Big Crybabies: Anti-Ergo Coalition Upset About OSHA Symposium

"Can't have an ergonomics regulation!" "Not enough science!" "Need research!"

These have been the all-too-familiar decade-long mantras of the rabidly anti-ergonomics National Coalition on Ergonomics (NCE).

Well, they got their Republican President. They got the ergonomics standard repealed -- and the Washington State standard for good measure. They got their CRAP (CompRehensive APproach to ergonomics.) They got their "research symposium" and the nation's leading ergonomics scientists even agreed to cooperate and boycott it.

So you'd think they'd be happier than pigs in shit. But noooooooo. It's still not good enough. Like Rasputin, this ergonomics monster just refuses to die. So what's the problem now?

OSHA has just released the names of the speakers, chosen by the National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics (NACE) for the January 27 meeting on "Musculoskeletal and Neurovascular Disorders – The State of Research Regarding Workplace Etiology and Prevention." The NCE is calling the selection a deliberate attempt to sabotage the symposium.

According to a leading industry newsletter, an NCE official complained that

“What we had hoped to be a symposium looking at gaps in the science and medicine is now an opportunity to backfill a pre-assumed assumption that the practice of ergonomics is a good business decision,” the NCE official added.

Another NCE official says the coalition’s rancor stems from the panelists’ professions. “All but one of these people is either an industrial hygienist or an ergonomist. Those are the people in favor of promoting ergonomics, it’s their job.”

They're threatening to cry, cry, cry all the way to their friends in Congress.

Horrors! Who would ever have thought to put ergonomists and health and safety experts on an ergonomic panel?

And who had the crazy socialist idea that "practice of ergonomics is a good business decision?"

I can't imagine. Let's find out. Lets take a look at OSHA's (that's Bush's OSHA) Nursing Home Guidelines:

Nursing homes that have implemented injury prevention efforts focusing on resident lifting and repositioning methods have achieved considerable success in reducing work-related injuries and associated workers' compensation costs. Providing a safer and more comfortable work environment has also resulted in additional benefits for some facilities, including reduced staff turnover and associated training and administrative costs, reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, improved employee morale, and increased resident comfort.

OK, let's imagine I run a nursing home. Let's see: Reducing injuries. Reducing workers comp costs. Providing a safer work environments. Less staff turnover. Reduced absenteesism. Increased productivity.

Sounds like a pretty good business decision to me.

The moral of the story is, of course, that you can run from the truth, but you can't hide. Musculoskeletal disorders are a major workplace safety problem, and we know what to do about them. OSHA created its National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics and chose members who actually took their jobs seriously. They believed they were actually supposed to take a serious look at ergonomics, not just regurgitate the pre-digested anti-regulatory ideology of the business associations who have waged a very profitable decade-long war against workers who have had the gall to believe that OSHA should do the job that Congress gave it: protect American workers against workplace injuries and illnesses.

Bush's Immigration Proposal: What Does It Mean For The Workplace Safety of Immigrant Workers?

As everyone is probably aware, President Bush floated his new immigration proposal last week, and will officially present it at the State of the Union address next week. The political constellations are forming in somewhat predictable ways. Democrats and labor are opposing it as a giveaway to business. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney stated that it "creates a permanent underclass of workers who are unable to fully participate in democracy." Immigrant groups, such as National Council of La Raza, criticize the proposal as

limited to creating a potentially huge new guestworker program for immigrant workers with no meaningful access to permanent visas or a path to citizenship for those working, paying taxes, and raising their families in the United States. Immigrants would be asked to sign up for what is likely to be second-class status in the American workforce, which could lead to their removal when their status expires or is terminated.

The business community, as might be expected,

welcomed the plan as a way to create a stable workforce and alleviate labor shortages for low-wage and dangerous jobs that Americans disdain in agriculture and the hotel, health, restaurant and construction industries.

"We have a problem with projected job growth and a diminishing workforce, and the economy can't expand unless we have workers to fill available jobs," said Randy Johnson, vice president for labor and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

But Bush's other constituency, the right-wing ideologues (not to be confused with the previously mentioned business crowd) is violently opposed, figuring we have too many law-breaking persons of the dark-skinned persuasion over here already.

And everyone, from right to left dismiss it as an election-year stunt designed to attract Hispanic voters that has little chance of passage before the election.

Let's start at the beginning. In a nutshell, the Bush plan would give three-year visas to illegal immigrants already working in the United States as well as to foreign applicants who are newly hired for jobs here. Under Bush's plan, foreign workers would be legal for three years and then could renew their status at least once. Workers would have to be sponsored by an employer and businesses would have to show that no Americans want the jobs available before they bring in temporary workers from abroad.

First, it's important to understand, as economist/blogger Max Sawicky notes,

Bush has not delivered an immigration proposal. He has a policy to facilitate the ability of employers to reach out to workers in foreign countries and to hire or continue employing those who are here illegally....Immigration means people coming here with their families to legally work and live indefinitely, as well as have an opportunity to become citizens.

So we have a "guest worker" program that supplies cheap, legal labor to employers. Immigrant "guest" workers are (temporarily) legal, they don't have to fear the migra and they can freely come and go across the border.

For Confined Space readers, of course, the real question is "is it good or bad for workplace safety and health?" Good question.

As you are probably aware, immigrant workers have a disproportionately high workplace injury and death rate. (I've written about the problem a number of times: here, here, and here.)

What are the factors that make work dangerous for immigrant workers? Immigrants are disproportionately represented in dangerous industries (construction, manufacturing, and agriculture) and in hazardous occupations within those industries. They are the ones climbing the scaffolds and going down into the trenches. They are cleaning out the sumps in manure pits. They are the "invisible" workforce, working in the kitchens, laundries and sweatshops that no one ever sees, and that OSHA rarely inspects.

They are also disproportionately represented among temporary workers, part time workers, and workers in the informal economy. Their high turnover is related to higher injury rates as most injuries occur during a worker's first year on the job. Language problems mean they can't read warning labels on containers or safe operating instructions on machinery.

In addition, they are much less likely to report injuries, illnesses or unsafe conditions because they are often unaware of their legal rights under OSHA or workers compensation. If they are illegal, they are obviously even less likely to come forward to complain about unsafe conditions or to report injuries or illnesses.

(For an excellent study of workplace health and safety issues among immigrant workers check out VOICES FROM THE MARGINS: Immigrant Workers: Perceptions of Health and Safety in the Workplace an in-depth ethnographic study of 75 immigrant workers in six industries in Southern California.)

Does Bush's immigration policy make these workers any safer? At first blush, newly legalized workers may be more likely to report injuries, illnesses or unsafe conditions if they don't have to fear expulsion. But the proposal requires workers to be "sponsored" by their employer. What's to keep an employer from suddenly deciding that he has a few less openings to sponsor if a worker complains about safety and health conditions? No sponsor, hasta la vista baby.

And will they be doing safer jobs? The fact is that "no Americans want" these jobs because theyare the lowest-paying, most dangerous jobs that exist. That will not change. Will the jobs suddenly become safer? Will OSHA start inspecting them more often? And what effect does the danger and low pay of these (now legal) jobs have on the wages and working conditions of other jobs that -- for the present -- American will still do?

And how would the proposal address immigrants' lack of knowledge about their OSHA or workers compensation rights? Would employers suddenly start training immigrants about their right to file a complaint with OSHA? About their right not to be retaliated against? Mandated training about workplace rights might make a nice amendment to such a bill, but I've seen no indication that the Congress, the Administration or their business supporters would be anxious to go in that direction. In fact, as we have seen, OSHA has attempted to cut worker training funds in every Bush budget. And will OSHA make sure that all training that is done is conducted in a language understood by the workers? Will OSHA finally hire significant numbers of inspectors who speak the language of the newly legal immigrant workers?

