Occupational Health and Safety
Section Newsletter
Summer 2005
CHAIR’S MESSAGE
Michael Silverstein, MD
Clinical Professor
University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Campus Box 357234
Seattle, WA 98195-7234
masilver@u.washington.eduPh: (206) 897-1652 Fax: (206) 616-0477
As I am writing this column my desk is full of public health news demonstrating the challenge we face in trying to protect worker health. Asbestos bailout legislation is moving ahead in the U.S. Senate (more on that below), MSHA has announced an indefinite delay in rulemaking on crystalline silica, OSHA has almost abandoned rulemaking altogether, British Petroleum is blaming and firing workers for the Texas City refinery explosion that killed 15 people, and the AFL-CIO is dismantling its occupational safety and health department. And probably worst of all, abuse of science for low political purposes is running rampant at the highest levels of our federal government. Most recently it became front-page news that Phillip Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute who was working at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, rewrote key parts of a scientific report on climate change despite the fact that he had no scientific background and obvious partisan bias. While Cooney resigned in the wake of this story, the Bush administration continues to defend his political interference as proper. Thank goodness there are organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists tracking these abuses and keeping them in the public eye.
It is during times just like these that our Section takes on special importance as a place to share concerns and information with colleagues and to plan ways to advance a positive agenda of worker protection. I am happy to report great progress on OHS plans for the APHA Annual Meeting in New Orleans from Nov. 5 to Nov. 9. The Section’s scientific program is coming together nicely under the leadership of Program Chair Janie Gittleman. Twenty-nine safety and health sessions are listed in the preliminary program, including Moving OSH from Theory to Practice, Quantitative Methods in OSH, Occupational Respiratory Disease Surveillance, Public Health Impact of International Trade Treaties and a special session on the 35th Anniversary of the OSHAct. In addition, there will once again be multiple opportunities to interact more informally, including our awards luncheon, social hour, and dance party. And the bonus this year is New Orleans itself! Not only is the city a great place to enjoy food and music, but it is full of occupational and environmental health history. A history tour is being planned for Saturday with details to be forthcoming – make sure you are on the section listserve and watch for announcements. I urge all members of the OSH Section to attend the meeting this year.
Here are a couple of quick updates on OHS section activity:
• Following some excellent work by Mary Miller and Jonathan Bennett, APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee expressing concerns about the asbestos bailout legislation that is moving through the Senate. The bill is now out of committee and moving for a full Senate vote. We expect APHA to send another letter before the vote. Highlights of the letter follow:
o “The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act (S.852) will, if enacted, adversely affect those who have been exposed to asbestos and are at risk of dying or becoming sick as a result. Fundamentally, the APHA believes that everyone who has been injured by asbestos exposure should be compensated for the cost of their medical care, for their loss of income, and for all other losses…Anything less than this creates an environment of inequality…
o “The bill creates a new medical standard to define asbestos-related disease, instead of relying on the professional diagnoses of physicians…the bill’s criteria seem to be suited toward administrative expediency, instead of science-based criteria such as those issued by the American Thoracic Society. Our concern is that many legitimate victims of asbestos related disease will be ineligible for compensation based on these criteria…
o “Even for those workers who successfully file a valid claim, the new rules do not provide a fair, full and expedited compensation to victims. Interestingly, the size of the trust fund is determined by the companies who will contribute to it, not by an actuarially valid projection of the cost of compensation…
o “The APHA believes there is an asbestos disease crisis in this country that needs to be treated, not an asbestos litigation crisis. ‘Solving’ the asbestos litigation crisis will do nothing to resolve the disease crisis, and may actually make it harder for victims of asbestos-related disease to recover…”
• A new resolution developed by Sherry Baron, Deborah Weinstock and Mary Miller of our Section on addressing the dangers faced by immigrant workers is moving through the process and hopefully will become official APHA policy. The resolution states the facts regarding the exceptionally high risks faced by increasing numbers of immigrant workers, documented and undocumented, and the barriers they face in obtaining decent medical care or workers’ compensation. For example, “Foreign-born workers, especially foreign-born Hispanics, have a higher occupational fatality rate compared to other workers. Between 1997 and 2001, the occupational fatality rate for all foreign-born workers was 20 percent higher than the rate for all workers, and the rate for foreign-born workers from Latin America was 40 percent highly than for all workers. The cause of this disparity is, in large part, due to the disproportionate distribution of foreign-born workers in high-risk industries, such as construction, agriculture and manufacturing. However, a recent analysis found that Hispanic construction workers (65 percent of whom are foreign born) had an 80 percent greater fatality rate compared to non-Hispanic construction workers.”
