The Stirling University study mentioned in the BBC programme blurb below will appear in the October-December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH), available free online www.ijoeh.com It concludes the contribution of workplace factors to all cancers is at least double and possibly four times the commonly cited Doll/Peto contribution (4 per cent of all cancers related to work). The BBC piece, a 40 minute documentary, concentrates on the UK, but most of the lessons apply equally well in other modern, industrialised nations – and certainly to the situation the US, Canada and Australia.
You can listen to the programme online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/fileon4
Duration: 37mins File Size: 18Mb
Podcast: Download Episode
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/fileon4/fileon4_20071009-2130.mp3
Related materials are available online at: www.hazards.org/cancer and www.hazards.org/cancer/preventionkit
Losing the workplace cancer fight
By Tim Whewell
BBC Radio 4, File On 4
The HSE is responsible for workplace safety
Occupational cancer is a quiet almost invisible epidemic picking off its victims years after they were first exposed to the risk.
It is one of the areas of workplace safety that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible for.
Yet according to a new study published on Tuesday its occupational cancer figures are out of date.
The HSE's figures say 6,000 people die annually of work related cancers.
We know that the existing figures are wrong because of the basis of the calculation that was done some 25 years ago
Prof Andrew Watterson
But the study by Prof Andrew Watterson of Stirling University has found that between 18,000 to 24,000 people a year die of occupationally caused cancers.
"We know that the existing figures are wrong because of the basis of the calculation that was done some 25 years ago," he said.
"They looked at small number of - at that time - large industries. There are many more small to medium sized enterprises now where there may be exposures."
The HSE accepts its figures are out of date but the academic charged with reviewing them, believes they will only show a small increase.
Lesley Rushton of Imperial College said: "Because we are adding more cancers the estimates will rise."
But he added that figures for the six cancers in the HSE's original research will not differ greatly.
Cancer cluster
One of the newer industries Professor Watterson believes the HSE's data does not take into account is microelectronics.
Eleven years after Grace Morrison left the National Semiconductor factory in Greenock, near Glasgow she still has no explanation for what she and many other former workers saw as a cancer cluster in the area.
Grace was diagnosed with cancer and in the same week her sister, who also worked at the plant was found to have leukaemia which eventually claimed her life.
"It was a dreadful time my sister endured two years of hell with the treatment she was having.
Female cancers
"She survived two years and I'm still in remission."
Eventually after a local campaign, the HSE agreed to look into complaints by the firm's employees.
One theory was their cancer stemmed at least partly from exposure to some the chemicals the workers added to tiny silicon discs as part of the microchip production process.
The HSE's 2001 report found two to three times the expected rate of female lung cancer and four to five times the expected rate of female stomach cancers.
'No proof'
It found no immediate proof of a link but said further study was needed urgently yet this work only began this year.
Minutes of meetings of the Microelectronics Working Group, which brings together industry representatives, trade unions, and the HSE, obtained by File On 4 indicate disagreements between the various sides that may help explain the delay in starting the more detailed follow-up study.
One, for example, was over the remit of the new research, with National Semiconductor apparently wanting it limited to lung cancer.
The company declined a request for an interview, but in a statement they said: "There is NO proof that working at National Semiconductor in Greenock has caused an increased risk of employees developing cancer
"Although we have had some concerns regarding the HSE's proposed follow-on study, we have worked closely with the HSE to provide timely comments and information to them.
"National Semiconductor is continuing to work with the HSE on its follow-up study and until this study is completed it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.
"The health and safety of our employees is of paramount importance and we remain committed to providing a safe working environment.
"This is highlighted by the numerous awards secured by the company from organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the British Safety Council and National is one of the top Environmental Health and Safety performers in the UK."
Enforcement action
Steve Coldrick, head of the HSE's disease reduction programme, denied that the micro electronics industry was slow to agree to cooperate with in depth studies.
"The key point is the follow up is a further study so it is not an enforcement action," he said.
"It requires the co-operation and collaboration of the people concerned and the follow up study has started.
"You are talking about six years, but it is determining at the rate of other people as well.
"If other people do not think it is urgent and we have no regulatory force behind it, we are dependent on the pace at which they will go."
You can learn more about this story from File On 4, at 2000 BST, Tuesday 9 October 2007, repeated Sunday 14 October 1700 BST.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Sunday, October 7, 2007
California: Did Workers' Comp Reform Go Too Far?
