posted on January 14, 2002 11:04:08 PM new
As threatened Bush appointed Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state for Latin America and Eugene Scalia as Labor Department solicitor.
The constitution gives the president the power during Senate recesses to install nominees without Senate approval. By exercising his executive authority while Congress is in recess, Reich and Scalia will be allowed to serve until Congress recesses again at the end of the year.
So, Scalia now is the Labor Dept top lawyer in charge of enforcing federal labor laws and worker protections. Remember, he is the one to call Clinton-era rules aimed at reducing workplace injuries as, "quackery" based on "junk science."
Reich is an ultra conservative Cuban-American with close ties to conservative anti-Castro Cubans.
Aren't we lucky to have these two added to Bush and gang?
posted on January 15, 2002 07:49:54 AM new
With Reich, George will pay back the Cubans who voted for him in Florida and look out for reelection of little brother, Jebb.
Now , Scalia is the Labor Dept top lawyer in charge of enforcing federal laws and worker protections. But, he cares nothing about the rights of America's workers.
His dismissal of existing rules on workplace injuries as "quackery" based on "junk science" makes him unsuited to be the nation's chief enforcer of rules designed to protect workers.
posted on January 15, 2002 09:10:37 AM new
These two bozo's would never have been confirmed by the Senate. Why didn't the Senate take up either Scalia's or Reich's nominations before taking their recess?
Our government is failing us in so many area's. Where's the checks and balances? Bush's abuse of power has to be stopped!
posted on January 15, 2002 09:17:24 AM new
Unless of course it IS quackery based on junk science.
People who know nothing about scientific methodology always cry conspiracy, etc when a pet theory is proven wrong.
It's like Ralph Nader (a real dope) who starts a campaign against Volkswagen, because 50% of them blow up after somebody crashes 2 of them and 1 explodes.
posted on January 15, 2002 04:38:53 PM new
[i]"Unless of course it IS quackery based on junk science."[/]
That sort of thinking is grasping at straws. I don't know about you, but I've met many a store clerk whose wrist is bound because they have repetitive motion injuries to deal with from their job. And who can deny that an employer so cheap that they buy kid's coimputer work stations for their adult employees, forcing the employee to look downwards at the monitor all day and causing massive headaches and sore necks, eventually geting arthritis there? No, it's not quackery, nor is it invisible: just open your eyes and you'll see it everywhere.
posted on January 15, 2002 08:19:15 PM new
Borillar
Quackery is everywhere because you cannot underestimate the ability of people to supplement what is shown, what is measured, and what is, with what they want and what they believe.
To see a glass of milk and say that it is half empty or half full is one thing.
To say it is half full because a big white doggy came and drank from it and then to force big white doggy owners to pay a dairy tax is quackery.
In test studies the NTSA showed people photos of themselves pressing on the gas pedal of Audi mock-ups and they still insisted they were pressing on the brake.
Now of course, in this particular instance the press drummed the public to the barricades to fight the evil corporation that was uncaringly splatting people against the garage wall.
posted on January 15, 2002 10:12:43 PM new
... yes, these same folks used to burn people at the stake for claiming that the world was round too; not so much because the church dogma was being run over, but because the truth was too harsh. For the world to be flat relied upon religion and its explanations, whereas a round earth deals with observation, rationalization and scientific methods.
To claim that "all that science stuff" is mere quackery with the wave of the hand, dismissing it because it is too inconvenient an answer is ignoring reality. Science is disproved by science, not by clever argument, no matter how great it may sound. And the science that these laws are based upon is not mere fantasy and can not be easily dismissed with a disbelieving wave of the hand.
So the motive is a political one. Corporations do not want to spend the money on worker's rights or health. They pay these S.O.B.s a lot of money to run for office and to represent their cause. Of course, you aren't going to claim something equally silly now, are you? Nothing like, "Corporations are the biggest benefit to Mankind since the invention of the Iron Fist" or some such nonsense - are you?
People who develop a type of injury caused by such repetitive actions as chopping chicken carcasses or hammering away at computer keyboards cannot sue their employers to force workplace accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week. The unanimous decision reflects a sound interpretation of the 1990 measure, which Congress intended to protect an estimated 43 million Americans with mental or physical disabilities from discrimination in jobs, housing and access to public facilities.
