune, calls "the death of journalism." We're getting so little coverage of the stories that matter to our lives and our democracy: government secrecy, the environment, health care, the state of working America, the hollowing out of the middle class, what it means to be poor in America. It's not that the censorship is overt. It's more that the national agenda is being hijacked. They're deciding what we know and talk about, and it's not often the truth behind the news.

I'm quoting here rather extensively, because it's important for people to understand what's going on this country, and why we need to dig deep than just calling voters "idiots" when they vote against their own interests:

Look, the founders of our government, the fellows who gave us the First Amendment, didn't count on the rise of these megamedia conglomerates. They didn't count on huge private corporations that would own not only the means of journalism but vast swaths of the territory that journalism is supposed to cover. When you get a handful of conglomerates owning more and more of our news outlets, you're not going to find them covering the intersection where their power meets political power.

The fact is that big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are the undisputed overlords of politics and government today. Barry Diller came on my PBS program and talked about what can happen when the media and political elites gang up on the public. Diller says we have a media oligopoly. Kevin Phillips says we have a political oligarchy. Talk about a marriage made in hell! Listen, these guys are reshaping our news environment. They're down in Washington wining and dining the powers-that-be insisting that any restriction on their ability to own media properties is a violation of their corporate First Amendment rights. They want to be the gatekeepers not only over what we see on television and hear on the radio but how we travel online.

Journalists feel squeezed -- those who simply believe we are here to practice our craft as if society needs what we do and expects us to do it as honorably as possible. There's another study around here somewhere done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and The Columbia Journalism Review. More than a quarter of journalists polled said they had avoided pursuing some important stories that might conflict with the financial interests of their news organizations or advertisers

And when you're done with the Moyers, check out Frank Rich in the "Arts" section of the Sunday New York Times. (He was moved off of the Editorial Page recently. The good news is, he is able to write longer articles in the "Arts" section.)

Rich's argues that the Bush Administration's effort to cover up the bad news by "going over the heads" of national journalists is doomed to failure. After describing a rare, but especially agressive interview with an Administration official by Nightline's Ted Koppel, Rich observes that

There will be others, because this administration doesn't realize that trying to control the news is always a loser. Most of the press was as slow to challenge Joe McCarthy, the Robert McNamara Pentagon and the Nixon administration as it has been to challenge the wartime Bush White House. But in America, at least, history always catches up with those who try to falsify it in real time. That's what L.B.J. and Nixon both learned the hard way.

Let's just hope history catches up the current round of bad guys before next November.

U.S. and Europe: Can't We All Just Get Along?

I’ve written now several times about the REACH (most recently here), the European Union's efforts to reform chemical policy, and the opposition to these changes from the American chemical industry and the U.S. government. Now, as involved citizens, I think it’s necessary for all of us to help our European friends understand the American position on all of this.

First, in the way of background, a little good and a little bad news. The most recent bad news is in this October 24, 2003 Wall St. Journal article (for which I have no link):

European Union officials significantly narrowed the scope of a proposal to test tens of thousands of chemicals for health and environmental hazards, lowering the estimated cost of the measure by billions of dollars.

The move by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, comes amid a lengthy and aggressive campaign against the proposed measure by President Bush's administration and the chemical industry.

The good news is:

Despite the changes, the U.S. government and the chemical industry remain critical of the proposed measure, which shifts responsibility for testing to manufacturers from government and requires registration and authorization for thousands of high-use chemicals. U.S. policy permits the use of about 30,000 chemicals that predate testing requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976….Commerce Secretary Don Evans called the latest draft a serious blow to the chemical industry.

The changes, according to the Journal:

The final draft, for now, excludes chemical products known as polymers. In addition, if less than 10,000 metric tons of a chemical is produced world-wide, it would be subject to less scrutiny, a change that affects as many as two-thirds of all chemicals. The proposal also relaxes requirements for companies that use intermediaries, or chemicals to make other chemicals, and allows manufacturers some confidentiality surrounding the data that testing may yield.

Environmentalists say the proposed measure still restricts dangerous chemicals and places the onus for safety on industry. But they accuse the commission of creating loopholes to satisfy the Bush administration.

So, as I said, we need to help our Euro-buddies understand why our government and our chemical industry (without whom, life itself would be impossible) think the way they do.

First a speech by U.S. Ambassador to the EU Rockwell A. Schnabel

Many of the conflicts that exist in the economic relationship between the United States and the European Union are rooted in divergent regulatory approaches, says U.S. Ambassador to the EU Rockwell A. Schnabel at a Sept. 15 conference on “Understanding Chemical Control Policies: International Perspectives” in Stockholm, Sweden: “These divergences often arise from different attitudes about risk and safety, and the respective roles of governments and private actors in minimizing the former and maximizing the latter,”.

Let's look at the real meaning of some of this diplomat-speak:

"Different attitudes about risk and safety": Schnabel explained what this means before: “European regulators did not take enough business input into their decisions and that they were concentrating too much on environment and health at the expense of growth and trade.”

"Respective roles of governments and private actors in minimizing the former [risk] and maximizing the latter" [safety]: In the U.S., affected industries spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and advertising to persuade lawmakers that regulation restricts the free market and hurts American businesses, and therefore, jobs. American businesses also give huge sums of money to candidates as campaign contributions. According to a recent conversation I had with a European diplomat, this process would be considered bribery in his country, but in the United States it's considered “being accountable to the public.”

And don’t let the ongoing American corporate scandals scare you off. American businesses really know what’s best for you.

OK, now that that’s clear, let’s move on

The big danger in all of this, of course, is that an economic relationship on the scale of the U.S.-EU relationship simply can’t afford to get bogged down in these regulatory divergences. Even if our regulatory policies are not explicitly designed to disrupt trade, differences in regulatory approach can all too easily result in trade problems. And that’s not good for our relationship, nor for the 8 to 10 million people on both sides of the Atlantic whose jobs depend on transatlantic trade and investment.”

"Differences in regulatory approach can all too easily result in trade problems." This one’s easy. If you all don’t shape up, two words: Trade war

OK, now we’re going to get a bit more sophisticated:

The role of science in the development of regulatory policy is also a major issue. We are particularly concerned over the threat that the EU' s expansive use of "precaution" poses for the principle that risks need to be carefully assessed on the basis of sound science. (emphasis added)

And then there’s this by Charles P. Ries, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For European And Eurasian Affairs:

Earlier this year, the Commission unveiled its first draft proposal that, to put it plainly, was riddled with problems. First of all, it was grounded on their problematic "precautionary principle" instead of science-based risk assessment.

Let's look at some more definitions.

Precaution: (1) Not assuming that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty through sickness, death and environmental degradation (2) Not assuming that chemicals are “safe” just because they were in use before the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act. (3) Paying up front to prevent health effects and environmental damage, instead of paying much more later to clean up the environment and bring people back to life (oh, never mind.)