Friday October 5, 2007
Did Workers' Comp Reform Go Too Far?
By Alan J. Wax
California employees have borne the entire brunt of the Governor's 2004 Workers' Compensation Reform (SB899). Studies by state agencies confirm that the benefits have been reduced by 50 to 70 percent. Even the U.S. Chambers of Commerce reports that California's benefits are among the lowest in the nation. The average maximum weekly permanent disability benefit for the nation is $595, compared to California, which is $270. Weekly benefits for permanently disabled workers in California are the fourth lowest in the nation. Balance this with the fact that California's cost of living is one of the highest in the nation. The insurance industry reports their profits for the last three years exceed the cost of all benefits combined. (Based on the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau July 2007 Rate Filing and Summary of March 31, 2007 Insurer Experience)-
Here are some examples of California's ranking among the lowest in the nation compared to other states:
Loss of an eye: California ranks lowest in the nation!
Hearing loss in one ear: California ranks lowest in the nation!
Loss of a foot: California ranks second lowest in the nation!
Loss of a leg at hip: California ranks sixth lowest in the nation!
Loss of a thumb: California ranks seventh lowest in the nation!
(Source: "Analysis of Workers' Compensation Laws," U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
In a special hearing regarding the Reform, Senator Sheila Kuehl had admonished the then, Administrative Director Andrea Hoch by stating that there was no legislative intent to reduce "whole hog" the overall benefits, the then Chairman Richard Alarcon, stated it was his understanding "that [SB899] should not reduce benefits to injured workers." In fact, Governor Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying, "I never wanted to hurt any one of the workers or the people that get benefits," (Sacramento Bee, November 19, 2003). However, that is exactly what is being done by this reform.
SB 936 sponsored by Senator Don Perata, would help restore fair and adequate in small measure benefits for those who through no fault of their own become permanently disabled as a result of a work related injury and will not require any cost increase for employers. As permanent disability benefits represent only 13 percent of total benefits. This measure has been passed on a virtually unanimous vote of Senate and Assembly Democrats. This remedial bill partially corrects unintended 50 to 70 percent cuts in permanent disability compensation to injured workers. There are many problems with the workers' compensation reform dealing with limits on reasonable medical treatment, temporary disability benefits and vocational retraining. SB 936 would be a first step in trying to restore modest compensation to California's injured on the job.
Alan J. Wax, a Certified Specialist by the State of California in the area of Workers' Compensation Law, and a member of Board of Governors of the California Applicant's Attorney's Association is a partner with the law firm of Wax & Wax. He can be reached at (661) 255-9585. His column represents his own views, and not necessarily those of The Signal. "Business Law" appears Fridays and rotates between members of the Santa Clarita Valley Bar Association. www.SCVbar.org.
Did Workers' Comp Reform Go Too Far?
By Alan J. Wax
California employees have borne the entire brunt of the Governor's 2004 Workers' Compensation Reform (SB899). Studies by state agencies confirm that the benefits have been reduced by 50 to 70 percent. Even the U.S. Chambers of Commerce reports that California's benefits are among the lowest in the nation. The average maximum weekly permanent disability benefit for the nation is $595, compared to California, which is $270. Weekly benefits for permanently disabled workers in California are the fourth lowest in the nation. Balance this with the fact that California's cost of living is one of the highest in the nation. The insurance industry reports their profits for the last three years exceed the cost of all benefits combined. (Based on the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau July 2007 Rate Filing and Summary of March 31, 2007 Insurer Experience)-
Here are some examples of California's ranking among the lowest in the nation compared to other states:
Loss of an eye: California ranks lowest in the nation!
Hearing loss in one ear: California ranks lowest in the nation!
Loss of a foot: California ranks second lowest in the nation!
Loss of a leg at hip: California ranks sixth lowest in the nation!
Loss of a thumb: California ranks seventh lowest in the nation!
(Source: "Analysis of Workers' Compensation Laws," U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
In a special hearing regarding the Reform, Senator Sheila Kuehl had admonished the then, Administrative Director Andrea Hoch by stating that there was no legislative intent to reduce "whole hog" the overall benefits, the then Chairman Richard Alarcon, stated it was his understanding "that [SB899] should not reduce benefits to injured workers." In fact, Governor Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying, "I never wanted to hurt any one of the workers or the people that get benefits," (Sacramento Bee, November 19, 2003). However, that is exactly what is being done by this reform.