It then goes on to recommend several actions, including the following:
o Expand the policy of Region V of the Department of Labor nationally, to create initiatives in each region that permit OSHA and the Employment Standards Administration, two divisions of the U.S. Department of Labor, to collaborate with community, faith-based, and worker organizations that are trusted by immigrant communities to establish outreach centers to train workers about their rights and to identify and forward complaints without fear of identification or retaliation.
o Strengthen whistleblower and anti-retaliation provisions to protect workers who exercise job safety rights and raise job safety concerns.
o OSHA and NIOSH should enhance outreach, training and education programs for immigrant and Hispanic workers and employers to inform them of job safety rights and responsibilities, job hazards and protections. This would include a requirement from OSHA that compliance with existing hazardous training standards be interpreted to mean that employers are required to provide such training in meaningful interactive formats that include training in a language the individual understands and that follow-up measures for training effectiveness be developed and implemented. In addition, the OSHA notice of violations that is posted in the workplace should be in the language(s) spoken by the employees, as well as in English.
o Target enforcement activities among industries, employers and operations where immigrant workers are at high risk of injury or illness and strengthened OSHA criminal and civil penalties; additionally, develop a National Emphasis Program that targets record-keeping and training requirements as applied to temporary agencies and to worksites hiring day laborers.
o Urge that NIOSH expand intramural and extramural research programs to address the safety and health problems of immigrant and Hispanic workers.
o Urge the Department of Labor to continue the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) so that the public and policy makers are assured accurate information regarding migrant and seasonal farm workers.
o Encourage labor unions and other worker organizations to continue to prioritize training and outreach activities related to protecting the safety and health of immigrant workers.
• The APHA Student Assembly has developed a new scholarship program to assist public health students in attending the APHA Annual Meeting. The OHS section has contributed $300 to the fund this year, enough for one student. This is in addition to the scholarship assistance we will be providing once again for several students and union members.
• Come see the OHS Section booth this year in New Orleans. With the initiative and creativity of Kerry Souza, Janie Gittleman and others, we will be unveiling a banner identifying our Section and bringing attention to the need for worker protection. We will be able to use this banner for years to come, not only at the booth but to identify Section members and others interested in workplace safety and health at other political and scientific events.
Return to Top
SAVE THE DATE AT APHA
Saturday, Nov. 5, 2005
Kick off your experiences in New Orleans with the "Cancer Alley-River Road Reality Tour." This all-day event will take participants through communities along the New Orleans-Baton Rouge corridor to meet neighborhood and labor activists who have struggled for justice against chemical industry giants including Shell Oil and Dow Chemical. The tour is being organized by the OHS & Environment Sections, in collaboration with the Sierra Club. Stay tuned for further details, including the full program agenda, instructions for registering and the fee. For further info contact Celeste Monforton at <
eohcnm@gwumc.edu>.
Return to Top
SECTION NEWS
Janie Gittleman, PhD, MRP
Associate Director, Safety and Health Research
Center to Protect Workers' Rights
Suite 1000
8484 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Ph: 301-578-8500 xt. 107
Cell: (202) 302-1340
Fax: (301) 578-8572
e-mail:
jgittleman@cpwr.comAs the 2005 Program Planning Chair for the Occupational Health Section, I would like to thank the reviewers of this year’s program: Elyce Biddle, John Sestito, Gregory Wagner (all from NIOSH), Hester Lipscomb (Duke University), Katherine Newman (BLS), Gordon Smith (Liberty Mutual), Melissa Perry (Harvard University), and Rosemary Sokas (University of Illinois). Their thoughtful reviews contributed to the selection of abstracts covering a wide range of important topics in the field. Many thanks for your time and effort in helping to develop an excellent scientific program. Also, thanks to Celeste Monforton (George Washington University), and Mary Miller (Washington State Labor and Industries) for passing on their planning wisdom.
OHS Member Receives AwardAn illustrious former Chair of the OHS Section, Rosie Sokas, has received the 2005 NIOSH James P. Keough Award! Congratulations, Rosie. Thanks for all your contributions to help protect workers.
Rosemary Sokas Accepts the Keogh AwardThe 2005 James P. Keogh Award for Outstanding Service in Occupational Safety and Health was presented April 28 to Rosemary Sokas, Director of the Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health. Before joining the University of Illinois, Sokas was Lead Medical Officer and then Associate Director for Science at NIOSH. Sokas has made exceptional contributions in occupational safety and health through her work at the University of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, the George Washington University, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, NIOSH, and the University of Illinois. We are delighted to honor Sokas with this award in memory of Dr. James Keogh. For more information on Sokas and her accomplishments visit <
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hamilton/sokas-winn.html>. More information on the James P. Keogh Award can be found at <
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hamilton/keoaward.html>.