Sound Science: There’s more to these two words than I have time to deal with here. Basically, the words “sound science” mean ignoring, changing, or selectively using science to fit industry’s political objective, generally to defeat or reverse environmental and public health and safety rules and protections.(See here and here and here for more). In other words, “sound science” is what the industry can use to undermine regulations, as opposed to “junk science” which is what all current and proposed workplace safety, environmental and public health regulations are based on.

The sound science argument is not just used in the chemical debate. It was also a favorite among the anti-ergonomics wingnuts. This from a National Coalition on Ergonomics fact sheet.

MYTH: "Ergonomic programs in individual companies are working; thus an ergonomic standard will work."

FACT: There is a huge and unbridgeable gap between anecdotal evidence and a sound scientific foundation. Individual companies are well positioned to study and determine what works for their employees. However, anecdotal examples do not support imposition of a regulation across an entire economy. Absent sound scientific evidence, OSHA cannot extrapolate from these isolated examples to a national rule.

And this from a speech by NCE spokesperson Laurie T. Baulig

We are not "the just say no" coalition. What we oppose is an ergonomics standard that is not science-based. After all, any standard that does not have sound science behind it cannot achieve its intended objective of reducing workplace injuries and illnesses...morning. At this time, the science simply does not exist to regulate ergonomics.

What seems to be missing from this analysis is that fact that the science behind ergonomics was not only voluminous, but backed by major literature reviews by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and twice from the National Academy of Sciences.

"Whose jobs depend on transatlantic trade and investment" This can be summed up in two more words – and listen up labor unions: Job Blackmail

Ok, enough seriousness. Now it’s time for a little comic relief, courtesy of “Rocky” Schnable:

And let me emphasize here parenthetically how important it is – as we develop standards which protect consumers at the lowest cost to our producers - that we work in international organizations such as the WTO to ensure that developing countries, especially China, also adhere to these standards, bear the same costs and level the playing field.

One word should do for this one: Bwa ha ha ho heh he snort – wait, let me catch my breath – ho ha ha hee hee, ho! Hee, hee… Oh, Rocky, what a card! You slay me!

One more

We are committed to engaging to share our own experiences with chemical regulation in ways that we hope will be constructive.

Translation: Our experience with chemical regulation is that: (1) We have regulations that are almost completely ineffective and we like it that way, and (2) We have intimidated the Democrats out of even talking about more effective workplace safety or environmental regulations. That’s our experience and we're trying to "share" it with you. Deal with it.

More from Assistant Deputy Secretary Ries

As such, it [REACH]effectively shifted the burden of proof for industry to unworkable levels. Just as importantly, it would have required testing all new and existing chemicals, to even those that have been in everyday use for decades, and it would have imposed these testing requirements even on downstream users of chemicals.

"Even those that have been in everyday use for decades:"OK, students of the Toxic Substance Control Act, what strikes you here? Tick tock. Time's up. Yes, Johnnie, you’re right. You’ve clearly been reading past issues of Confined Space. You knew that when TSCA was passed, it “grandfathered” in chemicals in commerce prior to December 1979, which still make up 99% by volume of all chemicals used in the United States today. These chemicals are considered safe unless the Environmental Protection Agency can demonstrate that they present an “unreasonable risk” to human health and the environment on a chemical by chemical basis.

Finally, to bring all parties together, European Commission Delegate Gerard Depayre stated at a recent Congressional hearing his fervent hope that

A solution to both these problems can only be reached through dialogue and close cooperation between regulators. The ideal result of such a dialogue should be to arrive at harmonised regulations. Failing this, efforts should be made to ensure maximum convergence of regulations on both sides of the Atlantic which makes possible the mutual recognition of equivalence of regulations

To which Gary Littman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce graciously responded

We have no intention to advocate the importation of the European regulatory practice in the U.S. Nor do we wish our problems on our European partners. The business community is not advocating the creation of supranational regulators for the Transatlantic market. Our goal is to rid this market of duplicative or incompatible rules.

It is up to the U.S. Congress and its counterparts in Europe to both compel and enable regulators to cooperate

Yeah, and the horse you rode in on!

Translation: You can take your "convergence" and "harmonization" and shove it up your )*&*(). It's our way or the highway. You've got a problem with your enviro-green-weenies and your corporate concern for society, we've got our own enviros and the plague of trial lawyers. You need to control your own brats. We've managed to control the runaway regulators in this country and you need to do the same if you want good trade relations with us.

So there.

EPA Lies. Lungs Die

So does this kind of stuff really surprise anyone anymore?

The top Environmental Protection Agency official charged with protecting air quality was warned repeatedly by staff that proposed changes to a Clean Air Act rule could undermine efforts to force certain power plants to add anti-pollution equipment, according to a report by the General Accounting Office.

Nonetheless, Jeffrey Holmstead, the assistant EPA administrator for air and radiation, told two congressional committees in July 2002 that the revisions the administration was considering would not hurt those efforts, which involved agency lawsuits against owners of 35 coal-fired power plants.

More here.

We Have Mail!

Sometimes people read this blog and get quite exercised. (Which is the point of this exercise.)

This is in response to the posting I did on OSHA’s cancellation of the nursing home inititiative.

What a farce! If we don't need this how come our Workers' Compensation rates continue to soar in this area? If the money employers spent on controvert claims was put into enough good ergonomic equipment, training and staff we could all become winners. OSHA has sold the workers out. Why put money into equipment and staff when it's a lot cheaper to pay a $1600 penalty and then controvert any injured workers' claim with one your Corporate lawyers?

Diane Moats RN
Health and Safety Director
CWA 1168/Nurses United

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Acts of God, Acts of Man

I have written an article for Working USA which is linked here. Here is the intro provided by Working USA:

In one sense, the tremendous improvements in workplace safety over the past 90 years seem to have made deaths on the job less remarkable. However, Barab points out how we take our cues from the mass media, which highlights the deaths of astronauts, but virtually ignores the deaths of day laborers or construction. Barab also observes that the most expendable Americans— immigrants and the poor— do some of the nation’s dirtiest and most dangerous work, and might be considered less expendable if both media and society treated the dangers they face with greater respect. He calls on the labor movement and the safety and health community to confront this problem head-on and develop an educational strategy to rectify the distorted idea that some lives are more valuable than others.

The Weekly Toll

Two Mine Fatalities: An Alarming Trend

ORANGEBURG, SC --- ...The first metal and non-metal fatality occurred Sept. 22 at Holcim when Antonio Gonzalez, 39, of Ridgeville was using a back-hoe to dig out along the side of a building to replace a retaining wall. The victim and the two co-workers were in a 15-foot-deep hole when the bank caved in, burying the victim. A second employee received minor injuries while a third co-worker escaped injury.

Farmer dies in fall from his tractor

JONESVILLE, Mich. — A man died Thursday while working in the field on his Jonesville farm, the Michigan State Police said.

Troopers from the Jonesville post were dispatched to a N. Cronk Road farm just after 11 a.m. where they found Manual Lavern Peiffer, 68, in a field. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The investigation revealed that a seat malfunctioned on Mr. Peiffer’s standard tractor, causing him to fall backward and strike his head and neck on a hard object, authorities said. Although they are uncertain as to what he hit, investigators believe it was a part of the equipment he was driving.