There is little doubt that a three year vacation from fear of immigration authorities, and the ability to travel back and forth across the border will improve the lives of many immigrants. But ultimately, the only thing that will protect the lives and health of immigrant is a real right to organize and strong enforcement of workplace laws for ALL workers in this country.

Vote Early, Vote Often

For your favorite Blog

If you haven't done so, do so now. Here.

Washington State Ergo Aftermath: Safety Pays

Comment to Confined Space

Sometimes the comments work. Sometimes they don't. Randy Loomins, Education and Safety Director of the Wasington State Federation of Labor left this comment a couple of weeks ago, but it somehow never made it onto the site. (Probably sabotage by the bad guys) So I'm republishing it here:

Jordan thanks so much for the great work you did on putting the Washington Ergonomic Story out there to the rest of the country to hear about. One thing I would like to add to the story. The ergo solution workshop that the AWB hosted after the election was a half day session (with lunch) the presenter was one of the two ergonomist who came out against the rule. the cost was $350.00 per person for the same information they could have gotten free from Labor and Industry. Quite a payback for the ergonomists who supported their position don't you think. Thanks again, Randy

Bush Suddenly Cares About Workplace Safety

And a New Labor Blog Is Born

Marc Brazeau (formerly of the recently deceased Blogonaut) has founded The Joe Hill Dispatch which today announces that

President Bush cites concern about the financial cost of inadequate health and safety standards for federal employees. The fact that people were getting hurt didn't bother him. It was only when someone pointed out that it was getting expensive that he leapt to action.

Newsday:

WASHINGTON -- Workplace injuries by federal employees cost 2 million lost production days a year and more than $2 billion in workers' compensation losses, President Bush said Friday.

And check out The Joe Hill Dispatch, It's full of good valuable labor news.

People Get Ready: International Workers Memorial Day -- April 28

Several International Trade Union Secretariats have proposed a Workers' Memorial Day theme for 2004 of "Safe and Healthy Work for All" with a secondary theme of "employer accountability." U.S. unions are deciding on this year's theme this month. To get you inspired for this year, check out last year's background and resources at Hazards Magazine. It will be updated regularly to add 2004 specific materials as they appear.

The Data Quality Act Again: The Issue that Sounds Very Boring, But Gets Scarier and Scarier All The Time

I've written a number of times before (here, here, and here) about the effects of the Data Quality Act on workplace health and safety and the environment. Now, in addition to distorting the process of peer review to allowing only industry "peers" to review studies important for regulation, and challenging evidence that asbestos is dangerous, the White House is attempting to use the Data Quality Act to "decide what and when the public would be told about an outbreak of mad cow disease, an anthrax release, a nuclear plant accident or any other crisis."

After the recent news that the White House intervened to tone down EPA's post 9/11 toxic dust warnings, this news does nothing to reassure us that we are in safe hands with this government.

According to the St. Louis Dispatch,

The White House Office of Management and Budget is trying to gain final control over release of emergency declarations from the federal agencies responsible for public health, safety and the environment.

The OMB also wants to manage scientific and technical evaluations - known as peer reviews - of all major government rules, plans, proposed regulations and pronouncements.

Currently, each federal agency controls its emergency notifications and peer review of its projects.

What's the problem with this? Twenty former top agency officials have sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget asking the agency to withdraw the proposal. According to one of the signers, former assistant secretary for environment, safety and health at the Department of Energy David Michaels:

It goes beyond just having the White House involved in picking industry favorites to evaluate government science. Under this proposal, the carefully crafted process used by the government to notify the public of an imminent danger is going to first have to be signed off by someone weighing the political hazards.

And for another excellent summary of how the White House is using the Data Quality Act to distort the process of peer review, and why that's a very bad idea, read this article by Chris Mooney.

Mooney concisely summarizes why this issue is so important to the White House and its corporate underwriters:

The trouble is that peer review comes in many forms, and the devil is in the details. For instance, while scientific journals can usually take their time in peer reviewing article submissions, serious consequences may result from hampering the ability of federal regulatory agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, to make science-based determinations. Similarly, while academic peer review merely affects individual reputations, the peer review of government regulatory information implicates the economic fortunes of numerous major corporations--especially big polluters who want environmental and public health rules softened. These companies would love to influence scientific determinations made by agencies that regulate them, and have plenty of money at their disposal for lobbying and litigation. Any attempt to change the current system of regulatory peer review thus has major economic and political implications.

That's it in a nutshell, but read the entire article. Then figure out a way to translate all of this into language that scare the hell out of your average Joe and Jane walking down the street wondering who to vote for next November.

How They See Us Down Under

This is an interesting article by, Kevin Taylor, a New Zealand Herald columnist who visited the United States to compare the business climate there with that in New Zealand. Some of his observations about the U.S. are in accurate, some simplistic, but others a bit upsetting (not that we didn't know).

For example, what happens in the U.S. if a worker is injured?

ABC Tech is covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its general duties rule - the employer must maintain as safe and healthy a workplace as is reasonably possible.

OSHA rarely prosecutes but does spot inspections and issues instant citations - which happened two months ago.

However, an assembler burned himself with a soldering iron last week and agency staff arrive unannounced for another inspection.

This time they find three "other than serious" violations and fine the employer US$900 for each.

The worker's medical bill to treat the burn is covered by workers' compensation insurance paid for through the company.

The law does not allow the owner to retaliate against any employee who tipped off health and safety officials to unsafe practices or equipment.

The Mercatus Centre at Virginia's George Mason University conservatively estimated last year that the total cost of all workplace regulations in the US was at least US$91 billion annually.

Occupational safety and health was the single largest component of that cost, at US$48.6 billion, but the authors of the study acknowledge they did not measure the benefits of laws that cover safety and health.

If you didn't know any better, you might think from reading this article that

• The Mercatus Center was a legitimate authority on workplace safety instead of a rabidly right-wing, anti-union, anti-OSHA nut-house that earlier this year put out a report purporting that OSHA inspections cause more injuries than they prevent. (Check it out here if you are in need of amusement.)
  
  
• OSHA inspects workplaces after injuries occur.
  
  
• That there are no OSHA standards, only the "general duties rule" which requires the employer to keep a workplace "as safe as reasonably possible," instead of the stronger (on paper) General Duty Clause which states that the employer "shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees."

Taylor also lays out a hypothetical (failed) union organizing campaign in the U.S., complete with captive worker meetings and successful efforts to keep organizers out of the workplace. He then notes that

the union agitators could also have been fired for organising - as routinely happens at other firms. Although illegal, the penalties are so low that they are seen by some as just a cost of doing business.

In New Zealand, on the other hand, the union organizers can freely talk to the workers, sign them up and start negotiating a contract.

How civilized.

Your Right to a Safe Workplace

There are rights on paper -- like the right to file a complaint with OSHA -- and then there's the real world.

Councilman Lost Job after Reporting Safety Breaches at Plant

Charleston, S.C. Jan. 1--A Charleston city councilman lost his job at the Rhodia SA chemical plant in the Neck Area a few months after he complained to regulators about safety conditions at the facility, records show.

Councilman Wendell Gilliard, a longtime employee at the plant, filed a complaint about safety issues at the plant in August 2003, according to documents obtained by The Post and Courier. The plant was later fined for safety violations. In October, Gilliard was fired, documents indicate.

The plant has been fined for violations. A 1991 explosion killed nine workers, injured dozens and sent a cloud of chemicals into surrounding neighborhoods. Albright & Wilson, which owned the plant at the time, was fined nearly $900,000 for the incident. Rhodia bought the plant about four years ago.

The Weekly Toll

Construction worker killed at Xcel station

A construction worker was killed at an Adams County Xcel station Friday when the boom of a machine lift hit the victim.

The victim, whose identity and age were not available Friday, was dead at the scene, an Adams County sheriff's sergeant said.