Employers, however, would be foolish to view the court's ruling, which hinged on the definition of "disability," as an excuse to avoid making ergonomic improvements. And until federal and state lawmakers do a better job of addressing the workplace conditions that give rise to this often excruciating injury, litigation and frustration will escalate. Ella Williams, the plaintiff in the court case, had worked with power tools on a Kentucky auto assembly line. She developed carpal tunnel syndrome, intense pain in her wrists and shoulders, as a result of the repetitive motions her job involved. When pain made it impossible for her to work, Williams got medical treatment and some benefits from Kentucky's workers' compensation system. She wanted to return to the job, but because her doctor told her not to lift more than 20 pounds she asked to be assigned lighter duties, such as inspecting cars. Her employer, Toyota Motors, refused. She quit and sued the company under the disabilities act, claiming that her injuries were so severe as to constitute a disability like blindness or paraplegia.
The high court said no. A disabled person must have a "permanent or long-term" impairment, the court held, not an injury that is likely to heal.
Many farsighted businesses have redesigned jobs or workstations in recent years to minimize repetitive motion injuries. Other companies contend that such changes would be too costly and that some workers who claim to have back or shoulder problems, for example, may not have hurt themselves on the job.
Some business leaders and others, including Eugene Scalia, whom President Bush appointed Friday as the top lawyer for the Labor Department, go so far as to voice skepticism that ergonomic injuries exist at all--a view about as valid as doubting that the planet is round.
Vehement pressure from business pushed Congress last year to kill federal ergonomic rules passed by the Clinton administration. Fortunately, equally fervent reaction from unions prompted Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to promise she would take another look at the problem. Tuesday's high court decision should push her to move quickly.
posted on January 19, 2002 05:06:38 AM new
Repetitive injuries are not junk science and only a fool would actually believe they are. The research involved with repetitive injuries, meets ever criteria of being valid and credible research with valid and credible findings.
Scalia got the job because Daddy saw to it that Bush was appointed president, not because he is qualified for the job. His qualifications lacked so he was sneaked in the back door. His agenda is to favor business, not the people that that work for big business.
Just because some one person calls something junk science DOES NOT make it so. There are people who swore the world was flat and thought the belief that it was round was based on junk science. Did not change reality. However in this case Scalia's decisions, based upon at best an erroroneous belief and a worst an who cares attitude, will effect thousands of people's well being and ability to care for themselves and work until retirement. Most of the changes to prevent repetitive injuries are not expensive, promote comfort for the person performing the task, lengthen the years they can work and generally are efficient and effective...unless you consider your workforce a throw away commodity and don't give a damn if they can survive once you used them up.
Please call me Charlotte so I don't have ta change my ID.
posted on January 19, 2002 08:21:01 AM new
Otto Reich was involved big time in the iran-contra affair, and Scalia was payback for the stolen 2000 election. Anyone who cant see the truth written on the wall is either weakminded, or just plain stupid. I would not be surprised if Neil Bush isnt someway involved with the Enron scandal. He did a nice job with the savings and loan scandal.
posted on January 19, 2002 09:20:06 AM new
It's all part of the dismantling of America. Under the guise of Conservatism, which values old values, this fascist regime in our government wants to turn working and living conditions here in America to be the same as the worst conditions in the lowest thrid-world country. That corporate slavery exists in this world on such a nasty scale, damaging and the lives of so many with thoughtless concren, that is what BUSH and his cronies want for us.
I predict a wild swing to the Left. With so many Americans being so stupid as to actually support these monsters, it won't be overnight, unfortunately. However, even the most stupid and dense conservative and/or republican will come to realize that their lives are in jeopardy, their family's lives are in jeopardy, that the whole of the American Way is in jeopardy that they just might get off of thier fat duffs and DO something - like swinging towards the Left.
I only hope that we are able to fix what these creeps are tearing down and apart as fast as they can.
posted on January 19, 2002 09:49:00 AM new
My son has worked for Safeway for 15 years, and has seen co-workers with repetitive injuries. Some of these people have worked there even longer than my son, but are still too young to retire.
These people try everything to relieve the pain from these injuries, because they don't want to lose their jobs. What good does it do to wear a brace or even go as far as having surgery then go back to the same work that caused the injury in the first place?
Don't forget these people are not only in pain at work, but also at home. My son's friend had an infant that he was afraid to hold because he was afraid he would drop him. He had numbness, shooting pain, and just plain old pain. Sometimes he would be holding a cup and it would fall right out of his grasp.