The fatal accident was the second at the plant in under two years. A worker was killed in February 2002 during the construction of a cement kiln at the site.

No violations of standards were found, and no citations were issued for that incident.

The other state fatality occurred Sept. 26 at the Greenville Hanson Aggregates Southeast Inc. Sandy Flat Quarry when a 17-year veteran road tire technician was injured
while using a truck-mounted tire handling crane.

Construction Workers Killed in Fall

LEOMINSTER,MA (AP) -- A construction worker died Friday when he plunged 170 feet from a communications tower being built off Route 2 in Leominster, Massachusetts. More here.

Tyson's Food Worker Killed by Hydrogen Sulfide

The death of 31-year-old Jason Edward Kelley remains under investigation by the Occupational Hazard Safety Administration, said Miller County Investigator Tom West.

Kelley was working at the Tyson River Valley animal foods plant between Fulton and Texarkana when he reportedly collapsed and died at 1:30 a.m. Oct. 10.

Derrell Reynolds, coordinator for Miller County Emergency Management, said plant officials notified them that they were dealing with a possible hydrogen sulfide leak. Hydrogen sulfide is colorless and has the smell of rotten eggs. It is lethal in small doses.

Auto Worker Crushed in Machinery

NORMAL, IL - A supportive father of his sports-playing sons and excellent parent to all five of his children is how John Foster of Metamora is described by school officials who knew him.

Foster, 42, of 204 N. Prairie St. was killed on the job Thursday at the Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America plant in Normal after becoming trapped on a conveyor system.

Worker Crushed by Forklift

ROCKLEDGE, Fla. -- A worker died in the hospital after he was crushed by a forklift he was driving. Police say the man was working at Wojac's Nursery in Rockledge.

Butcher Shop Worker Killed

Summit, PA . A butcher shop worker was killed yesterday when a deer hunter ran over him as he backed up his vehicle near the Summit facility.

Woman, injured at work, gives birth, dies

A Cloverdale, Ohio, woman who was hurt in a factory accident early yesterday gave birth to a 26-week-old baby by cesarean section before dying of her injuries.

Following the accident, which occurred shortly after midnight at Progressive Stamping, , Inc., a metal-stamping plant in Ottoville, Ohio, Monica Boecker, 23, had her baby at St. Rita’s Medical Center, Lima, Ohio.

The headline of another article cited "worker error" as the cause, although later in the article, OSHA inspector Dick Tracy explained:it is a company’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment for its employees. Included in that requirement is ensuring that devices are in place to shut machines down when employees are put in dangerous situations. Often this involves a device placed on the operating controls that prevents the machine from accidentally being turned on.

This requirement, referred to as "lock out, tag out," means that each employee controls the power to the machine they are working on.

"The purpose of lock out, tag out is to ensure that every employee exposed to danger while working on a machine controls the release of that machine’s energy," he said, adding that each employee should have a control to shut down the machine.

"No other employee should have control of turning the machine on if someone is in a danger zone. If that condition occurs, a violation exists."

Mr. Tracy would not comment on whether this requirement was a factor.

School bus hits, kills workman

A construction worker died Wednesday after he was struck by a school bus on the Near Northside. Indianapolis police said the worker had just stepped out of a truck when he was hit by the passing bus.

Construction Worker Killed

CABAZON, CA - A worker died Monday at the new Casino Morongo construction project when an object struck him on the head, according to authorities.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department identified the man as Bobby Holmes, 22, of Whittier.

Worker Killed on Skid-Steering Vehicle

MILLERSBURG, OH – A Millersburg man was killed in a work-related accident on Saturday.

Ernesto Solis, 23, was fatally injured apparently while operating a skid-steering vehicle at Holmes Byproducts, 3175 Township Rd. 412, Millersburg, said Nathan Fritz, Holmes County chief deputy. Solis was originally from Honduras.

Solis was working by himself in an area at the company and was found by other employees, Fritz said.

Diver Killed

St Louis, MO -- A diver doing contract services for the Ameren Energy Generating Facility in Coffeen, Illinois when killed in a diving accident Monday.

The facility, about 65 miles northeast of St. Louis, is a subsidiary of Ameren. It uses water from Coffeen Lake in part of the cooling process as electricity is generated.

The diver, Paul Patterson, 29, of Hebron, Indiana,
and two helpers were part of a team hired by
Ameren Energy to provide routine maintenance.

Ameren officials say a miscommunication between Ameren Energy and the dive team was to blame for the accident. They say Patterson may have been placed down the wrong hatch, into an intake for the facility. This apprently made an already dangerous situation deadly.

Long Island Railroad Worker Killed

A deadly accident on the Long Island Railroad: A worker was killed when he was hit by a train. The victim is a 41-year-old flagman for a work crew, it was his job to alert the crew when a train approaches.

The victim is a 41-year-old flagman for a work crew. It was his job to alert the crew when a train approaches.

The train hit him near the Copiague station. The crew was just about to start work on the third rail when the the train ran the over the worker.

Worker Killed at Steel Plant

OTTAWA, Kan. (AP) -- A worker died at an Ottawa steel plant Friday when he was pinned between a steel post and a 4,000-pound steel plate, authorities said.

Ottawa Police Chief Jeff Herrman said Chet M. Fredericks, 20, of Williamsburg, was killed in the accident at about 8 a.m. at the Ottawa Havens Steel plant.

Fredericks was operating a remote-controlled crane to move steel plates from a storage yard to the steel-fabrication plant when one of the plates fell and pinned him against a steel post, Herrman said. Fredericks was working alone in the yard and was found by another employee.

Employee killed in pipe-plant accident

A 36-year-old worker was killed Thursday morning when he was pinned between a cart and catwalk at a Saginaw plant.

Ramiro Gonzalez, whose chest was crushed in the impact, was pronounced dead at the scene at 9:40 a.m. despite efforts by another worker to resuscitate him, said
homicide Sgt. J.D. Thornton.

Worker Killed in Front End Loader Accident

ANDOVER, Mass. -- Police say a construction worker was killed in an accident at a school construction site Wednesday afternoon.

Lt. Kevin Winters said the worker, a 23-year-old male, as killed at about 5 p.m. when the small front-loader he was operating fell through a second floor wall to the ground.

Construction Worker Killed In Backhoe Incident

COLUMBIANA — A construction worker who was injured in an accident on West Railroad Street died Monday.

Rick Repp, 45, Youngstown, died Monday afternoon from internal injuries suffered from a work accident that occurred Monday morning.

A bucket from a track backhoe fell to the ground and then rolled on Repp. The bucket apparently came loose where the quick-connect pins attach it to the arm, according to a worker who witnessed the accident.

Worker Killed in Trench Explosion/Coillapse

PAGE, AZ -- A city of Page employee was killed and another injured Tuesday morning when an explosion collapsed a trench in the city's industrial area.

City Manager Bo Thomas said Ritchie Singer, 49, was pronounced dead at Page Hospital at 9:35 a.m., after being buried for 15 minutes in the water-line trench near the ISG Block Plant on Highway 98 about 8:24 a.m.