An Xcel spokesman said the employee worked for Forerunner Construction, which had been building a wastewater filter for Xcel's Cherokee Generating Station.

The victim was operating a four-wheel drive forklift about 10:45 a.m. and trying to carry a long section of a pipe at the station, 6198 Franklin St., when the machine began to tip over, a fire official said. The victim jumped out of the machine, but the boom of the lift fell on top of him.


Worker killed as truck bed collapses

A Port St. Lucie, FL, man was killed Thursday morning when the hydraulic bed of a dump truck collapsed on him at the St. Lucie County landfill.

Bruce Caldarone, 52, head mechanic of Choice Sanitation, was injured at 11:06 a.m. after he went to the landfill at 6130 Glades Cut-Off Road to fix the truck, according to a St. Lucie County sheriff's report


Cal-OSHA probes death of worker

The Sacramento district office of Cal-OSHA is investigating the death of electrical worker Randall Imai, 54, who died Monday when he fell more than 25 feet from a utility pole in Woodland. Imai had worked for Pacific Gas and Electric for 29 years.

Falls account for a high number of on-the-job fatalities in the construction industry, said Cal-OSHA spokesman Dean Fryer. In 2002, the most recent year for which figures were available, 58 people in California died from falls, down from 93 in 2001, he said.

"Working with electrical and natural gas is a very, very dangerous occupation," said Eric Wolfe, communications director for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, to which Imai belonged for 29 years. "We stress safety ... yet people still die because of the inherent dangers of the job. It just takes one slip or one thing that happens out of your control and you're gone."

Editor Note: Yes, it's very dangerous, even inherently dangerous, but was this something out of the worker -- or employer's control? Did the "inherent dangers" kill him, or unsafe conditions? I don't know anything about the details of this accident, there are few falls that couldn't have been prevented.


Bar owner shot to death during robbery

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The owner of a neighborhood bar was shot to death in an armed robbery, and police were on the lookout for two suspects.

Emmett Sindik was the owner and a bartender at the Clematis Bar, a popular hangout in the Gentilly neighborhood.


Man, 61, killed in silo accident

A 61-year-old Archer Daniels Midland Co. employee, Richard J. Waniorek, was killed in an industrial accident inside a silo at the company's West Milwaukee plant Tuesday, authorities said.

The man, whom police and fire officials declined to identify, apparently became pinned about 1:45 p.m. in some type of a filtering silo at the facility


Man Killed in Trench Collapse

MOORESVILLE, N.C. -- Hospital officials released the identity of a construction worker killed Friday when he was buried in a ditch that caved in while he was digging new water and sewer lines for a residential development.

Charles Tudor, of Lake Norman Regional Medical Center, said 43-year-old Lee Fults, of Lawndale, was installing the new sewer line about 10 to 12 feet under the ground behind a town house development along N.C. Highway 115. More here.


Man from Waterloo is killed in accident

A worker was killed Friday morning in an accident at a metal manufacturing plant in St. Louis where he had worked for several years, officials said.

John Huntley, 46, of Waterloo, was killed just before 9 a.m. at Continental Fabricators Inc., 5601 West Park Avenue. He had been working inside a sulfur condenser - a 10-foot-high and 8-foot-wide metal cylinder being built by Continental.

A 1-ton, circular steel plate on which he was standing near the bottom of the condenser tilted upward, causing Huntley to slide into the gap, said Kim Bacon, a spokeswoman for the St. Louis Fire Department. The plate then righted itself, crushing Huntley against the inner wall of the condenser and killing him, Bacon said.


Worker servicing ATM in Jackson shot to death

JACKSON, MS - A worker was shot to death on New Year's Day as he got ready to service an automated teller machine in south Jackson.

Jackson police spokesman Robert Graham said officers were searching for suspects in the killing of Frank Hedgepeth, 50, of Clinton.


Worker Killed In Eight-Story Fall

PHILADELPHIA (KYW) An electrical worker was killed, after police say he apparently fell out of a eight-story window at the Victory Building at 10th and Chestnut Streets in Center City Philadelphia.

***

The accident is under investigation by local officials and OSHA. Authorities were checking if the man might have been pulled out of the window by the weight of an electrical cable.


Sanitation worker is killed in truck

Christopher Todd Goodwin, 28, gets caught in compactor

A 28-year-old Mobile man was crushed to death Wednesday morning in Theodore by the compactor of a garbage truck when he climbed inside to free a jam, authorities said.

Christopher Todd Goodwin, who worked for the family-operated Goodwin Sanitation, was killed about 7 a.m. while picking up garbage in the 6300 block of Rester Road near Interstate 10, said officer Eric Gallichant, a Mobile police spokesman.

"He was attempting to free some debris that had caused the trash compactor to jam when he became pinned inside," Gallichant said.


Mill worker killed by conveyor belt

JACKMAN, ME -- A Cornville man was killed early Wednesday morning when he got tangled up in a conveyor belt he was working on at Moose River Lumber, police said.

Robert R. Robichaud, 34, died at the scene of the accident outside the saw mill on the Tapley Road, according to Deputy Paul A. York of the Somerset County Sheriff's Department. Robichaud was a single father of a son and two daughters.


Landscaping worker killed when golf cart overturns in Mission Viejo

MISSION VIEJO, Calif. - A golf course landscaping worker was killed after he lost control of a golf cart he was driving and it rolled over on top of him, authorities said.

The 37-year-old Garden Grove man, Juan Gomez, was crushed by the cart at the Arroyo Trabuco golf course at about 10:45 a.m. Wednesday, said police Lt. Phil Johnson.


School Maintenance Worker Killed In Freak Accident

LEBANON, Pa. -- A maintenance worker at Lebanon High School was killed Tuesday in an apparent freak accident.

Police suspect Michael Fortna, 37, was electrocuted while working in the school's gym, removing volleyballs that were stuck in light fixtures -- a routine chore that officials said he had done many times before.


Crane collapse kills Vinton man in Iberia Parish

LOREAUVILLE, LA (AP) -- Federal investigators tried to determine Tuesday whether a crane malfunctioned when its boom fell on a construction worker and killed him.

The victim, identified as Charles Butler Mathews, 56, of Vinton, was working Monday on a bridge over the Loreauville canal on Highway 86. The state is replacing the two-lane span, known locally as the Teche Lake Bridge.


Man's Arm Severed Saving Co-Worker

Authorities and co-workers are calling a western Pennsylvania construction foreman a hero the day after he pushed another worker out of the way of a falling forklift -- and had his arm severed at the shoulder as a result.


John Andrew, 53, of Baldwin Borough was hurt Tuesday morning when a passing truck hit the forklift causing it to topple at a job site for MBM Contracting -- a firm doing work in its hometown of Homestead, just east of Pittsburgh


Fast Food Employee Killed in Robbery

A San Antonio man, Christopher Roel, is dead after three suspects robbed a fast food restaurant late Tuesday night.

Police say the the suspects hit the Sonic Drive-In on the 2300 block of Blanco Road near Hildebrand after 11 p.m. Tuesday. More here.

No Wonder Bush Wants To Colonize the Moon and Mars.....

Of all the carnage, domestic and foreign, that the Shrub Administration has brought upon this planet, nothing bothers my wife more than his assaults on the environment. "Almost everything else can be undone, but a lot of his environmental destruction is forever."

And, as usual, it seems that she's right.

Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world.

The sheer scale of the disaster facing the planet shocked those involved in the research. They estimate that more than 1 million species will be lost by 2050.

It's all too depressing. Read it anyway.

All this makes me think that Knoxville News Sentinel columnist Don Williams is right in thinking that Bush is running for election on a platform of world destruction. He asks the President a few "impolite questions," including this one:

Does some fundamental religious belief - say, that the end of the world is coming soon - influence your policies on the environment and on nuclear weapons? If not, how do you explain policies that seem designed to destroy the planet? Seriously, if you had run on a platform of destroying the Earth, I don't think your policies would be much different.