Return to Top
OHS Section Commentary
Maggie Robbinsmaggie@hesperian.orgThoughts on the Loss of the AFL-CIO Health & Safety DepartmentOur efforts to improve working conditions related to OHS have just become more difficult. With the loss of the small, but dedicated, skilled, and effective H&S Department of the AFL-CIO, we have lost the single clear voice advocating for workers’ health and safety in the United States. (Our colleague Jordan Barab had written well about this at
<
http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/03/new-afl-cio-wither-safety-health.html>.)
This loss reinforces the need for the rest of us to create and expand our linkages to each other, and to the broader social justice and human rights causes in the United States and globally. Our country, to survive, needs to create and maintain good jobs. This includes safe jobs, but also jobs with decent pay, decent working conditions, and where workers have the right, and the ability, to speak for their interests on the job without fear of being harassed, fired, or worse. (The ILO has articulated this concept nicely; see <
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/decent.htm>.) This isn’t just about work for some abstract people somewhere in the United States, it is about each of us at our work, our families at their work, our neighbors, and the people who help us get to work each day, who educate our children, and who help us have food on the table at night.
We must struggle as health and safety professionals, academics, researchers, and workers, to maintain our working conditions, our rights, and our freedoms, as we continue working for the rights of others. We need to keep speaking up about the need for improving OHS research, training, regulations, and enforcement. We need to keep asking the right research questions on causes and solutions for dangerous workplaces. We need to keep reporting the harm we find, even if our employers or funders don’t want to hear it. We need to keep defending our colleagues attacked for their pursuit of safer workplaces. We need to keep talking to the press, to our peers, to the government, to employers, and to workers about the dire need for safer workplaces, for better treatment and compensation for injured workers, for more workers’ control over conditions in the workplace, and for expanding workers’ rights. We can’t shrink from what we know is a hard row to hoe just because the ground is getting still harder.
The debate going on within and about the union movement in the United States right now is important. How can the union movement reverse its numerical and density declines? How can working people, unionized or not, gain or regain influence over the policies and laws of our government and the actions of our employers? How can we create more and better jobs for people without jobs? How can we reverse the power of multinational corporations to direct state, national, and international economic policies in their favor?
(Jordan also collected some of the opining on this debate at
<
http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-what-hells-going-on-with-labor.html>.)
The rises and falls of the U.S. labor movement have been analyzed in great detail by others with more historical perspective than I have. My short-term view of the labor movement since I began paying attention to it about 20 years or so ago tells me this. The crisis in the labor movement has been growing for decades, since before I was born. And this decline is both a cause of and a result of the lack of a movement in the United States that articulates and advocates for the human rights and dignity of ordinary people. Most U.S. workers do not have a clear and broad analysis of why their work and economic life has become more insecure, nor how to change this. It seems like a zero-sum game in which if you win, I lose. If workers in Alabama win a factory, workers in the Chicago lose one. If workers in California demand higher wages and health insurance, workers in India will take their jobs away. If we push for safer, cleaner factories here, we will lose them to some place else that will accept the dirt and danger. The labor movement overall is providing neither analysis nor solutions to these framings of the issue. The solution of voting for the latest union-neutral, free-trade-loving Democrat does not ring true. Or at least not true enough to inspire a movement.
Active worker involvement, judgment, and action are essential to achieve and maintain safe working conditions. Creating and supporting active, confident, self-directed rank-and-file leaders is not familiar to the staff and leaders in many of our unions, and therefore is not a priority. The unions’ week-to-week priorities are focused on the next bargaining session, the next grievance meeting, or the next political fight, not on the long-term work of developing and supporting rank-and-file leaders and self-directed activism. Some unions are really good at “mobilizing” their members to the fights the staff and officers decided upon. These may be important fights, and may even be related to health and safety, but these methods do not organize workers to become activists in their own right. To create a groundswell of support for safer workplaces, we need knowledge and activism at the worksite level across the country. All the expert testimony and well-documented reports in the world do not win us better OHS laws and enforcement unless there is a worker movement to get them through Congress and the President. This is equally true for defending other workers’ rights. The lack of this kind of union movement, on top of the lack of compelling analysis to guide the political demands of workers, was painfully visible as we watched the re-election of the current anti-union, anti-health, pro-corporate administration.