SB 936 sponsored by Senator Don Perata, would help restore fair and adequate in small measure benefits for those who through no fault of their own become permanently disabled as a result of a work related injury and will not require any cost increase for employers. As permanent disability benefits represent only 13 percent of total benefits. This measure has been passed on a virtually unanimous vote of Senate and Assembly Democrats. This remedial bill partially corrects unintended 50 to 70 percent cuts in permanent disability compensation to injured workers. There are many problems with the workers' compensation reform dealing with limits on reasonable medical treatment, temporary disability benefits and vocational retraining. SB 936 would be a first step in trying to restore modest compensation to California's injured on the job.
Alan J. Wax, a Certified Specialist by the State of California in the area of Workers' Compensation Law, and a member of Board of Governors of the California Applicant's Attorney's Association is a partner with the law firm of Wax & Wax. He can be reached at (661) 255-9585. His column represents his own views, and not necessarily those of The Signal. "Business Law" appears Fridays and rotates between members of the Santa Clarita Valley Bar Association. www.SCVbar.org.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Asbestos Ban Passes US Senate
The United State Senate passed the legislation to ban asbestos in the U.S. The following press release was distributed bythe bill's sponsor, Senator Pat Murray.
October 4, 2007 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Today United States Senate unanimously passed Senator Patty Murray's bill to ban asbestos, bringing the legislation closer to enactment than at any point since Murray launched her effort to protect families and workers six years ago. Murray worked closely with Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Environment and Public Works Chairman Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to reach this historic milestone.
"This is a historic day in the fight to protect Americans. Workers and their families deserve a future free of deadly asbestos exposure, and I'm not stopping until this bill is signed into law," Murray said. "I’m very pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle came together to unanimously support my bill. I especially want to thank Senator Johnny Isakson for his bipartisan leadership in moving this bill forward. I also want to commend Senator Barbara Boxer who championed this bill from the start and led its quick passage through her Environment and Public Works Committee."
“It was a pleasure to work with Senator Murray on crafting this legislation. This bill is the culmination of months of bipartisan work to find common ground on this important issue, and I extremely pleased the Senate acted so quickly to approve it,” Isakson said. “For the few areas where asbestos is still used in the United States, this bill provides a reasonable transition so that Americans can rid themselves of asbestos once and for all.”
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said: “Because of this bill, America is poised to join the more than 40 nations that have banned asbestos because it is deadly. This bill is long overdue.”
“I have been pleased to work closely with Senators Murray and Isakson to move this important bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee, and now through the Senate. This bill will take asbestos off the shelves, and will also ensure we continue to study and treat the health effects asbestos has already caused.”
Murray's bill would ban asbestos, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign. Murray started working to ban asbestos six years ago. This March, she re-introduced her legislation as S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007.
On March 1st, Senator Murray held a hearing in her Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee on the bill.
On June 12th, the bill got a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, at which Senator Murray testified.
On June 6, Murray discussed the bill's progress at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, where she was joined by doctors, a patient, environmental experts, and advocates.
On July 31st, the bill passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 19-0.
....................................................................................
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007
http://murray.senate.gov/asbestos
Bill Summary
1. BANS ASBESTOS
Prohibits the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing asbestos. The ban covers the 6 regulated forms of asbestos and 3 durable fibers. The EPA will issue rules to ensure asbestos products are off the shelves within 2 years of the bill's enactment.
2. Dramatically Expands Research and Treatment
Creates a $50 million "Asbestos-Related Disease Research and Treatment Network"The network will be composed of 10 new research and treatment centers around the country. Locations will be selected by the director of NIH. The network will focus on finding better treatment, early detection and prevention strategies. Funded at $50 million ($1 million per center per year for 5 years). [Section 417F]
Creates a New National Asbestos-Related Disease RegistryExpands on the existing mesothelioma disease registry to include patients with other asbestos-related diseases. This national clearinghouse for data will help scientists conduct more comprehensive research. [Section 417E(c)]
Directs the Department of Defense to Conduct Additional ResearchAbout one-third of mesothelioma victims were exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. The bill directs the Pentagon to conduct additional research on asbestos disease, early detection and treatment. [Section 417G]
Identifies the Most Promising Areas for New ResearchDirects the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the current state of knowledge on asbestos disease mechanisms, health effects, and measurement methods. NIOSH will recommend the areas where new research is most needed. [Section 222]
3. Launches a Public Education Campaign TO PROTECT AMERICANS
The EPA Administrator shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including in homes and workplaces. Patients and front-line health care providers will receive current and comprehensive information about disease awareness and treatment options. The EPA will work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Secretary of Labor, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this public education campaign. [Section 224]
October 4, 2007 (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Today United States Senate unanimously passed Senator Patty Murray's bill to ban asbestos, bringing the legislation closer to enactment than at any point since Murray launched her effort to protect families and workers six years ago. Murray worked closely with Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Environment and Public Works Chairman Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to reach this historic milestone.