Worker Killed in Roof Collapse

An apartment pool-house in Gulfport collapsed Friday afternoon. One man was trapped underneath the crushed roof and died, another man got out alive.

The men worked for M.B. Demolition and Construction of Biloxi. They were trying to tear down the old pool-house at the "Brittany Apartments" on DeBuys Road when the structure suddenly collapsed.

37-year old Donald McClain of Biloxi died. The other worker, 51-year old Frederick Foster, was hurt. He was treated for minor leg injuries and released.

Man Struck and Killed by Garbage Truck

WANDO, SC--State investigators continued Wednesday probing safety issues at B.P. Cooper River Chemical Plant in Wando, where a 50-year-old employee died after being struck by a garbage container truck, the second such incident in the Lowcountry this week.

Edward Coaxum, a 25-year employee of B.P., was outside the plant at 7:20 a.m. Tuesday when he was struck by a Fennell Container Co. truck. He died at Medical University Hospital, said Berkeley County Coroner Glenn Rhoad

Labels: Weekly Toll

America Going Socialist?

Americans Favor Single Payer Health Care System

This is a fascinating conversation between ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings and ABC News' Medical Editor Dr. Tim Johnson:

Jennings: The conventional wisdom is Americans like to think that we have the best health-care system in the world.

Johnson: And we do, certainly for people that are very rich or who have very good health insurance and who have very good connections into the health-care system. But for too large a number, 43 million, and many who are underinsured, it is not the very best system in the world.

Jennings: So what was notable in that regard in this poll this time?

Johnson: What was notable is that 62 percent of our population said that they would favor a system of universal health insurance financed by the government, paid for by the tax payers, as opposed to the system we now have, the employer based system where many people are uninsured. I was stunned by that figure.

Jennings: I think conventional wisdom has it that in America, land of the free, that the marketplace is where the price is best established.

Johnson: That's true for commodities like a car, where you can go in and make choices and you can even walk out of the showroom if you want. You can't do that when you're sick. You can't do that with health care. So, for health care, you're talking about a service and here I think the private sector has some real shortcomings. They have to spend a lot of overhead on sales and marketing and choosing the patients they're going to serve. They shuffle a lot of paperwork.

Jennings: Now, I think that the conventional wisdom is still the single-payer system, as you and others have described it, is socialized medicine and that isn't for the U.S.

Johnson: Socialized medicine means that the government both finances healthcare and owns and operates the doctors and the hospitals.

Jennings: Like Britain?

Johnson: Like Britain. In Canada, it's a split system. The government indeed does collect the money and disperse it. They run the financial part of health care. But the delivery system is free. People can choose whatever doctor or hospital they want to go to. So, we have a system like that in this country. It's called Medicare. That's exactly what happens with Medicare. So, to call the Canadian system socialized is to call Medicare socialized. I think it's a pejorative word and inaccurate.

Jennings: When I walk past people who know that we're doing this series this week and I mention the single-payer system, they just say, "Never in America."

Johnson: I've talked to elderly people who say they love Medicare but they don't want the government involved. They forget that the government has a role to play in setting standards, maybe in handling the money with lower administrative costs. It would be a tragedy for the government to try to run the health-care system in terms of delivery.

Jennings: On top of which, many Americans hold it to be conventional wisdom that private is better than public. Period.

Johnson: In fact the government does a few things well. And I'll hold up one example in the health-care system: The NIH, the National Institutes of Health, is the shining gem of medical research in this entire world. It's owned and run by the government. They can do some things well, especially when it comes to health care. Not everything, but some things.

OK. So now all we have to do is convince the insurance industry (and those in Congress that they support) to go away.

Chemical Plant Security: More Compromises

Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., have reached an agreement on a compromise chemical plant security bill. I have written before (here and here and here) about the chemical plant security debate and the competing bills sponsored by Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Senator Inhofe. Chafee, a moderate Republican, has been opposing Inhofe's bill until this agreement was reached.

As you will recall, Senator Jon Corzine's chemical security bill called for regulations that, among other things, would have required chemical facilities to move toward "inherently safer" production -- for example substituting safer chemicals for potentially hazardous ones and reducing the quantity of hazardous chemicals kept in the plant.

But regulations are a major no-no for this Administration, so Senator Inhofe came up with a more voluntary approach that would have required chemical companies to simply submit vulnerability or security-improvement plans to Homeland Security, but not require companies to consider using alternatives to current chemicals and practices.

Corzine's bill was passed unanimously in Committee last, but later dropped by Senate leadership when the American Chemistry Council launched a multi-million dollar campaign against it.

To win votes from holdouts such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., Inhofe agreed that chemical plant operators should have to make what he called "a good-faith effort" to at least consider using safer technologies and less toxic chemicals.

The bill would also make chemical plants submit annual status reports on their vulnerability to the Homeland Security Department.

Corzine was not impressed, arguing that the "compromise" between Chafee and Inhofe "would not require firms operating plants near population centers to replace volatile chemicals with safer compounds -- when and where possible and cost-effective. "

"The legislation approved today continues to provide far too many loopholes," Corzine said. "The bill fails to require review and approval of industry security plans, which may end up on a shelf, collecting dust. It also fails to require implementation of safer technologies, even in cases when they are cost-effective and their use could save many lives."

In addition, Corzine blasted the Inhofe bill for imposing criminal penalties on federal employees who publicly disclose a company's security plans but calling only for civil penalties if companies violate the law.

Corzine did not say he would oppose the bill, but rather claimed he would work to improve it during debate on the Senate floor.

The bad news is that the committee is expect to pass the bill. The good news is that, even if the committee and the full Senate pass the bill, the House is unlikely to act this year.

Labels: Chemical Plant Security

Maybe They Need Some Real Unions

Things are bad in Chinese workplaces:

BEIJING, Oct. 23 — New work safety rules and beefed-up enforcement have failed to reduce the death toll in China's mines and factories so far this year, and a government official acknowledged that the problem "has not been completely addressed."

Accidents took the lives of 11,449 workers through September, an increase of 9 percent over the corresponding period a year earlier, according to national data released Thursday. The official tally shows the number of deaths dropping slightly in notorious coal mines, but rising in other mines and jumping by 19 percent at factories and construction sites.

The undiminished carnage reflects the relatively low priority that China's government puts on safety. There is heavy emphasis on raising production, and workers are forbidden to form independent unions.

Although China's new leaders have promised to overhaul the way they manage the economy to better reflect the needs of workers and peasants, top leaders rarely speak about the enormous numbers of casualties in a wide variety of industries. They have continued to repress workers who voice concerns about poor labor conditions as potential threats to the Communist Party's hold on power.

What's interesting is the important role that strong, independent unions are assumed to have in assuring safer working conditions...in China.

In this country one rarely sees the link made between strong unions and safer working conditions.

REACH For Chemical Safety

Every year, more than 60,000 people in the United States die from preventable diseases caused by exposure to chemicals and other agents in the workplace…. Together, workplace illnesses and injuries are estimated to cost more than $145 billion annually in the United States, on par with the cost of all cancers combined or the total cost of heart disease and stroke.