At the end of the day, whether some affiliates leave the AFL-CIO in July or not, it can’t help but underline the crisis we find ourselves in as working people. Whatever comes of it, our job this year and next will not be too different. As one of our own, Linda Rae Murray, has reminded us in the past, “We need to be clear who the enemy is.” It is not John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO or Andy Stern of SEIU, or any of the other union leaders at the top or in the trenches. It is greed in the form of unbridled capital accumulation. It is greed in the form of denying the human rights and dignity of workers in the United States and globally. It is greed that cynically pits one group of workers against another while raking in record profits for the political and corporate elite. This is the enemy. The rest of us are Lilliputians trying to tether this mighty giant. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
Return to Top
“Trade and Public Health Working Group” in APHA Formed by Section Members
Report on APH Working Group on Trade and Public Health
Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD, MPH
E-mail:
ershaffer@cpath.orgAt the Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., last November, APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin convened a meeting of several sections (Medical Care, Occupational Health and Safety, and International Health) to consider how APHA can address the public health issues arising in the numerous international trade and investment agreements, including those currently in negotiation. Dr. Benjamin asked the three sections present to take the lead in pulling together an informal working group on this issue. I am representing the Medical Care Section in the Working Group. Other participants include Garrett Brown (who is acting as chair) and Tom Connor from Occupational Health and Safety, Donald Zeigler from Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Doug Farquhar from Environmental Health, William Wiist (PHEHP), Janet Gottschalk (Public Health Nursing); International Health reps include Mary Anne Mercer, Sarah Shannon, Beth Rivin and Marty Makinen. Affiliate representatives include Kristen Smith (Southern California Public Health Association – also a Medical Care member), Larry Platt (California Public Health Association-North), Health Will (Florida), Karen Valenzuela (Washington State), and Karla Armenti (New Hampshire).
APHA has a policy resolution of trade issues from 2001 (Policy Resolution 2001-21), submitted by the Medical Care Section, and immediate past president Virginia Caine has been outspoken in her concern about the adverse health effects of NAFTA and its successors. The January 2005 issue of the
American Journal of Public Health has an article on the impact of trade agreements on global health, which I co-authored. It is also available on the Web site for the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health at <
www.cpath.org>. Occupational health-specific impacts of trade agreements have been analyzed by OHS Section members Linda Delp (M
www.labor.ucla.edu/publications/nafta.pdf>) and Garrett Brown (<
www.igc.org/mhssn>).
Since the Annual Meeting there have been several monthly conference calls of the Working Group, and trade and health issues were discussed at the January meeting of the APHA Executive Board. Additional sections and state affiliates are being contacted to join the effort. Written minutes from each call are distributed to WG members, who are asked to send them on to their constituent groups, to leaders of the ISC, COA, Executive Board, and to the Executive Director.
The goals of the Working Group are to educate the APHA membership on the issue, to reach out to and involve more sections, affiliates and individual members, and to have APHA weigh in during the Congressional debates concerning the pending Central America Free Trade Agreement and the many other pacts now in negotiation. Longer-term goals include reaching out to other public health-related organizations for joint legislative and public education efforts.
Kristen Smith and Doug Farquhar (who works for the National Council of State Legislatures) reported on state legislation that has passed in Maryland and is under consideration in several states including California. Here is the issue: Trade agreements can require states to open up their procurement processes to foreign companies, but the states must consent to be included. States often prefer to restrict some contracts and other purchases to local companies or companies that meet certain standards, and they could lose this right if the state is included in the trade pacts. Now, governors typically make the decision about including their states, without consulting with legislators or the public. The Maryland bill requires the governor to consult with the legislature, making the process more democratic and accountable to the public. APHA affiliates in other states may want to work with their representatives on similar proposals.
At the Working Group’s request, at the 2005 APHA Annual Meeting in New Orleans one of the four large “special sessions” on Tuesday morning will address the theme of “Public Health Impacts of Trade Agreements.” The WG investigated how decisions are made about the special sessions, and learned that the Committee at Large plays a role; these people are section program planners, and people appointed by the APHA President; the APHA Executive Director Georges Benjamin, and his chief of staff, Allen Baker; and APHA President Walter Tsou. The WG contacted all of these groups and individuals, proposing the idea for the session and possible speakers.
There will also be a session jointly sponsored by Medical Care, OHS, ATOD, and Environmental Health on the various aspects of the issue, on Tuesday, Nov. 8, at 4 p.m. (Marty Makinen of the International Health Section retracted the IH Section’s offer to co-sponsor); and an organizational/business meeting of the Working Group open to all interested APHA members, on Sunday at 2 p.m.
Any and all interested OHS members are invited to join this effort by contacting Garrett Brown at <
gdbrown@igc.org> or Ellen Shaffer at <
ershaffer@cpath.org>. Among the tasks that need volunteers from our Section are:
1) Contacting other APHA sections and state affiliates to involve more APHA members in the issue;
2) Mobilizing Medical Care Section members to contact Congress about CAFTA and other trade related issues; and
3) Outreach to other state, national and international health and medical groups.
This issue will be increasingly important during 2005. Please do not hesitate to contact Garrett or me to get involved!
Return to Top
STUDENTS’ COLUMN
Lessons of a DoctorateBy Sarah-Truclinh Tran