"This is a historic day in the fight to protect Americans. Workers and their families deserve a future free of deadly asbestos exposure, and I'm not stopping until this bill is signed into law," Murray said. "I’m very pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle came together to unanimously support my bill. I especially want to thank Senator Johnny Isakson for his bipartisan leadership in moving this bill forward. I also want to commend Senator Barbara Boxer who championed this bill from the start and led its quick passage through her Environment and Public Works Committee."
“It was a pleasure to work with Senator Murray on crafting this legislation. This bill is the culmination of months of bipartisan work to find common ground on this important issue, and I extremely pleased the Senate acted so quickly to approve it,” Isakson said. “For the few areas where asbestos is still used in the United States, this bill provides a reasonable transition so that Americans can rid themselves of asbestos once and for all.”
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said: “Because of this bill, America is poised to join the more than 40 nations that have banned asbestos because it is deadly. This bill is long overdue.”
“I have been pleased to work closely with Senators Murray and Isakson to move this important bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee, and now through the Senate. This bill will take asbestos off the shelves, and will also ensure we continue to study and treat the health effects asbestos has already caused.”
Murray's bill would ban asbestos, invest in research and treatment, and launch a public education campaign. Murray started working to ban asbestos six years ago. This March, she re-introduced her legislation as S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007.
On March 1st, Senator Murray held a hearing in her Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee on the bill.
On June 12th, the bill got a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, at which Senator Murray testified.
On June 6, Murray discussed the bill's progress at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, where she was joined by doctors, a patient, environmental experts, and advocates.
On July 31st, the bill passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 19-0.
....................................................................................
Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007
http://murray.senate.gov/asbestos
Bill Summary
1. BANS ASBESTOS
Prohibits the importation, manufacture, processing and distribution of products containing asbestos. The ban covers the 6 regulated forms of asbestos and 3 durable fibers. The EPA will issue rules to ensure asbestos products are off the shelves within 2 years of the bill's enactment.
2. Dramatically Expands Research and Treatment
Creates a $50 million "Asbestos-Related Disease Research and Treatment Network"The network will be composed of 10 new research and treatment centers around the country. Locations will be selected by the director of NIH. The network will focus on finding better treatment, early detection and prevention strategies. Funded at $50 million ($1 million per center per year for 5 years). [Section 417F]
Creates a New National Asbestos-Related Disease RegistryExpands on the existing mesothelioma disease registry to include patients with other asbestos-related diseases. This national clearinghouse for data will help scientists conduct more comprehensive research. [Section 417E(c)]
Directs the Department of Defense to Conduct Additional ResearchAbout one-third of mesothelioma victims were exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. The bill directs the Pentagon to conduct additional research on asbestos disease, early detection and treatment. [Section 417G]
Identifies the Most Promising Areas for New ResearchDirects the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the current state of knowledge on asbestos disease mechanisms, health effects, and measurement methods. NIOSH will recommend the areas where new research is most needed. [Section 222]
3. Launches a Public Education Campaign TO PROTECT AMERICANS
The EPA Administrator shall conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing products and contaminant-asbestos products, including in homes and workplaces. Patients and front-line health care providers will receive current and comprehensive information about disease awareness and treatment options. The EPA will work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Secretary of Labor, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this public education campaign. [Section 224]
Ban Asbestos in America Act Passes U.S. Senate
ADOC Press Release
Washington, D.C. Oct 04, 2007 ADAO Praises U.S. Senate for Passing Senator Patty Murray's Ban Asbestos in America Act
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an organization dedicated to serving as the voice of asbestos victims, today praised the passage of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)'s Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 by the U.S. Senate. The Ban Asbestos in America Act is an effort to ban all production and use of asbestos in America, launch public education campaigns to raise awareness about its dangers and expand research and treatment of diseases caused by asbestos.