This sounds like something that our compassionate government would want to do something about, doesn’t it?

Well, the European Union is about to address this problem through its REACH program, an shocking idea that tosses out the notion, promoted by the chemical industry, that chemicals should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

REACH stands for Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals, and is intended to address both workplace exposures and environmental pollution in the European Union.

Under REACH, chemical manufacturers and importers would be required to gather and report the quantity, uses and potential health effects of approximately 30,000 chemicals. About 1,400 of these chemicals are known or suspected to be carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, persist in the environment or to accumulate in body tissues. The initiative would subject these 1,400 chemicals to an authorization review similar to that used in the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Approval of any use that could result in human exposures would be predicated on a thorough assessment of safety considerations and alternative products.

I have written before about the "precautionary principle" and the fits it is causing among U.S. chemical manufacturers here and here, which also link to some excellent articles in the American Prospect.

REACH is based on a 2001 European Commission “White Paper on a Future Chemicals Strategy,” outlining the Commission’s intentions for a fundamentally new integrated chemicals policy. The specific objectives include:

Making industry responsible for generating knowledge on chemicals, evaluating risk, and maintaining safety—a duty of care;
Extending responsibility for testing and management along the entire manufacturing chain;
Substitution of substances of very high concern and innovation in safer chemicals; and
Minimization of animal testing.

EU officials are currently touring the United States, traveling to Washington D.C., San Francisco, Chicago and Boston where they will be meeting with U.S. government officials, environmentalists, academics, union staff and workers to explain the initiative. The tour is being sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell's Center for Sustainable Production which you should check out for much more information.

The tour comes only days before the European Commission is expected to issue its proposal for debate by the European Parliament and Council over the next year. As might be expected, these developments are generating a considerable amount of concern among American chemical companies and other businesses. And they're not taking it lying down.

A report issued recently by the Environmental Health Fund revealed a major campaign on the part of the Bush Administration and the U.S. chemical industry to weaken the European program: “As these documents show, the US government essentially operated as a branch office of the US chemical industry.” And for the usual reasons: it would cost too much money, put jobs at risk and it would restrict trade by banning certain chemicals.

The American attitude was put most succinctly last year, as I’ve reported before, by the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Rockwell Schnabel who

complained in a Wall Street Journal Europe op-ed that European regulators did not take enough business input into their decisions and that they were concentrating too much on environment and health at the expense of growth and trade.

Schnabel has also warned the Europeans that

The EU has a right and a duty to protect its citizens, but must do so in a way to avoid excessive or inappropriate regulations which increase the cost of producing goods and services and place jobs at risk.

Organizations like the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), representing over 300 large companies, have joined in. The NFTC calls REACH "a growing attempt to limit trade through the use of technical barriers:"

The EU is intent upon protecting the public from all potential risks associated with industrial and technological advancement. Suspect activities include not only those conducted by longstanding industries applying advanced technologies (e.g., chemicals, autos, aeronautics, electronic and electrical equipment, cosmetics and all related downstream industries), but also those engaged in by newer industries themselves defined by the cutting-edge technologies they employ (e.g., biotechnology, nanotechnology, biocides, etc.)...What is apparent is that the EU has once again created a ‘strawman’ of hazard for the purpose of protecting the public against an unidentifiable and unmeasurable harm to humans or the environment that has not yet materialized.

Well, I don’t know about a “strawman,” but addressing harm “that has not yet materialized” is what the “precautionary principle” is all about.

Some industry representatives have even called REACH a national security threat to the United States because foreign governments will have control over the chemicals U.S. companies can sell, without our input.

Of course what American companies may really be worried about is not what those crazy Europeans do over there, but that their ideas may spread over here. Chemical safety in this country is largely regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Passed in 1976, TSCA does a fairly good job requiring chemical manufacturers to test and prove the safety of new chemicals.

The main problem with TSCA is that when it was passed, it “grandfathered” in chemicals in commerce prior to December 1979, which still make up 99% by volume of all chemicals used in the United States today. These chemicals are considered safe unless the Environmental Protection Agency can demonstrate that they present an “unreasonable risk” to human health and the environment on a chemical by chemical basis.

The ineffectiveness of TSCA was made clear in a 1994 Report by the U.S. Government Accounting Office that found that since TSCA was passed, EPA has only been able to restrict only five chemicals (PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos and hexavalent chromium.)

According to the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that less than ten percent of the approximately 2,800 high production volume chemicals (those produced over one million pounds per year) have a basic set of publicly available toxicity information;more than forty percent lack any toxicity information at all. Even less is known about chemicals produced in smaller volumes or mixtures of chemicals. Yet, this lack of evidence of toxicity is often misinterpreted as evidence of safety.

Europe currently has a similar system where only new chemicals require testing and approval. The European REACH program, does not grandfather chemicals, but bases their regulatory requirements on the amount in use, as well as the hazard category they fall into. In addition to making the environment and the workplace safer, the Europeans hope that requiring the registration and testing of all chemicals will encourage companies to innovate and find safer substitutions.

The American companies’ fears of imitation be not be totally unfounded. According to the Lowell Center, San Francisco passed its own precautionary principle ordinance in June 2003 which integrates precautionary principles into the city’s purchasing policies by choosing only the safest alternatives for specific product categories such as cleaners and pesticides.

A group of scientists, public health advocates, labor unions and environmental advocates in Massachusetts have developed a bill, Act for a Healthy Massachusetts was introduced (which I’ve written about before.) that would require substitution of 10 priority chemicals where safer alternatives exist.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that the American pressure, along with growing fears of the European chemical industry may be having some effect, with the British, French and German government becoming increasingly critical of REACH. Debate is raging across Europe.

'Given our understanding of the way chemicals interact with the environment,' noted the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in a recent report, 'you could say we are running a gigantic experiment with humans and all other living things as the subject.'

Vital economic interests are at stake, too. Chemicals are Europe's third-largest manufacturing industry and a large and profitable exporter. But although Reach has often been portrayed (not least by the DTI) as 'a threat' to a successful employment and export sector, the reality is that the current regime has done it no favours.

Because today's rules implicitly favour existing products, which don't have to be tested, over new ones, the European industry lags behind Japan and the US in innovation.

Meanwhile, its poor image has become a major handicap in the competition to woo talented graduates to take up a chemical career.

REACH still has a long way to go before it becomes law. It has to be considered by the European Parliament and Council, which will be debating it through next year's parliamentary elections as well as the addition of ten new countries into the EU next year.

Despite the obvious debate between European environmentalists and the chemical industry, it is amazing to this reporter, a scarred and battleshocked veteran of numerous American regulatory wars, how substantive and civilized the discussions in Europe are. While the final shape of REACH is still unclear, all parties seem to agree that the current system is broken and something needs to be done.

It's that consensus that may be the most worrysome development to American companies who are used to getting their way through lies and blackmail.

OSHA Puts Reactives Guidebook on Web

Cheapskate Companies Applaud.