Read the rest. Or ask your own.

Ever Wonder It's So Hard To Organize?

Union activist Randy McSorely does us the service of reminding people why it's so hard to organize unions these days.

• 25 percent of employers fire at least one worker for union activity during organizing campaigns. Fire one or two, the others will most likely quiet down.
  
  
• 75 percent of employers hire consultants or union-busters to help them fight union organizing drives. Then they dare say that the union is an “outside influence.”
  
  
• 78 percent of employers force employees to attend one-on-one meetings with their own supervisors against the union.
  
  
• 92 percent of employers force employees to attend mandatory closed-door meetings against the union. None — 0 percent — are forced to attend pro-union meetings.
  
  
• 52 percent of employers threaten to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service during organizing drives that include undocumented employees.
  
  Interesting that during times of no organizing, almost no employer calls Immigration.
  
  
• 51 percent of all companies that threaten to close the plant if the union wins the election.
  
  
• 1 percent of all companies actually close their plants after a successful union election. Meaning that the other 99 percent are liars.
  
  
• 32 percent is the percent of elections in which workers vote to have a union, but still have no contract two years after the election. These companies need to learn the meaning of the words “good faith.”
  
  
• 74 percent of the public says laws protecting the freedom to join unions are important. That’s a huge majority, considering the fact that it doesn’t even take 50 percent to get elected president.
  
  
• Here’s an important number: 42 million nonunion workers say they want to join a union.

Hopefully, the democracy we're graciously bringing to Iraq will make it all the way to the shop floor. But I wouldn't put money on it.

Election Year Priorities

Budget problems, food problems. Solution: Go live on the moon. (I have some candidates for a one way ticket...).

Meanwhile, back on earth...

Did you hear the one about Iraq being the front line of the war against terrorism? Nevermind. It's really about building democracy. And making the U.S. safer, and, uh, well things are really safer now that we've got Saddam.

Republican OSHA Betrays Business

You Read It Here First

You may recall that I recently wrote about how the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission threw out OSHA “egregious penalty policy” which enabled the agency to fine companies for large amounts of money by citing for each instance of a violation. For example, if 10 workers are exposed to asbestos, OSHA could hand down ten separate fines, instead of just one.

To its credit, OSHA has decided to appeal that decision, one of the few good actions OSHA has taken over the past three years. But even that one piece of good news was too much for some pro-business interests:

officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are now battling for what they evidently see as a cherished right -- to fiscally obliterate, rather than merely punish, companies of their choosing.

What poor, innocent company is OSHA threatening with obliteration? Faithful Confined Space readers will recall the Ho Decision, in which the employer, Eric Ho

signed a property disclosure form indicating that he had been made aware of the presence of friable asbestos in the building. Nonetheless, with full knowledge of the conditions and the need for professional removal of the ACM, Ho began asbestos removal with untrained, unprotected Mexican nationals, none of whom spoke English or understood the hazards associated with asbestos.

Ho's disregard for the law is evidenced by his failure to obtain work permits for the site, as required by the City of Houston and his surreptitious removal of asbestos after the City attempted to close down the site. When the ongoing work was discovered by an inspector for the City of Houston the Bellaire site was red tagged for probable violations of asbestos abatement requirements. Ho was ordered to cease its demolition operations. However, the City's attempt to close down Ho's worksite failed. After soliciting a bid for asbestos removal from a certified asbestos abatement contractor, Ho chose to recommence removal operations under cover of darkness with the same untrained, unprotected laborers, rather than engage the qualified contractor at the named bid price of $172,266.

Ho retained the qualified abatement contractor to complete the asbestos abatement only after the March 11, 1998 explosion brought his nighttime activity to light and the Texas Department of Health onto the site.

Not only does the evidence specifically demonstrate Ho's disregard for his employees' exposure to asbestos, the record contains ample additional evidence of Ho's indifference to those same workers' general health and welfare. Ho's laborers worked 12 hour shifts 7 nights a week under substandard conditions: the workers were locked inside the Bellaire site; they worked without electricity or ventilation; adequate sanitary facilities were not available; no potable water was provided.

But according to the Houston Business Journal

OSHA would have the public believe that this case threatens to leave the federal agency toothless. But the ruling, in fact, merely suggests that the agency is expected to be reasonable -- and that's good news indeed for the entire business world.

The review commission was established as an independent government entity specifically to guarantee that OSHA doesn't get overzealous.

It's encouraging to see that the commission has the courage to do its job.

Overzealous?” Unreasonable? As far as I’m concerned, Ho should have been sentenced to jail for a period approximating the latency period for asbestos-related cancer – say 30 years? He should feel happy he got away so cheap.

****

And while we're on the theme of Republicans betraying Republican principles, this conservative Arizona columnist thinks George Bush has betrayed the conservative principles on which he was elected, yet traitors like John McCain continue to sell the scam that "that there is a connection between political parties and principles.":

If that weren't so, Arizona's Republican officials would be supporting the nomination of a presidential candidate whose platform contained much less nation-building and much more fiscal restraint. Dennis Kucinich.

Yeah, throw the bastard out of the White House. Where's the Republican Ralph Nader?

Any Way they Can

Back in the 1930`s Woody Guthrie, the legendary folksinger, was scheduled to play during an organizing drive in his home state of Oklahoma. A few days before union organizers passed out leaflets at the plant gate announcing the upcoming rally at the local union hall.

As Woody was about to sing, somebody at the back of the hall stands up and yells, "Hey buddy, I'll tell you what I'm going to do with this leaflet. I'm going to use it for toilet paper." Immediately a couple of the union guys went to grab him but Woody says, "that's ok, fellas, leave him be. Some people need to get this information anyway they can."

Contributed by Saul Schneiderman, ASFCME Local 2190, Library of Congress

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Hint: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Students at Moore County High School and Lynchburg Elementary had the day off Tuesday while a 12-feet deep sinkhole behind the elementary school gym was repaired. Jimmy Willard, standing at left, and Earl Pool, with T&W Plumbing of Lynchburg, said luckily they were able to dig out and refill the trench without cutting off gas, water and sewer lines running through the area.

Yeah, luckily they were able to dig out and refill the trench without dying.

NYCOSH Letter to the NY Times

How could I have missed this? A letter to the NY Times, December 29, from Joel Shufro, Executive Director of NYCOSH:

To the Editor:

Re ''When Workers Die'' series (front page, Dec. 21-23):

For each worker killed on the job as a result of traumatic injury, 10 workers die of occupational diseases. Although an estimated 66,000 workers die each year from occupational disease, their employers are never prosecuted.

It is difficult to prove that a worker's death from an occupational disease is a result of a particular employer's action or inaction. Illnesses caused by exposure to chemicals often have a latency period of 10 to 40 years. Workers are often exposed to hundreds of chemicals over their lifetime.

Stronger enforcement of current standards would help. But standards exist for only 500 of the some 70,000 chemicals used in the workplace, and the standards that do exist are woefully out of date and inadequate.

Occupational disease is preventable. The death of a worker from occupational disease is no less necessary or tragic than the deaths described in your excellent series. Unfortunately, as with the fatalities you described, some employers get away with murder.


Joel Shufro
New York, Dec. 23, 2003


The writer is executive director, New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.

I can't link it because of the OBNOXIOUS NY Times policy of charging for articles over a week old. Have I mentioned that this is really OBNOXIOUS of them? And irritating?

DOL to Employers: Here's Our Regulations. Here's How to Get Around Them.

The Labor Department prides itself on offering one-stop shopping. But now they've outdone themselves. They not only propose regulations that will take away overtime pay from millions of workers, but they even provide helpful suggestions for employers on how to get around those regulations, cheating workers of even more overtime.

How thoughtful.