"Senator Patty Murray is a hero for all asbestos victims and their families, and a future protector of generations to come, helping to ensure a safer environment for us all," said Linda Reinstein, Executive Director and Cofounder of Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). "We praise the Senate for passing Senator Murray's monumental Ban Asbestos in America Act and now encourage the House to follow this important bi-partisan lead for a full ban on asbestos. We also extend a special thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) for their critical support. We look forward to the day when asbestos disease will no longer needlessly claim lives."
The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis, is growing out of control. Studies estimate that during the next decade, 100,000 victims in the United States will die of an asbestos related disease - equaling 30 deaths per day.
Murray's Asbestos Ban Passes Senate
Washington, D.C. Oct 04, 2007 ADAO Praises U.S. Senate for Passing Senator Patty Murray's Ban Asbestos in America Act
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), an organization dedicated to serving as the voice of asbestos victims, today praised the passage of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)'s Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 by the U.S. Senate. The Ban Asbestos in America Act is an effort to ban all production and use of asbestos in America, launch public education campaigns to raise awareness about its dangers and expand research and treatment of diseases caused by asbestos.
"Senator Patty Murray is a hero for all asbestos victims and their families, and a future protector of generations to come, helping to ensure a safer environment for us all," said Linda Reinstein, Executive Director and Cofounder of Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). "We praise the Senate for passing Senator Murray's monumental Ban Asbestos in America Act and now encourage the House to follow this important bi-partisan lead for a full ban on asbestos. We also extend a special thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) for their critical support. We look forward to the day when asbestos disease will no longer needlessly claim lives."
The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis, is growing out of control. Studies estimate that during the next decade, 100,000 victims in the United States will die of an asbestos related disease - equaling 30 deaths per day.
Murray's Asbestos Ban Passes Senate
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
NJ Beneficiaries Wait for Supplemental Increase in Workers’ Compensation Benefits
For almost 2 years New Jersey’s most severely injured and their families have been waiting for the legislature to act upon a law to provide for a cost of living increase of their benefits. The legislation, S-1005, would increase benefits of those injured after December 31, 1979. The bill was stalled in the legislature as the parties ironed out technical issues concerning the Social Security reverse offset. NJ is one of the few States remaining that allow workers’ compensation insurance carriers to benefit from Social Security offset rules.
Additionally NJ has side stepped the triennial increase that is provided for under the Social Security Regulations causing NJ’s injured workers not to be allowed to obtain any additional increases in benefits afforded by application of that provision of the Federal law.
………………………..
The Senate Labor Committee reports favorably Senate Bill No. 1005.
This bill provides, from July 1, 2006 forward, an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers' compensation benefit rate for any worker who has become totally and permanently disabled from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979 and for the surviving dependents of workers who have died from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979.
The cost of living adjustment would be an amount such that, when added to the workers' compensation weekly benefit rate initially awarded, the sum would bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum benefit rate at the time of the adjustment that the initial rate bore to the maximum rate at the time of the initial award, except that the amount of the adjustment shall be reduced as much as necessary to ensure that the sum of the adjustment and the amount initially awarded does not exceed the amount which would cause any reduction of disability benefits payable under the Federal Old Age, Survivors and Disability Act. The amount of the adjustment would be paid from the Second Injury Fund (SIF), which is supported by a uniform assessment spread out evenly over all employers and insurers.
Current law requires such annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) in the workers' compensation benefit rate for death and permanent total disability to be paid from the SIF, but only in cases in which the injury or death occurred before January 1, 1980. The bill extends the adjustments to cases originating after December 31, 1979, although the adjustments would apply only to benefits paid on those claims after July 1, 2006.
The bill makes no change in the provisions of sections 1 and 9 of P.L.1980, c.83 (C.34:15-94.4 and 34:15-94.5), which provide for the reduction of certain portions of workers' compensation benefits by the amount of Social Security disability benefits paid. In addition, the bill expressly states that the supplemental benefits shall not be paid in a manner which in any way changes or modifies the provisions of those sections.
Additionally NJ has side stepped the triennial increase that is provided for under the Social Security Regulations causing NJ’s injured workers not to be allowed to obtain any additional increases in benefits afforded by application of that provision of the Federal law.
………………………..
The Senate Labor Committee reports favorably Senate Bill No. 1005.
This bill provides, from July 1, 2006 forward, an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers' compensation benefit rate for any worker who has become totally and permanently disabled from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979 and for the surviving dependents of workers who have died from a workplace injury at any time after December 31, 1979.