As promised by Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA John Henshaw, the OSHA webpage is now providing free access to the Center for Chemical Process Safety's book Essential Practices for Managing Chemical Reactivity Hazards. This is apparently being done instead of revising OSHA's Process Safety Management Standard, as recommended by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

I already wrote about this a couple of weeks ago. So I'll just paraphrase what I wrote then:

Anyone who can't afford to buy a book (even a really expensive book) on their own has no earthly business running a plant that processes hazardous reactive chemicals.

So on behalf of the Hooterville General Store and Petroleum Refinery, thanks OSHA.

P.S. Do you think we're all idiots?

Labels: Chemical Safety Board

New "Zero Lift" Web Discussion Forum

As OSHA cancels its Nursing Home Initiative, the Work Injured Nurses Group (WING USA) has stepped into the breach, starting a new web discussion forum "offered in hopes of being helpful to those working toward safe patient handling."

The forum is designed "to facilitate communication and collaboration among those working toward safe patient handling."

Check it out here.

Wing USA was started by Anne Hudson, an R.N. who suffered a career-ending back injury from lifting patients

Since suffering a work-related spinal injury in June of 2000, and losing my position solely because I was unable to continue heavy lifting, I want to help increase awareness of what can and does happen to back-injured nurses across the country.

Check out the WING USA main site here. The site contains an enormous amount of helpful information and ammunition for nurses seeking to improve their working conditions.

Asbestos Agreement: Almost Out of Time and Patience

Imagine my pleasure and surprise the other day when I read in the New York Times: "Agreement Reached on Asbestos Bill."

Labor, industry, trial lawyers, and insurance companies have been trying, in vain, for years to reach an agreement on fair and affordable compensation for victims of asbestos exposure. An agreement had been reached on the concept of a trust fund, but there was no agreement on the size. Until now?

So you can imagine my disappointment when I actually read beyond the headline and discovered that the only participants in teh agreement were the insurers and manufacturers -- but no labor. What did they agree to? A trust fund that was $40 billion smaller than the already too small version agreed to by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Neither the AFL-CIO nor the Washington Post were amused.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist badly wants an agreement before Congress adjourns next month, but time and tempers are growing short:

Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, sponsor of an earlier proposal for an asbestos victims' fund that congressional auditors say would be worth about $136 billion, was more blunt.

"They (the unions) have to get off their duffs and tell us what they want," Hatch told Reuters in a Capitol hallway.

"That's not what they told us last week. They told us that (the $114 billion proposal) was their final offer," Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO's occupational health official, said when told of Frist's and Hatch's comments.

Seminario, speaking by telephone to Reuters, said it was not fair to say that labor had not made its position clear. Months ago, she said, the AFL-CIO said it favored a proposal by Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy that would provide a compensation fund for asbestos victims of between $128 billion and $185 billion.

She said AFL-CIO officials were prepared to continue talking to senators about the issue, but doubted a bill of such complexity could be finished in the waning weeks of this year.

Labels: AFL-CIO, Asbestos

Shop 'Til Workers Drop: The Specter of Wal-Mart

Strikes Spread. AFL-CIO Issues Report on Wal-Mart Health Care Abuse

Los Angeles isn't the only city where grocery workers are on strike (or being locked out) and Wal-Mart is being blamed

Officials at Kroger and the nation's other dominant supermarket chains -- Ahold, Albertsons and Safeway -- cite competition from Wal-Mart Stores and other box stores moving into the grocery business as a reason to hold the line on labor costs.

Those costs include health care benefits that are the sticking point in United Food and Commercial Workers union strikes of 3,300 workers at 44 Kroger stores in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio; 70,000 workers at three Southern California chains; and 10,000 workers at three chains in Missouri.

And it's not good for workers' health either:

At the Cross Lanes Kroger, striking UFCW workers say Wal-Mart's opening five years ago cost their store $100,000 in weekly receipts, between a third and a half of the store's income.

In response, workers say, Kroger has slashed the store's payroll from 86 to 45 full- and part-time workers.

"All we hear from management is, 'Do more,' " said Kay Underwood, 49, a 29-year Kroger employee. "We did an employee survey, and the number of us on Paxil, Prozac, blood pressure medicines -- you name it -- has gone sky-high. We're killing ourselves for this company."

Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO has just released a study on "Wal-Mart's Race to the Bottom on Health Coverage"

As 70,000 grocery store workers are on strike to keep affordable health care, Wal-Mart’s role as the force driving the race to the bottom in health care benefits has risen to center stage. “The grocery store workers striking with the UFCW are taking a stand for all American working families who are being squeezed beyond their limits by our broken and inadequate health care system,” said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. “As Wal-Mart continues to leech off communities, forcing taxpayers and workers to pick up health care costs, it does tremendous damage as it drives other companies to do the same.” While historically providing good health benefits to their employees, the supermarkets now argue that they must shift greater costs onto workers in order to counter the cutthroat competition they face from Wal-Mart.

I've written several pieces on Wal-Mart and the grocery strikes (see below), and you can also find more comprehensive information on these strikes as well as other retail store strikes and organizing campaigns at You Are Worth More, a webpage created by UFCW Local 789.

UAW & USWA Sue OSHA over Metalworking Fluids

The United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers Unions filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao over OSHA's failure to issue a standard protecting workers against the hazards of metalworking fluids.

"The UAW petitioned OSHA to take action on metalworking fluids 10 years ago," said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. "Since then, millions of factory workers have been exposed to these hazardous chemicals. Tragically, some have developed asthma, pulmonary fibrosis or other severe respiratory ailments, while others have cancer because of the metalworking fluid mists they've been forced to breathe at work."

"The United Steelworkers is proud to join with the UAW in helping the working men and women who are being exposed to these hazardous chemicals in their workplaces," said USWA President Leo Gerard. "All we are asking is that OSHA do its job and take needed action to protect the health and safety of American workers."

According to OSHA

Metalworking fluids (MWFs) can cause adverse health effects through skin contact with contaminated materials, spray, or mist and through inhalation from breathing MWF mist or aerosol. Millions of workers engaged in the manufacture of automobiles, farm equipment, aircraft, heavy machinery, and other hardware are exposed to machining fluids.

Skin and airborne exposures to MWFs have been implicated in health problems including irritation of the skin, lungs, eyes, nose and throat. Conditions such as dermatitis, acne, asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, irritation of the upper respiratory tract, and a variety of cancers have been associated with exposure to MWFs (NIOSH 1998a). The severity of health problems is dependent on a variety of factors such as the kind of fluid, the degree and type of contamination, and the level and duration of the exposure.

The current 5 milligrams per cubic meter, although the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has recommended a standard 10 times more stringent -- 0.5 milligram per cubic meter. The UAW first petitioned OSHA for a standard in 1993 and in 1999 OSHA's Standards Advisory Committee voted to recommend that OSHA adopt the same standard suggested by NIOSH. Nevertheless, OSHA took metalworking fluids off of its regulatory agenda last year.

"OSHA has failed miserably in its responsibility to protect American workers," Gettelfinger continued. "Our lawsuit with the Steelworkers seeks to right this wrong, and offer our members and other workers who are exposed to these chemicals the protection they deserve."