According to an AP story, some of the things creative employers might try are

• Cutting workers' hourly wages so that regular and overtime pay equal the original salary, or
  
  
• raising salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible. (If employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise - that's not a way around overtime," according to a DOL spokesperson...even if their total takehome is less.

If an employer finds that, because the rules have changed, he may have to pay overtime to a worker who didn't earn it before, he can just convert the worker's pay from a salary to an hourly rate, "adjust" (cut) the pay a little to get back under the threshold, then add the overtime and -- the worker is making the same as before the "improvement." That's how a "wage adjustment" is not a pay cut.

We here at Confined Space are not economists, so we're not sure if this worker who received the "wage adjustment" was one of the workers who DOL claims was being helped by the new regulations.

But, of course, the Labor Department is not actually recommending these measures.

The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers now or under the new rules. "We're not saying anybody should do any of this," department spokesman Ed Frank said.

Although I'm sure they wouldn't object of some of the money saved was contributed to the Republican campaign chest.

The AFL-CIO was also not amused, as you can imagine.

So what's next? OSHA advising employers on how to get around OSHA citations? Maybe the IRS can give advice to business owners about how not to pay taxes.

Update: For more information, click here:

A Feast for Sore Ears?

First a blogger, now a radio personality. Where will it end?

I've always wanted to be a pundit, and Sunday night I got my chance -- not quite Meet the Press. No, it was the Los Angeles radio show of "men's rights activist and radio host" Glenn Sacks. Ampersand at Alas a Blog, characterizing us as "strange bedfellows," recommended me to him after reading my posts about the NY Times series.

As I've said about Glenn in the past, I think his inability to view men as anything but victims (not to mention his knee-jerk anti-feminism) are mistaken. Nonetheless, I've debated him online and in email enough to know he's a nice guy, capable of civil disagreement, and worker deaths are one of the few issues he and I (sort of) agree on.

Anyhow, Glenn was interested enough to have Jordan as a guest on his show.

I actually haven't listened to it yet, but if you're interested, you can listen here. Ampersand says I come on at 12:20, and apparently the most interesting segment begins at 39:10.

The only part where the "men's rights activist" threatened to get in the way was when I made the point that it's not just men who knowingly do dangerous work because they don't want to lose their jobs. There are plenty of women who are heads of households and are equally reluctant to lose their jobs over a safety problem. And even if they don't die at the same rate that men do, they get injured in high numbers. His response: "I knew I'd get this lecture from you at some point, fair enough."

Also on the show was Barry Wood, a former construction worker who made some excellent points about how OSHA standards save lives and how little patience he had with employers who claimed that OSHA regs were too burdensome.

On the whole, I think it was a good show -- and the only one that I know of that's dealt with worker safety in the wake of the NY Times series. Thanks to Glenn and to Ampersand.


(And for those of you interested in Blogs, Alas a Blog is quite well written, and probably the most attractively designed Blogs out there.)

Lautenberg Blasts OSHA

Citing OSHA's decision not to seek criminal investigations in the vast majority of willful citations (where the employer knowingly sends a worker into a dangerous situation), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called the agency's behavior "an astounding record of failure by the one federal agency charged with ensuring workplace safety."

Lautenberg promised to introduce legislation that "will require OSHA to provide within 60 days of the end of each month, a review of the number of deaths and injuries reported and any and all actions taken by OSHA to punish those companies which have placed these employees in danger."

The source of Lautenberg's anger was the recent New York Times Series, When Workers Die, which documented that during the last two decades, OSHA investigated over 1,200 cases where deaths were caused by "willful" safety violations of the employer, but did not seek prosecution in over 90% of those cases.

According to Occupational Hazards

An OSHA spokesperson said the agency is aware of Lautenberg's letter, as it is posted on his Web site, but OSHA has not officially received the letter and therefore had no comment on it at press time.

Senator Jon Corzine, also of New Jersey, has introduced legislation that would make it a felony and increase penalties when workers are killed because of willful safety violations. As the New York Times discussed, it is currently only a misdemeanor to willfully kill someone in the workplace, making federal prosecutors reluctant to go through all the work of prosecuting employers for what would be, at most, a six-month sentence.

"An Exceptionally Good Day:" Trench Collapse Victim Survives

But Wouldn't It Have Been Better If The Trench Hadn't Collapsed in the First Place?

About ten years ago, I taught a workshop on trench safety for public employees in New England. I asked them to raise their hands if they had ever received any training. About half raised their hands. I asked one to describe his training.

"Sure, they train us," one of the local presidents replied, "They train us how to dig someone out when the trench collapses on them. And we've had to do it a bunch of times."

This story takes the cake. It seems a Sherwood, Arkansas, public works department employee, Charles Cadie, was working in an 8-foot deep, unprotected trench when it caved in on top of him. Luckily, it only covered him from the waste down, and the fire department was able to rescue him.

So far so good. But there are a couple of issues to note.

First, Arkansas is one of the 26 states in this country where it's still perfectly legal to kill public employees, so there was no requirement that a trench box be used. No OSHA investigation. No citation. Paul Sherwood, a federal OSHA inspector, came to the scene after the rescue:

"There was no shoring done, no sloping, and the spoil pile was on the edge of an eight-foot deep, two-and-a-half foot wide hole," Hansen said. "A citizen called our office later and said there were blood-soaked materials left laying around, and they were concerned kids would come around."

"If it had been a private contractor, we would have opened an investigation and could levy fines," Hansen said. "I will offer training free of charge to those employees who do that.

Then there's this

"All accidents are preventable," said [Michael Clayton, who supervises the department]. "We kind of let our guard down. (Oops. Sounds to me like your guard was never up.) Our guys are like brothers out there. (Oh yeah? I wouldn't treat my brother like that.) Everybody was totally caught off guard by it. (I'm sure. Who would ever have expected a trench to collapse? Anyone ever taken a trench safety course before?) I have all our construction work shut down until further notice. I'm going to get more safety training so that awareness can be at our highest level. (Good idea.) We're going to get a safety trailer with everything we think we might need for any type of construction work we might be doing. I've been here since 1994 and this is our first major accident."(Any minor accidents -- a.k.a "warnings" -- over the past 10 years? Or maybe a class or magazine article describing the principles of trench safety?)

Luckily, the fire department was equipped and trained to perform the rescue:

"We have had trench rescue capability since the late 1980s," said J.T. Cantrell, assistant chief of the training division for the Little Rock fire department. "A lot of departments don't do that. It's seldom-used equipment."

That's certainly a good thing, but....

"We've probably gotten a half-dozen trench survivors out alive in the last 20 years, and probably lost about that same number," Cantrell said. "Anytime you get a survivor out of a trench it's an exceptionally good day."

That's true, but wouldn't it have been a better day if they had prevented the trench collapse in the first place?

I've written and said this many times before: Any employer who kills a worker in an unprotected trench should get an automatic willful citation and -- unless there are awfully good extenuating circumstances (of which none come presently to mind) -- jail time. I don't believe that there is any public works director in this country who doesn't know about trench safety (except maybe this guy), and if they don't, it still should be considered criminal neglegence.

And while we're at it, isn't it about time for everyone to realize that public employees deserve the same right to a safe workplace that every other worker enjoys? How can this still be tolerated in the United States of America in the year 2004?

Shameless Self Promotion

Confined Space has been nominated for a "Koufax Award" in the category Best Single Issue Blog. Hooray! Rah!

Normally, I wouldn't care about such things, but now that I've been nominated, I WANT IT SO BAD I CAN TASTE IT. (Hey, I'm 50 years old, Bush is President, and I need something to make me feel better.)

So, if you think Confined Space is the best Single Issue Blog devoted to workplace safety and health, click HERE. Then go to the bottom of the entry, click on "Comment" and tell them what you think. (Or, if you don't want your comment to be public, email the sponsors here or here.) Your efforts will be duly noted and greatly appreciated in this world and in the next (which hopefully begins at 12:01 P.M. January 20, 2005).