The cost of living adjustment would be an amount such that, when added to the workers' compensation weekly benefit rate initially awarded, the sum would bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum benefit rate at the time of the adjustment that the initial rate bore to the maximum rate at the time of the initial award, except that the amount of the adjustment shall be reduced as much as necessary to ensure that the sum of the adjustment and the amount initially awarded does not exceed the amount which would cause any reduction of disability benefits payable under the Federal Old Age, Survivors and Disability Act. The amount of the adjustment would be paid from the Second Injury Fund (SIF), which is supported by a uniform assessment spread out evenly over all employers and insurers.
Current law requires such annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) in the workers' compensation benefit rate for death and permanent total disability to be paid from the SIF, but only in cases in which the injury or death occurred before January 1, 1980. The bill extends the adjustments to cases originating after December 31, 1979, although the adjustments would apply only to benefits paid on those claims after July 1, 2006.
The bill makes no change in the provisions of sections 1 and 9 of P.L.1980, c.83 (C.34:15-94.4 and 34:15-94.5), which provide for the reduction of certain portions of workers' compensation benefits by the amount of Social Security disability benefits paid. In addition, the bill expressly states that the supplemental benefits shall not be paid in a manner which in any way changes or modifies the provisions of those sections.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Legislation to Protect Food Flavoring Workers from Severe Lung Disease Passes House
WASHINGTON, D.C. – By a vote of 260 to 154, the U.S. House of Representatives today approved legislation intended to prevent workers in food processing plants from getting a debilitating, irreversible lung disease that has already sickened and killed a number of workers nationwide.
The legislation would force the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules limiting workers' exposure to diacetyl, a chemical used in artificial food flavoring for microwave popcorn and other foods. Scientists have linked diacetyl exposure to bronchiolitis obliterans, a severe lung disease often known as "popcorn lung." Despite mounting evidence over several years of the dangers of popcorn lung, OSHA has failed to take action to limit diacetyl exposure, prompting the need for the legislation approved by the House today.
"Seven years after the first cases of popcorn lung were identified, it is stunning that OSHA has failed to protect American workers from this horrible disease," said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the committee. "The cost of the Bush administration's failure to act can be measured in the number of workers who have avoidably grown ill or died. This legislation is critical to stop the delays in protecting workers from this serious workplace hazard."
"It's a travesty that OSHA has done nothing to regulate this chemical, while workers have fallen seriously ill and some have actually died," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and chief sponsor of the legislation. "That's why it's time for Congress to act to keep workers healthy and safe. Passing this important legislation is a step in the right direction."
Thousands of workers are still being exposed to diacetyl at factories that make or use food flavorings.
The legislation, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act (H.R. 2693), would:
Mandate that OSHA issue a standard within 90 days to minimize workers' exposure to diacetyl in popcorn and flavorings manufacturing plants. Employers would be required to develop a written exposure control plan that would use engineering controls and respirators to protect workers, and to conduct medical monitoring to determine whether workers' health continued to be harmed.
Mandate that OSHA issue a more comprehensive standard within two years, covering all workplaces where workers may be exposed to diacetyl.
House Democrats urged the Labor Department to address this serious health hazard in August 2006. For more information and for a copy of the August 2006 letter from House Democrats to the Department of Labor, click here.
The Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on OSHA's failure to issue standards, including one for diacetyl, in April 2007. For more information, click here.
The legislation would force the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules limiting workers' exposure to diacetyl, a chemical used in artificial food flavoring for microwave popcorn and other foods. Scientists have linked diacetyl exposure to bronchiolitis obliterans, a severe lung disease often known as "popcorn lung." Despite mounting evidence over several years of the dangers of popcorn lung, OSHA has failed to take action to limit diacetyl exposure, prompting the need for the legislation approved by the House today.
"Seven years after the first cases of popcorn lung were identified, it is stunning that OSHA has failed to protect American workers from this horrible disease," said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the committee. "The cost of the Bush administration's failure to act can be measured in the number of workers who have avoidably grown ill or died. This legislation is critical to stop the delays in protecting workers from this serious workplace hazard."
"It's a travesty that OSHA has done nothing to regulate this chemical, while workers have fallen seriously ill and some have actually died," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections and chief sponsor of the legislation. "That's why it's time for Congress to act to keep workers healthy and safe. Passing this important legislation is a step in the right direction."
Thousands of workers are still being exposed to diacetyl at factories that make or use food flavorings.
