BILLS IN CONGRESS
There are a number of key pieces of safety and health legislation before Congress right now that could affect UFCW members’ health and safety on the job. Below is a summary of the bills, and where they are in Congress.
Asbestos compensation
Congress is considering creating a $140 billion trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. The fund would end the thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits around the country, but victims, businesses, insurance companies, taxpayer watchdog groups and others are divided over whether it's a good solution.
Here are some of the pros and cons:
Pros
Cons:
Enzi OSHA Deform Bills
Three occupational safety and health bills were introduced into the Senate on November 18, 2005 by Senator Michael Enzi (R-Wyo). Enzi is the chair of the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Enzi has introduced similar bills in previous sessions of the Senate. Two of these bills, the Occupational Safety Partnership Act and the Occupational Safety Fairness Act would significantly weaken an already weakened OSHA. These two bills are described below.
-
Occupational Safety Partnership Act (S. 2065): This bill, which Enzi is reintroducing, promotes partnering between OSHA and industry by promoting voluntary programs and allowing companies to self-certify compliance through audits by third parties. It would allow employers to hire private sector consultants to inspect their workplaces and issue a "certificate of compliance," exempting them from an OSHA citation for two years. The Partnership act will also increase the use of voluntary protection programs and technical assistance programs. These are the same programs that the Government Accountability Office studied in 2004 and found to have no proven value. One difference between this year’s bill and the ones introduced in previous years is that it does not even require employers to set up a comprehensive safety and health program. Furthermore, it no longer includes a provision of an earlier Enzi bill which would have made criminal penalties a felony instead of a simple misdemeanor, which they are under current law.
-
The Occupational Safety Fairness Act S. 2066 includes many provisions that would significantly weaken OSHA’s ability to cite employers. For example, the bill states that “other than serious” citations may not be used as a basis for issuing subsequent, repeat, or willful violation. “If OSHA cites a ‘close call’ or an unsafe condition, and then the same problem eventually leads to a serious injury or fatality, OSHA would be prohibited from issuing a significant citation.” The Bill would also, for the first time, allow OSHA to cite and fine workers for not wearing company-provided personal protective equipment. Yes, this is the same agency that, after five years, still refuses to issue a completed regulation requiring employers to pay for personal protective equipment mandated by OSHA standards.
FY 2006 labor-HHS Appropriations
Pandemic Flu – There have been several legislative initiatives dealing with pandemic flu. On December 18, 20-05, Senator Bill Frist added provisions to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would appropriate $3.8 billion for Pandemic Flu, and provide drug companies and other broad immunity, with only limited provisions for compensation in the event of injury. These provisions were passed by the House on December 18, and by the Senate December 231, 2005.
On December 16, 2005, the House democrats introduced a Pandemic Flu bill (HR 4603) which has important worker protection provisions, including a mandate for OHS to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect health care workers and other first responders from Pandemic Influenza, and compensation program if individuals are injured by a pandemic flu vaccine.
None of these efforts address possible exposure, and protection, of poultry workers to the avian flu virus.
Payment on Personal Protective Equipment: OSHA still has not issued the final payment for Personal Protective Equipment, or PPE rule.
 |
 |