P.S. While you're there, check out some of the other great Blogs in this category, as well as the others (scroll down). There's a wealth of great political information and analysis that can't be found in any of the major media outlets.

Also, if you haven't done so yet, check out my favorite Blogs listed on the left side of this page. (You'll note that some of them are also among the nominees in various categories.)

2003 In Review: The Top Ten Fourteen Health And Safety Stories of the Year

In no particular order....

1. Dangerous Business Series in the NY Times & Frontline: Evil walks the earth, and one of its names is McWane. David Barstow of the NY Times, working with Lowell Bergman of Frontline documents in a three-part series how one of the bad guys gets away with murder and mayhem while OSHA has few tools, and even less political desire to do anything about it.



2. Washington State Ergonomics Standard Repealed: After repeated failures in the legislature and courts, anti-ergonomics industry interests buy and lie their way to repeal of Washington State’s ergonomics standard. More here and here, and here, and here



3. Ergonomics Experts Boycott OSHA Symposium: In the year's rare act of collective courage, a group of the nation's leading ergonomics experts, most of whom had participated in previous National Academy of Sciences studies in support of the ill-fated OSHA ergonomics standard, decided to boycott an upcoming OSHA ergonomics research symposium called by OSHA as part of its CompRehensive APproach to ergonomics (CRAP). The message: “Been there, done that, now stop wasting our time until you get serious about actually doing something”



4. When Workers Die New York Times Series: Employers are literally getting away with murder. So what else is new? An exhaustively-documented three part NY Times series by David Barstow reveals not just OSHA’s sorry enforcement practices, but also tells us the tragic stories of the victims behind them.



5. Europe REACHes Out to Protect Someone: The European Commission issues a draft plan that reverses the current U.S. and European practice of considering chemicals to be innocent until proven guilty -- by death, illness or environmental damage. The U.S. chemical industry and U.S. government are having fits, threatening a trade war. More information here, here, here , here and here.



6. National Safety Council Drops ANSI Ergonomics Standard: Even voluntary ergonomics standards are too much for business foes of ergonomics protections who, as I said before, remind me of the Barbarian hordes early in the first part of the last millennium: behead the men, rape the women, enslave the children, burn the village, mow down the crops and then sow the earth with salt. Kill the farm animals and throw them down the wells. And eat their pets. More here.



7. OSHA Drops the Proposed TB Standard: Last week OSHA withdrew its TB proposal (see below) arguing that it was no longer necessary because the disease is under control. As I wrote before, “ditching the TB standard could probably have not come at a worse time with a public health system approaching the breaking point between new demands placed upon it by preparations for SARS, new homeland security requirements, gigantic state budget problems and the Bush tax cuts eating up any chance of significant federal assistance. The TB standard could have been an important measure to help prepare this country not just to prevent a possible future increase in TB infections, but to also confront assaults from other air-borne diseases like SARS.” More here.
   
   
8. OSHA Suppresses Ergonomics Recordkeeping: “Eat my shorts, working people. If you can't count 'em, they don't exist,” OSHA tells those who still think ergonomics is a problem. In July, the agency announced that it had decided not to put a separate column for MSDs on the log that employers are required to use to record workplace injuries and illnesses. The revoked requirement -- for employers to check a box for MSDs -- was a simple measure issued in 2001, designed to help employers and workers identify and address ergonomic hazards. The administration also decided not to develop a definition of MSDs (which had also been included in the 2001 regulation) and leave it up to employers to figure it out for themselves.
   
   
9. OSHA Drops Nursing Home Initiative: Over half the injuries in nursing homes result from ergonomics hazards. But despite citing only 7 nursing homes for ergonomics hazards out of almost 1000 inspections on the list of 2500 nursing homes with above-average injury and illness statistics, OSHA declared "mission accomplished" and canceled its nursing home initiative. Announced with great fanfare in response to criticisms of its CRAP (CompRehensive APproach to Ergonomics), the nursing home initiative was intended to address the massive back injury problem in nursing homes, as well as bloodborne pathogens, tuberculosis and slips, trips & falls.



10. OSHA Declines to Revise its Process Safety Management Standard to Cover Reactive Chemicals: In September, OSHA announced that because there is no consensus on how to revise the process safety standard to include reactive hazards (as the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board had recommended after an exhaustive investigation), the agency will instead put more information on its web site.



11. Court Orders OSHA To Issue Hexavalent Chromium Standard: In April, the courts say that OSHA lied about being too busy with 9/11 to begin work on a standard protecting workers against hexavalent chromium. The court order was in response to a lawsuit filed last year by Public Citizen and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union. A proposal must be issued by October.



12. Data Quality Regs Threaten Workplace and Environmental Protections: The Office of Management and Budget says that “peer review” of the environmental and workplace safety studies that form the basis of regulations and informational documents is a good thing -- as long as the “peers” are the industries that are being regulated. Everything else is suspect, including evidence that suggests that asbestos in brake linings is bad for auto mechanics.
More here.


13. EPA & OSHA Drop the Ball in World Trade Center Response: EPA is found to have toned down a press release – at the White House’s request -- addressing possible asbestos hazards following the World Trade Centers collapse, but the real scandal may have been OSHA’s failure to enforce its respirator requirements on the workers subjected to high levels of toxic dust during the cleanup.


Saving the best for last:


14. Founding of Confined Space: The first (and so far only) weblog dealing with health and safety issues. The rest is history.

The Year In Perspective

I have spent the last couple of weeks thinking about the top health and safety developments of 2003. With a few couple of exceptions (the NY Times series and the ergonomics boycot), it was a pretty depressing exercise. So why did I do it (aside from the fact that it's "that time of year")?

Memories fade, and with an election coming up, it's important that every working person in American remember what George Bush has done to our right to work in a safe workplace. He will continue to lie. It's our responsibility to remind people of the truth.

The New York Times is on to him. In recent weeks, we've seen the Bush administration attempting to catch up with regulatory failures by announcing new regulations to prevent Mad Cow Disease and ban Ephedra.

But, as even the NY Times recognizes, we're talking about window dressing:

And with mad cow disease suddenly dominating every cable channel and front page, Mr. Bush and a small clutch of his aides staring out at the cattle grazing his ranch knew they had to appear to be taking action. In this case, the action included some protective steps they rejected as unnecessary just months ago.

Remember, it's an election year

Those were not the kind of words heard from this administration in 2001. At that time there was a freeze on most Clinton-era regulations that were pending. Mr. Bush very publicly rejected the Kyoto protocol on global warming, and environmental regulations like the one that sharply restricted commercial activity in roadless areas of national forests.

But Kyoto is now regarded inside the White House as a good decision that was presented in the clumsiest possible way — opening Mr. Bush to accusations that he was a shill for big business. Soon, the White House began to sound a little less strident about regulation. After halting a Clinton-era regulation on acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water, Mr. Bush adopted those regulations. [emphasis added]

Accusing Bush of being a shill for big business? I'm SHOCKED.

Bush's allies at the Heritage Foundation are doing everything they can to promote that myth of George Bush, activist President.

"As far as I can tell, he has not uttered the word `deregulation' since 2001," said James L. Gattuso, a research fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation, who recently completed a study of regulation in the Bush era. "This stuff about the antiregulation president is a Howard Dean myth," he argued.

Howard Dean myth? Look at the list of health and safety developments last year. (And while you're at it, check out what Bush did to the environment as well. ) It doesn't take Howard Dean to know which way the wind's blowing.

Then go out and make these into major issues for 2004 campaign.

OSHA Announces "Enhancement" Of Worker Protection by Withdrawing TB Standard.

Orwell Rolls Over in Grave

Someone in the OSHA Press Office should be writing for the Onion.

But first, the FACTS.