The legislation, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act (H.R. 2693), would:
Mandate that OSHA issue a standard within 90 days to minimize workers' exposure to diacetyl in popcorn and flavorings manufacturing plants. Employers would be required to develop a written exposure control plan that would use engineering controls and respirators to protect workers, and to conduct medical monitoring to determine whether workers' health continued to be harmed.
Mandate that OSHA issue a more comprehensive standard within two years, covering all workplaces where workers may be exposed to diacetyl.
House Democrats urged the Labor Department to address this serious health hazard in August 2006. For more information and for a copy of the August 2006 letter from House Democrats to the Department of Labor, click here.
The Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on OSHA's failure to issue standards, including one for diacetyl, in April 2007. For more information, click here.
Monday, September 24, 2007
OH Action: Voters Empowered To Overturn SB 117
OH Action: Voters Empowered To Overturn SB 117
Add another chapter to the story of a contentious lead paint/consumer protection law that has already prompted a legal battle between the legislature and Gov. Ted Strickland over a post-session veto that was later invalidated by the Ohio Supreme Court.
A coalition of consumer advocates kicked off a referendum campaign on Friday by delivering an initial petition filing of about 1,800 signatures to the Secretary of State's Office.
The coalition decided to take advantage of the Supreme Court's decision that allowed for a 60-day window for opponents to collect signatures to challenge the law through the referendum process. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, August 31, 2007)
Committee co-chair Laura McDowall, an Akron consumer attorney, said a referendum would finally offer Ohioans the chance to weigh in on the legislation.
"The law was passed during a lame duck session with absolutely no opportunity for public input," she said. "This referendum campaign is our attempt, the citizens' attempt to allow the people to express what they think about this law."
\n\u003cp\>Gathering the necessary 241,366 valid signatures in the truncated 60-day time frame would be an "incredibly tall order," she allowed. While the Supreme Court technically allowed the standard 90-days, justices started the clock on Aug. 1, the day the court overturned Gov. Strickland's veto of the measure that former Gov. Bob Taft wanted to become law without his signature. We are doing our best to get this done within the timeframe allowed by the Ohio Supreme Court," Ms. McDowall said. "We believe we should have been entitled to the full amount of time that the constitution provides, but we are going to do everything in our power to meet the deadline." The statute (SB117, 126th General Assembly) was intended to block municipalities from filing public nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers to pay for removal of hazardous lead paint from older residential buildings. It also limits damages amounts that juries may award under the Consumer Sales Practices Act," Ms. McDowall said. "The limits on consumer protection damages will basically give dishonest businesses a green light to cheat all they want."The Secretary of State's Office will verify the initial filing contains at least 1,000 valid signatures. The Attorney General's Office is charged with certifying whether the summary of the law is accurate. If the group then successfully collects the required 6% of the total vote cast during the last gubernatorial election, the issue will be placed on the November 2008 ballot. \n\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp\>Meanwhile, the law is still in effect until the coalition files the second round of petitions, according to the Secretary of State's Office.
Consumer Advocates to Pursue Referendum on Lead Paint href\u003d\http://www.yourohiorights.org/\
Gathering the necessary 241,366 valid signatures in the truncated 60-day time frame would be an "incredibly tall order," she allowed. While the Supreme Court technically allowed the standard 90-days, justices started the clock on Aug. 1, the day the court overturned Gov. Strickland's veto of the measure that former Gov. Bob Taft wanted to become law without his signature. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, August 1, 2007)
"We are doing our best to get this done within the timeframe allowed by the Ohio Supreme Court," Ms. McDowall said. "We believe we should have been entitled to the full amount of time that the constitution provides, but we are going to do everything in our power to meet the deadline."
The statute (SB117, 126th General Assembly) was intended to block municipalities from filing public nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers to pay for removal of hazardous lead paint from older residential buildings. It also limits damages amounts that juries may award under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.
"It is a terrible law," Ms. McDowall said. "The limits on consumer protection damages will basically give dishonest businesses a green light to cheat all they want."
The Secretary of State's Office will verify the initial filing contains at least 1,000 valid signatures. The Attorney General's Office is charged with certifying whether the summary of the law is accurate. If the group then successfully collects the required 6% of the total vote cast during the last gubernatorial election, the issue will be placed on the November 2008 ballot.
Meanwhile, the law is still in effect until the coalition files the second round of petitions, according to the Secretary of State's Office.
