Tag Archives: legislation

Proposed House Chemical “Reform” Legislation: A Step Backward for Health and Safety

Today’s post was shared by Gelman on Workplace Injuries and comes from www.foreffectivegov.org

Today’s post is shared from foreffectivegov.org

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) released a draft bill entitled the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) on Thursday, Feb. 27 that provides no significant improvements in protecting public health and the environment from toxic chemicals. Many of the provisions in the draft bill maintain the already deficient approaches to health protections now included under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s outdated and ineffective chemical safety law. Even worse, aspects of the legislation would weaken TSCA and undercut current protections provided by states that have adopted more stringent chemical laws.

Many of the problems posed by provisions of S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), are also apparent in CICA. Among many deficiencies, the bill would prevent states from regulating chemicals classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “low priority” risks, as well as preempt the ability of states to adopt requirements for “high priority” risk chemicals that are more protective than those established by EPA. CICA continues the existing law’s perverse approach to establishing safety standards, in which the burden of proof falls on the EPA to prove a chemical poses an “unreasonable” health risk, rather than on chemical companies to prove the safety of their products.

Other shortcomings of CICA include:

  • The bill provides no deadlines for the EPA to assess the potential risks of…

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Cancer Risk, Workplace Carcinogens and a Government Report

Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Our law firm recently completed successful litigation involving eight families against various chemical companies. A member of each family got cancer from working at a local plant where industrial solutions were used to make rubber products.

Stating the obvious, cancer is universally bad, regardless of how much money a person has; what their religious or political views are; how old they are; or how/where/why they got cancer. That being said, I think workers especially need to be aware of the dangers and exposures to carcinogens that can occur because of chemicals in the workplace. According to a United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website, “Carcinogens are agents that can cause cancer. In industry, there are many potential exposures to carcinogens. Generally, workplace exposures are considered to be at higher levels than for public exposures. Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) should always contain an indication of carcinogenic potential.” 

Respected colleague Jon Gelman from New Jersey shares his thoughts on the subject in this blog post at http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2012/10/romney-regulation-risk-of-cancer.html. And I thank him for sharing the op-ed resource from a recent Sunday’s edition of The New York Times. 

According to the Times piece, lobbyists associated with the chemical industry want to “shoot the messenger” by limiting or getting rid of the U.S. government’s Report on Carcinogens. Because if workers don’t know about carcinogens in their workplace, they won’t get cancer? Or more accurately, at least they won’t be able to tie that cancer to their workplace? Tell that to the American Cancer Society, whose web site includes a page specific to carcinogens and uses various sources, both national and international, to determine what carcinogens are.

Mr. Gelman also mentions in his blog post that certain lobbyists and politicians want to limit the regulation of these chemicals, which the Times story calls “scientific consensus” for their listing as cancer-causing carcinogens. It’s very challenging for consumers to know what substances, either naturally occurring or made by humans are safe to eat and use. To take that confusion into the workplace by limiting the information available to workers to be as safe as possible in their jobs, especially when long-term consequences like cancer are a possibility, is a shame.

“Opting In” to Worker’s Compensation: Wisconsin’s Very Good Idea

Wisconsin Capitol BuildingThis is part 1 of a 3 part series.

Oklahoma recently faced a proposal in legislative session that would have allowed employers to “opt out” of the State’s mandatory worker’s compensation system. The bill ultimately died but it was closely monitored by the business community. Similar bills may soon surface in several other states including Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Wisconsin’s initial efforts in workers’ compensation led the nation.

With several states proposing to “opt out” of worker’s compensation, it is important to revisit, after 100 years, why Wisconsin “opted in” leading the way for the other 50 states in worker’s compensation. The next several blog entries will tell that story.

Part I. Workers Denied Recovery

Wisconsin’s initial efforts in workers’ compensation led the nation. In 1911, Wisconsin became the first state in the nation to place a broad, constitutionally valid workers’ compensation system into operation.

Prior to 1911, Wisconsin workers who were injured on the job had to overcome three common law obstacles in order to recover from their employer. Under the contributory negligence doctrine, a worker could not recover from the employer if the worker had been negligent in any way and that negligence had contributed to the accident regardless of how negligent the employer may have been.

Under the doctrine of assumption of risk, if a worker knew or should have known of the danger inherent in the task at issue before undertaking it, the employer was not liable for an accident arising from the task even if the employee was not negligent.

Under the fellow servant rule, employers could not be held liable for accidents caused by fellow employees (i.e., co-workers) of the victim.

The combined effect of these common law defenses served to deny workers adequate remedies for their injuries.

Please visit our blog next week for part 2 of our series on states opting out of workers’ compensation.