1. OSHA officially withdrew the proposed Tuberculosis standard Wednesday (conveniently on New Year's Eve). OSHA had originally announced its intention to withdraw the standard last May



2. At the same time, OSHA announced that health care workers potentially exposed to TB would now be covered by the revised 1998 respiratory protection standard, instead of the old 1974 standard. Respiratory protection for workers exposed to TB was going to be handled in the TB standard instead of the new respiratory protection standard because in 1998 there were still outstanding TB-related respirator issues and the release of the TB standard was thought to be imminent. So, instead of bringing these workers into the new standard, they were to be covered "temporarily" under the old respirator standard.

Now, for the "funny" part. Here's how OSHA announces the withdrawal of yet another worker protection:

WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it is extending the same high level of respiratory protection to workers exposed to tuberculosis that is provided to workers throughout general industry. This enhancement results from OSHA's decision to withdraw its 1997 proposal on tuberculosis.

It's a good thing these guys aren't writing press releases for the Department of Defense:

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Defense (DOD) announced that several hundred soldiers stationed in Iraq will be spending their holidays back in the United States. This benefit results from the fact that they were wounded in combat.

So OSHA will have us believe that the agency is actually doing workers a favor by withdrawing the TB proposal, overlooking the fact that the only reason health care workers remained covered under the old respiratory standard is that OSHA has failed for the past three years to issue the TB standard with the updated respiratory protections?*

I critiqued in a previous article OSHA's flawed reasoning for withdrawing the standard despite the fact that an estimated 2 billion people -- one-third of the world's population -- are infected with the bacteria that cause TB, and that TB is still a major problem among minorities and recent immigrants in the U.S., AND despite the fact that the National Institute of Medicine (IOM) says a standard is needed, AND despite the new threat of SARS which requires the same precautions as TB.

But I want to spend more time now on one part of OSHA's Federal Register notice. One of OSHA's main arguments was that an OSHA standard was not needed because Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Guidelines were taking care of the problem. The unions representing health care workers and the IOM had contended that even with the CDC Guidelines, an OSHA standard was needed because CDC Guidelines are not enforceable.

OSHA's response:

In response to these arguments, OSHA acknowledges that a standard is often the most efficient way of assuring that employers reduce their employees' exposure to specific hazards. TB is primarily a public health hazard, however, and occupational exposure at this time is in large part a function of the prevalence of active TB in the population at large. There has been a decade-long decline in TB prevalence.

That all sounds strikingly similar to the pass-the-buck reasoning that OSHA originally used in the mid-1980's to argue that the agency had no business addressing bloodborne pathogens such as AIDS and hepatitis B because they were "public health problems," not workplace problems.

Other reasons a standard is not necessary, according to OSHA:

• Employers have "wealth of information and expert resources to assist in TB control efforts." This fits well with the general OSHA philosophy that the only thing employers need to do the right thing is a little information.



• Among other "incentives" that employers have, according to OSHA, are the requirement that "hospitals and nursing homes must have infection control plans to qualify for Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, and are subject to annual reviews to verify their continuing compliance."
  
  Health care institutions have always had infection control plans, but they are mainly designed to protect other patients, as opposed to workers, and take an approach that is very different from the occupational safety programs that finally proved effective in controlling hepatitis B in health care facilities. And you'll grow old and gray trying to find a health care institution that lost its Medicaid or Medicare certification because of lax TB precautions.



• OSHA also assures us that "The Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which many hospitals and nursing homes use to demonstrate qualification for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, also requires an infection control plan as a condition accreditation."
  
  This statement would also get a hardy laugh out of most health care workers who work long, hard hours in the days before scheduled JCAHO inspections to get their facility in ship-shape before the inspectors arrive. OSHA, on the other hand, conducts unannounced inspections.



• My personal favorite justification is OSHA's reliance on employers' memories. "The record also shows, as does CDC's new TB elimination plan, that the sobering memory of the 1985 - 1992 TB resurgence is not likely to fade anytime soon, and that the complacency that led to that resurgence is unlikely to recur."
  
  How can the "record" show that memories are "not likely to fade anytime soon" or that complacency is "unlikely to return?" The thing about memories, as some of us are realizing, is that you don't really realize that your memory has faded until something reminds you -- and by then it's often too late. You only have to look as far as NASA to see that their "sobering memory" of the Challenger disaster didn't stop the disintegration of Columbia.

But more dangerous is the complacency and fading memories that inevitably result from inadequate funding for important priorities. Even with federal funding for bioterrorism initiatives, it is questionable that states undergoing budget crises have adequate resources to fund other public health priorities like TB prevention, especially when the nation's main workplace safety and health agency claims that there is nothing to worry about.



*Yes, I know, it would have been nice to have issued the standard in 2000 before the regime change. Of course, look at what happened to the ergonomics standard.

Blame the Worker: Chinese Style

There's something universal about the need for governments and employers to blame workers for accidents that clearly have deeper systemic roots. This article about the recent gas well explosion in China that killed over 200 people, is so ridiculous it would almost be funny, if the poor workers weren't likely to face long jail time or worse.

Gas Workers Blamed For Chinese Accident

BEIJING -- China blamed negligent gas-well workers Friday for an accident that spewed toxic fumes over mountain villages and killed 233 people -- an unusually swift finding that highlights the government's increasing insistence on accountability.

State television said that investigators had concluded their probe into the Dec. 23 natural-gas disaster in southwestern China and that those at fault would be punished.

"This was an accident due to negligence," said Sun Huashan, deputy director of the State Administration for Work Safety. "Those people who were responsible will be dealt with."

Sun didn't say what the penalties might be, but he listed a series of errors that allegedly allowed a poisonous mix of natural gas and hydrogen sulfide to gush from the state-owned well northeast of the city of Chongqing, killing villagers in a 10-square-mile "death zone" as they slept or tried to flee.

Investigators concluded that the drilling crew improperly dismantled equipment meant to prevent such blowouts, misjudged the amount of gas in the well and failed to recognize the blowout once it began, Sun told state television Friday.

I don't know any of the details of this disaster, but I'd bet all the proverbial tea in China that if a thorough systemic analysis of the causes was conducted -- similar to that done for the space shuttle Columbia -- worker error wouldn't even appear on the list of root or contributing causes.

Anyone looked at the management systems, standard operating procedures, emergency procedures, worker training, any hazard analyses or evaluations of near misses or past incidents, communication of those hazards to relevant personnel? If any of these analyses or evaluations was done, were the recommendations implemented?

These are just a few of the questions that need to be researched and answered, a process that will take considerably longer than the few weeks that have passed since the disaster occurred.

The author of this article writes that this conclusion was "an unusually swift finding that highlights the government's increasing insistence on accountability." It sounds to me like just the opposite -- it highlights the government's desire to shift the blame and pass the buck to the lowest possible level.

Update: The New York Times has a slightly different take on the situation, reporting that series of safety violations by the China National Petroleum Corporation, the country's main domestic oil and gas producer, was to blame:

China National Petroleum cut corners as its workers sought to tap a deep vein of gas in the area.

Safety equipment was not readily available at the site, investigators said. The drilling crew improperly dismantled equipment designed to prevent blowouts. Workers also misjudged the amount of gas in the well, and failed to recognize the extent of the accident when it occurred.

Officials said that if the crew had followed safety instructions they would have immediately set fire to the gas to prevent it from spreading. In fact, it took hours for them to ignite the gas, allowing the highly toxic mixture of natural gas and hydrogen sulfide to escape.

Chinese officials often seek to hold local officials or company executives responsible for safety problems, but usually only after an accident occurs. The government has had trouble reducing workplace deaths because it puts far less emphasis on safe production before accidents happen, Chinese safety experts say. China also forbids workers to organize independent unions that might make safety a higher priority.

Some local news reports made it clear that not just the company, but also local and national officials, had done little or nothing to prepare for an accident of this kind, though such well bursts are not uncommon.

It's interesting that in China, at least, the lack of independent unions is blamed for unsafe working conditions. You never see the American press blaming health and safety hazards in this country on the weakness of the labor movement.