Consumer Advocates to Pursue Referendum on Lead Paint Bill
http://www.yourohiorights.org/
Why This Is A Bad Law
http://www.yourohiorights.org/why-bad.html
Take Action! Circulate A Petition!
http://www.yourohiorights.org/what-to-do.html
Contribute
http://www.yourohiorights.org/contribute.html
This web site is sponsored byPaid for by Voters Empowered To Overturn SB 117, Mark McGinnis, Treasurer, 550 East Walnut Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Add another chapter to the story of a contentious lead paint/consumer protection law that has already prompted a legal battle between the legislature and Gov. Ted Strickland over a post-session veto that was later invalidated by the Ohio Supreme Court.
A coalition of consumer advocates kicked off a referendum campaign on Friday by delivering an initial petition filing of about 1,800 signatures to the Secretary of State's Office.
The coalition decided to take advantage of the Supreme Court's decision that allowed for a 60-day window for opponents to collect signatures to challenge the law through the referendum process. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, August 31, 2007)
Committee co-chair Laura McDowall, an Akron consumer attorney, said a referendum would finally offer Ohioans the chance to weigh in on the legislation.
"The law was passed during a lame duck session with absolutely no opportunity for public input," she said. "This referendum campaign is our attempt, the citizens' attempt to allow the people to express what they think about this law."
\n\u003cp\>Gathering the necessary 241,366 valid signatures in the truncated 60-day time frame would be an "incredibly tall order," she allowed. While the Supreme Court technically allowed the standard 90-days, justices started the clock on Aug. 1, the day the court overturned Gov. Strickland's veto of the measure that former Gov. Bob Taft wanted to become law without his signature. We are doing our best to get this done within the timeframe allowed by the Ohio Supreme Court," Ms. McDowall said. "We believe we should have been entitled to the full amount of time that the constitution provides, but we are going to do everything in our power to meet the deadline." The statute (SB117, 126th General Assembly) was intended to block municipalities from filing public nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers to pay for removal of hazardous lead paint from older residential buildings. It also limits damages amounts that juries may award under the Consumer Sales Practices Act," Ms. McDowall said. "The limits on consumer protection damages will basically give dishonest businesses a green light to cheat all they want."The Secretary of State's Office will verify the initial filing contains at least 1,000 valid signatures. The Attorney General's Office is charged with certifying whether the summary of the law is accurate. If the group then successfully collects the required 6% of the total vote cast during the last gubernatorial election, the issue will be placed on the November 2008 ballot. \n\u003c/p\>\n\u003cp\>Meanwhile, the law is still in effect until the coalition files the second round of petitions, according to the Secretary of State's Office.
Consumer Advocates to Pursue Referendum on Lead Paint href\u003d\http://www.yourohiorights.org/\
Gathering the necessary 241,366 valid signatures in the truncated 60-day time frame would be an "incredibly tall order," she allowed. While the Supreme Court technically allowed the standard 90-days, justices started the clock on Aug. 1, the day the court overturned Gov. Strickland's veto of the measure that former Gov. Bob Taft wanted to become law without his signature. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, August 1, 2007)
"We are doing our best to get this done within the timeframe allowed by the Ohio Supreme Court," Ms. McDowall said. "We believe we should have been entitled to the full amount of time that the constitution provides, but we are going to do everything in our power to meet the deadline."
The statute (SB117, 126th General Assembly) was intended to block municipalities from filing public nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers to pay for removal of hazardous lead paint from older residential buildings. It also limits damages amounts that juries may award under the Consumer Sales Practices Act.
"It is a terrible law," Ms. McDowall said. "The limits on consumer protection damages will basically give dishonest businesses a green light to cheat all they want."
The Secretary of State's Office will verify the initial filing contains at least 1,000 valid signatures. The Attorney General's Office is charged with certifying whether the summary of the law is accurate. If the group then successfully collects the required 6% of the total vote cast during the last gubernatorial election, the issue will be placed on the November 2008 ballot.
Meanwhile, the law is still in effect until the coalition files the second round of petitions, according to the Secretary of State's Office.
Consumer Advocates to Pursue Referendum on Lead Paint Bill
http://www.yourohiorights.org/
Why This Is A Bad Law
http://www.yourohiorights.org/why-bad.html
Take Action! Circulate A Petition!
http://www.yourohiorights.org/what-to-do.html
Contribute
http://www.yourohiorights.org/contribute.html
This web site is sponsored byPaid for by Voters Empowered To Overturn SB 117, Mark McGinnis, Treasurer, 550 East Walnut Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)