An Intolerable Outrage: Forgotten Victims of 9/11

$87 billion for Iraq. Meanwhile, back on the home front....

David Rapp used to pride himself on being an active guy. A 250-pound construction worker, he drove piles on the Williamsburg Bridge and on projects all over the city. He could carry a sack of cement on his shoulder as easily as you carry an order of takeout sushi back to your desk. He liked fixing cars. He went crabbing in Jamaica Bay.

Then came September 11. Rapp spent several months at ground zero, drilling steel reinforcements into the “bathtub wall”—the slurry wall between the pit and the Hudson River that prevented the water from flooding the area.

Rapp’s illness began with a faint dizziness and shortness of breath, but it steadily got worse. Before long, he was useless to his former employers. They laid him off. Now Rapp is very, very sick. He’s suffering from severe pulmonary disease—meaning he never gets enough air. He has frequent respiratory infections. He’s on twelve medicines. He carries an oxygen tank wherever he goes. “I just went straight down,” Rapp says, his voice somewhere between a whisper and a rasp. “It’s real depressing.”

***

Rapp is one of perhaps thousands of people who are not cops or firefighters but who toiled at ground zero and are now sick, even disabled, from asthma, chronic infections, and other respiratory illnesses. These conditions, some experts maintain, were caused by the “crud”—the mixture of dust, ash, fumes from burning plastic, pulverized concrete, and vaporized human remains around ground zero.

Unlike the cops and firefighters whose heroism—and subsequent illnesses—have gotten huge amounts of attention, these other workers lack the medical safety net and pension enjoyed by the guys in uniforms. So they are scrambling for treatment in all kinds of ways. Some are on waiting lists for financially strapped private programs. Others are still battling for workers’ comp. Still others are defying doctors’ orders and working—because with a job comes health insurance. While some have found temporary treatment, they all share an uncertain future, with no guarantee that they’ll get the long-term care they’ll need.

The reason for this is not hard to divine. Two years have passed since the attacks, and there has been no comprehensive effort by the federal government to treat people who got sick helping out at ground zero. Incredibly, thousands of people are ill from a national disaster, and the federal government is AWOL.

Labels: 9/11 World Trade Center Workers

Washington State Ergonomics Campaign Update

The campaign against Proposition 841 which seeks to repeal Washington's ergonomics standard goes on:

Every year, 50,000 Washington workers suffer these kinds of "soft tissue" injuries such as carpal-tunnel syndrome and tendonitis. These injuries are expensive. Nearly half the cost of our state's workers-compensation system is attributed to these injuries. When business complains about the increasing cost of workers' compensation, doesn't it make sense to look at proven ways to reduce costs?

From an Op-Ed in today's Seattle Times by Washington State Labor Council President Rick Bender.

The "No on 841" Web Page is here.

Labels: Ergonomics

DOE to Sick Workers: Chill

This is certainly a surprise: The Department of Energy is dragging its feet coming up with data to determine whether former nuclear weapons workers were made ill by exposures on the job.

Worker advocates want the program moved from DOE to the Department of Labor.

A federal program established three years ago to help compensate thousands of workers made ill by exposure to toxic materials at government weapons facilities is "failing" and needs to be reorganized, according to a bipartisan group of senators.

The Department of Energy has not properly implemented the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, creating a seven-year backlog of claims, the senators said Friday in a letter to leaders of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development.

The 10 most dangerous jobs in America

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5,524 Americans were killed on the job last year. This was down 6.6% from 2001, and the lowest level since 1992 when this survey started.

Nevertheless, that's still over 2,600 more than were killed on 9/11, yet the war on workplace death hasn't quite reached the same level as the war on terrorism. After all, these were "just accidents." Careless workers, acts of God, "just one of those tragic things."

Let's be careful out there.

(The actual BLS Survey can be found here.)

L.A. Strikes Over Health Care: The Hidden Issues

It always amazes me, although it really shouldn't after all of these years, how there can be so many news stories over a strike and many of the main issues still get lost.

For example, reading most news articles, one might think that three Southern California grocery chains are on strike. Actually, however, only Vons is on strike. In a show of management solidarity, Albertsons and Ralphs have locked their workers out.

The other piece of missing information is what the fight is really about. To read most of the papers, one would think that the strike is over a simple $5 co-payment and $15 a week for family coverage that the companies want to impose. BUT

On the surface, the changes proposed to the grocery workers' health benefits appear minimal: Where employees now pay no contributions to their health care premiums, they would have to contribute $5 per week per employee for single coverage, and $15 per week per employee for family coverage.

This is the only thing employees are directly being asked to pay, said Stacia Hill Levenfeld, a spokeswoman for Albertsons. She said no other changes were written into the proposed contract, which has not been disclosed.

But it's not the $5 or $15 a week the workers are striking over, said Mickey Kasparian, president of UFCW Local 135 in San Diego. What the union disagrees with, he said, are costs that would result from lowered employer contributions into a trust fund that pays for insurance premiums.

"This is not about us being stubborn and walking on a picket line for five bucks a week," Kasparian said. "It has to do with the entire cost of the plan."

According to Kasparian, the grocery stores now pay $3.78 into the employees' insurance fund for each hour an employee works. But he said the rejected proposal called for lower contributions for new hires, reducing them to $1.35 per hour.

As new employees are hired over the three-year contact, Kasparian said, that would reduce the fund to around 50 percent of its current worth. He said that would eventually force the chains to cut back on benefits and go with more bare-bones insurance options. These would most likely carry with them higher co-payments for out-of-pocket expenses such as office visits, prescription drugs and hospitalization.

Other cuts would also have to be made, Kasparian said, including the elimination of some of the health plans that union members choose from.

How most Americans would know this without reading several newspapers is beyond me. It's not beyond me, however, how too many Americans still view unions as selfish and unreasonable.

And then there's this. The supermarkets justify their hardline on the fact that ~~Valdemort's~~ Wal-Mart's coming. (See posting immediately below.) While it's true that Wal-Mart's growth has threatened supermarket chains (and workers) in many parts of the country, the spectre of Wal-Mart may serve as a convenient excuse for many companies' self-inflicted wounds:

The supermarket companies have all been warned by Wall Street to get their costs under control or risk seeing their stocks shunned like sour milk. But other than Kroger, whose management appears to be widely admired by investors, the companies have been struggling with self-inflicted wounds. Safeway has been dealing for years with the results of a series of mismanaged acquisitions it made across the country and with the aftermath of a 1986 leveraged buyout, which saddled the company with debt. Albertsons, whose operational systems are less efficient than those of its rivals, has been a chronic also-ran behind its two big rivals in many cities where all three compete.

These ills hobbled Albertsons and Safeway when the economy turned down. By some measures, in fact, most of the companies' losses of revenue over the last couple of years can be blamed on the recession, which discourages the purchase of high-profit goods such as fine wines and specialty foods. "If you look at comparable-store sales among food retailers today," Mark Husson, a supermarket analyst for Merrill Lynch, told the trade magazine Supermarket News last month, "if they're down 2%, I think 1.5% of that is due to the economy."