Republican Upset About Republican Environmental Policy

Some readers of a certain age may vaguely remember when Republican moderates walked the earth. One of these was Congressman Paul "Pete" McClosky of California. McClosky was a California Congressman from 1968 to 1982 and was one of the co-founders of Earth Day.

McClosky, writing in the LA Times, is not pleased with current Republican policies toward the environment in general, and particularly regarding the Endangered Species Act. In fact, he think it may spell their doom.

The assault on the law is widespread and relentless.

The administration and its comrades in arms argue that the [Endangered Species Act] is ineffective, expensive and in need of drastic overhaul. In truth, they are acting as agents for the timber industry, the mining industry, land developers, big agriculture and other economic interests that sometimes find their profits slightly decreased in the short run by the need to obey this law.

These points are key: Species-protecting measures can have economic consequences on narrow interests in the short term, but in the long term the economy overall — along with the public and the natural world — benefits from a healthy ecosystem.

When I served in Congress, conservatives and conservationists worked together in friendship. Something dark and onerous has happened since the Republicans took over the House. It's time for Republicans to stand up and try to keep the party true to its historical concept that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness include the preservation of endangered species.

If we stand back and allow Democrats to be identified as the sole preservers of environmental values, the GOP could soon return to the minority status it occupied for most of the last 70 years. And that, however unfortunate for the party, would be a good thing for eagles, turkeys, ducks and rainbow trout.

We can only hope.

From Calpundit

The Biggest Threat: Mad Government Disease

And speaking of threats to the public resulting from anti-regulatory philosphies, Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, has a frightening column in the NY Times today discussing the roots of the Mad Cow problem.

The first problem is that the Department of Agriculture is filled with former industry executives, including its spokesperson, Alisa Harrison who comes from the National Cattlemen's Beef Assocation. In fact,

Right now you'd have a hard time finding a federal agency more completely dominated by the industry it was created to regulate. Dale Moore, [ Agriculture Secretary Anne] Veneman's chief of staff, was previously the chief lobbyist for the cattlemen's association. Other veterans of that group have high-ranking jobs at the department, as do former meat-packing executives and a former president of the National Pork Producers Council.

The Agriculture Department has a dual, often contradictory mandate: to promote the sale of meat on behalf of American producers and to guarantee that American meat is safe on behalf of consumers. For too long the emphasis has been on commerce, at the expense of safety. The safeguards against mad cow that Ms. Veneman announced on Tuesday — including the elimination of "downer cattle" (cows that cannot walk) from the food chain, the removal of high-risk material like spinal cords from meat processing, the promise to introduce a system to trace cattle back to the ranch — have long been demanded by consumer groups. Their belated introduction seems to have been largely motivated by the desire to have foreign countries lift restrictions on American beef imports.

Worse, on Wednesday Ms. Veneman ruled out the the most important step to protect Americans from mad cow disease: a large-scale program to test the nation's cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Despite these measures, there are still other serious problems that have not been dealt with. The U.S. still allows the "really stupid" practice of feeding of cattle blood to young calves,

More important, the ban on feed has hardly been enforced. A 2001 study by the Government Accounting Office found that one-fifth of American feed and rendering companies that handle prohibited material had no systems in place to prevent the contamination of cattle feed. According to the report, more than a quarter of feed manufacturers in Colorado, one of the top beef-producing states, were not even aware of the F.D.A. measures to prevent mad cow disease, four years after their introduction.

A follow-up study by the accounting office in 2002 said that the F.D.A.'s "inspection database is so severely flawed" that "it should not be used to assess compliance" with the feed ban. Indeed, 14 years after Britain announced its ban on feeding cattle proteins to cattle, the Food and Drug Administration still did not have a complete listing of the American companies rendering cattle and manufacturing cattle feed.

Right now, the federal government is relying on "reassuring" studies by the notoriously anti-regulatory Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, based on models that can't be validated because we don't test enough cattle to know whether these studies are accurate.

So what needs to be done? According to Schlosser,

begin widespread testing of American cattle for mad cow disease — with particular focus on dairy cattle, the animals at highest risk for the disease and whose meat provides most of the nation's fast food hamburgers.

In addition, we need to give the federal government mandatory recall powers, so that any contaminated or suspect meat can be swiftly removed from the market. As of now all meat recalls are voluntary and remarkably ineffective at getting bad meat off supermarket shelves. And most of all, we need to create an independent food safety agency whose sole responsibility is to protect the public health. Let the Agriculture Department continue to promote American meat worldwide — but empower a new agency to ensure that meat is safe to eat.

Yes, the threat to human health posed by mad cow remains uncertain. But testing American cattle for dangerous pathogens will increase the cost of beef by just pennies per pound. Failing to do so could impose a far higher price, both in dollars and in human suffering.

What we're addressing here, in the previous article on the failure of the Bush Administration's voluntary global warming strategies and with the virtual closing of OSHA's regulatory shop that we've written about so many times before, is the fundamental question of the role of government in protecting people from the enemies that may threaten our welfare, security and safety. These enemies don't just hijack airplanes and fly into skyscrapers. They don't just use mythical weapons of mass destruction. They undermine and disarm us from within, eliminating any penalties or safeguards against those who would make a profit at the expense of the health and safety of the American public.

Workplace accidents kill more than twice as many people every year terrorist killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Where's the outrage? Where's the response?

Corporate America: Volunteer To Save The Environment? Who Me?

When it comes to cleaning up the environment or making workplaces safer, the philosphy of the current administration is that cooperative agreements and voluntarism work far better than the heavy hand of laws, regulations, mandatory controls, enforcement and penalties. Just sell people on the benefits of a voluntary program and they'll happily come running to jump on the bandwagon. Because everyone wants a clean environment and safety workplaces. Don't they?

That's what they would have had us believe.

Bush promoted his voluntary initiatives after he abandoned a campaign pledge to impose mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and then formally disavowed the 1997 accord negotiated by the United States and 158 other countries in Kyoto, Japan, which would impose mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions in developed countries. The Bush administration argued that mandatory controls would hinder economic growth.

Well things don't seem to be working out so well for the Bush administration in the area of global warming, according to the Washington Post.

Two years after President Bush declared he could combat global warming without mandatory controls, the administration has launched a broad array of initiatives and research, yet it has had little success in recruiting companies to voluntarily curb their greenhouse gas emissions, according to official documents, reports and interviews.

At the heart of the president's strategy is "Climate Leaders," a program that recruits the nation's industrial polluters to voluntarily devise ways to curb their emissions by 10 percent or more in the coming decade. Scientists believe these greenhouse gas emissions, which include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are contributing to a troubling rise in the earth's temperature that could disrupt weather patterns and cause flooding.

Only a tiny fraction of the thousands of U.S. companies with pollution problems -- 50 in all -- have joined Climate Leaders, and of the companies that have signed up, only 14 have set goals. Many of the companies that are volunteering say they did so either because reducing emissions makes good economic sense or because they were being nudged by state and federal regulators.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have crafted their own programs under a Bush administration initiative called "Climate VISION," but none of the programs requires individual companies to either enlist in the program or set goals for emission reductions.

Many of the companies with the worst pollution records have shunned the voluntary programs because even a voluntary commitment would necessitate costly cleanups or possibly could set the stage for future government regulation, according to industry insiders.

Many of the companies signing up for the Bush voluntary initiative are are the "perennial 'good citizens' who were participating in "green" programs years before Bush called for volunteers. "

But the administration has made no headway signing up big utility companies with the worst emissions records. Many of those companies vigorously opposed mandatory controls. Now they are refusing to take part in voluntary measures that set targets, largely for fear that those programs eventually will lead to government regulation.

"Some just see it as a slippery slope," said a lobbyist for several major utilities.

Well, anyway, it works great for generating campaign contributions.