That suggests that the Wal-Mart issue is merely a convenient stalking horse for labor concessions the supermarkets would be asking for anyway. Although Wal-Mart has announced plans to create 40 California "supercenters," the behemoths that include grocery departments, none has been built in the state and the schedule for a rollout is murky.

To get more information from the horse's mouth, check out the workers' strike page here.

California Supermarket Strike and Lockout: Something Wicked This Way Comes

As usual, the supermarkets are acting like jerks, to put it mildly. But the real culprit may be here [See Above]: Wal-Mart.

Many factors explain Wal-Mart's ability to charge low prices, including economies of scale, the pressures it puts on suppliers and its embrace of imports — it imported $12 billion in goods from China last year, one-tenth of American imports from China.

Another big factor is Wal-Mart's relatively low wages. Its sales clerks average about $8.50 an hour, or about $14,000 a year, while the poverty line for a family of three is $15,060. In California, the unionized stockers and clerks average $17.90 an hour after two years on the job. Mr. Flickinger said wages and benefits for Wal-Mart's full-time workers average $10 to $14 per hour less than for unionized supermarket workers.

And check out Calpundit (a fellow blogger's) take, along with comments.

By the way, has anyone ever noticed how much Wal-Mart sounds almost like "he who shall not be named," Valdemort?

Where's Harry Potter when we need him?

Highway From Hell

This is an tragic story of death on the highway, unsuccessful government-citizen attempts to influence the work of the industry that creates many of the conditions for those deaths, and the inability of government to find the fiunding to make the highways safer.

In a nutshell, the Port of Los Angeles is only open during regular work hours when it disgorges 47,000 trucks onto the 24 mile Long Beach freeway each day, "a number that is expected to double or triple in coming years." Efforts are underway by the LA County Council to get the Port to move cargo 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so that much of the freight can move at night when the freeways are emptiest instead of "flooding the freeway with trucks while commuters are traveling to and from work."

The most recent accident involving one of the trucks occurred when "A northbound tractor-trailer hit a compact car and tore through the center divider at Olympic Boulevard, crushing another car," killing seven passengers in the two cars.

I found one of the most troubling parts of the article to be the California government's inability to come up with funding to modernize the freeway "designed in the 1950s largely for cars but now carrying 15% of the nation's international cargo."

An ambitious plan to rebuild 18 miles of the freeway faltered this spring when residents complained that they had been left in the dark about a project that could remove 800 or more homes in poor neighborhoods. A lack of federal and state funds means that any plan is unlikely to proceed soon, officials say.

"The bottom line is that we need to improve the corridor physically by expanding the freeway, by upgrading the freeway to state standards, and also adding truck-only lanes," said Stephen Finnegan, transportation policy manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California. "The physical improvements need to happen."

The truck crashed into a metal-and-wood barrier on the freeway median. Such barriers on the Long Beach Freeway were to be replaced with concrete barriers as part of a $400-million improvement, but a Caltrans spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail Friday afternoon, "There is no funding at this time to install the concrete barriers" on the Long Beach Freeway from the San Diego Freeway to the San Bernardino Freeway.

In other words, we have situation where the anti-tax foes of "big goverment" are killing people trying to get to work.

Of course, if this were an industrial hygiene problem, fixing the freeway might be considered more of an engineering control -- putting up barriers so that if an accident happens, loss of life will be minimal.

Substitution -- the first choice of the industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls -- would mean getting the truck traffic off of the freeway during peak commuter hours by keeping the port open 24 hours a day. So far, the Port is resisting, citing objections from truckers and warehouses. The City Council isn't buying it. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA),

said he had told the ports he would willingly sit down with the warehouse owners, truckers, shippers and union representatives to try to help work out a new system.

He added, "They've never called on me yet."

Source: My Mother

AARPissed Off

WSJ Spews Bile on WA Ergo

Poetry Break

Is Eliot Spitzer the Only Activist Having Fun These Days?

Weapons of Mass Destruction Found -- In Our Backyards

Terminating Pollution Lawsuits

"Definitely, it could have been prevented"

Man Killed In Trench Collapse. “Nothing could have prevented it,” Says Office Manager

Never Never Land

The Perils of Privatization in Iraq

Poison Pill

It's Always Something

Comments: Let me hear from you

FLASH! Auto Mechanics: Don't Worry, Be Happy. Asbestos is Safe.

New Jersey Steps into Chemical Plant Security Debate

AFSCME/SEIU Endorse Dean

Association of Washington Business Continues to Lie and Distort

Chemical Plant InSecurity

Supermarket Workers: They're Striking For All of Us

Safety Training Offered

Workers Sensed Danger Before Collapse of Parking Garage

Unemployment Down. Good News?

Better than a Political Novel

California Fire Photos

The Weekly Toll

Our Their government at work.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Green Labor

Nurses: Long Hours = Danger for Patients

Washington Ergo Initiative Post-Mortem (1)

The Wonders of Wal -i- World

Job Watch and Job Blackmail

Washington Ergo Initiative on Lehrer

What Is To Be Done?

Workplace ergonomics rules repealed

Worker's Getting Screwed...So What Else is New? In Houston, Someone Seems to Care

Stop Bleeding and Sign Here

"NAM Members Score Another Major Victory on Ergonomics;" Workers Take It In The Teeth Again

WASHINGTON STATE ERGONOMICS REFERENDUM TODAY

One Year From Today...

UAW Newsletter on Metalworking Fluids

Filbustering the Courts or Back to the Past

European Commission REACHES Compromise Agreement on Chemical Policy

Industry Butchers Perform Back-Alley Late Term Abortion on ANSI Ergonomics Standard

Happy Halloween: More Scary Stuff About Evil And The Wicked Rulers Of Our Fair Land

Ergonomics: From Washington to Belzoni, Mississippi -- The Full Story

Seattle Paper Opposes I-841

Aiming for the Amish?

If It Ain't Broke, Break It

Wal-Martian Chronicles

Washington Ergo Vote A Week Away

Hepatitis C Plagues Inmates and Officers in Michigan Prisons

All The News That's Fit For Spit

U.S. and Europe: Can't We All Just Get Along?

EPA Lies. Lungs Die

We Have Mail!

Acts of God, Acts of Man

The Weekly Toll

America Going Socialist?

Chemical Plant Security: More Compromises

Maybe They Need Some Real Unions

REACH For Chemical Safety

OSHA Puts Reactives Guidebook on Web

New "Zero Lift" Web Discussion Forum

Asbestos Agreement: Almost Out of Time and Patience

Shop 'Til Workers Drop: The Specter of Wal-Mart

UAW & USWA Sue OSHA over Metalworking Fluids

An Intolerable Outrage: Forgotten Victims of 9/11

Washington State Ergonomics Campaign Update

DOE to Sick Workers: Chill

The 10 most dangerous jobs in America

L.A. Strikes Over Health Care: The Hidden Issues

California Supermarket Strike and Lockout: Something Wicked This Way Comes

Highway From Hell