Donna Puleio MD
Video Bar
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Ex-OSHA official alleges revenge - CharlotteObserver.com
Ex-OSHA official alleges revenge - CharlotteObserver.com
Comments (2) | Recommend (0)Buzz up!Print Reprint or License Share Tool NameClose
tool goes here Ex-OSHA official alleges revenge
He complains he was fired after he said the agency let employers underreport injuries.
By Ames Alexander
aalexander@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Thursday, Nov. 05, 2009
More Information
Special Report: The Cruelest Cuts
Bob Whitmore, a former federal OSHA official who contends the government has allowed companies to underreport workplace injuries, has filed a complaint alleging he was fired from his job in retaliation for speaking out about his agency's failings.
His whistle-blower complaint is set to be heard by the federal Merit Systems Protection Board in early December.
Formerly head of OSHA's record-keeping unit, Whitmore alleges agency officials want to silence his criticism and stop his push for a more aggressive approach with employers who underreport workplace injuries.
"When you challenge the agency's motives and integrity, that's heresy," Whitmore said Wednesday. "Obviously I did that. And I've paid the price for doing that."
Attorneys for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit that advocates for state and federal government workers, will represent Whitmore for free.
The MSPB hears complaints from federal employees who feel they have been unfairly treated or fired. In the large majority of complaints, the board rules in favor of the federal agencies. Employees who don't prevail before the MSPB can appeal to federal court.
Observer reporters spoke with Whitmore while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that a number of injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were.
In years past, leaders of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration have pointed to declining injury rates as proof of the agency's success. But in interviews and a congressional hearing, Whitmore alleged that OSHA has allowed employers to underreport workplace injuries.
OSHA says Whitmore intimidated co-workers and made them feel unsafe at work. The agency began investigating Whitmore after a July 2007 confrontation with Joe DuBois, his supervisor. Whitmore said DuBois spit on him, so Whitmore stuck his foot in the office door and said he would "kick your ass" if DuBois did it again. DuBois has said that he didn't intentionally spit on Whitmore, and he didn't believe the effort to fire Whitmore was based on his criticisms.
Whitmore, 62, was placed on paid leave for more than two years after the confrontation. He was removed from his job July 31.
He said he consistently got high performance rankings during all but the last few of his years
Comments (2) | Recommend (0)Buzz up!Print Reprint or License Share Tool NameClose
tool goes here Ex-OSHA official alleges revenge
He complains he was fired after he said the agency let employers underreport injuries.
By Ames Alexander
aalexander@charlotteobserver.com
Posted: Thursday, Nov. 05, 2009
More Information
Special Report: The Cruelest Cuts
Bob Whitmore, a former federal OSHA official who contends the government has allowed companies to underreport workplace injuries, has filed a complaint alleging he was fired from his job in retaliation for speaking out about his agency's failings.
His whistle-blower complaint is set to be heard by the federal Merit Systems Protection Board in early December.
Formerly head of OSHA's record-keeping unit, Whitmore alleges agency officials want to silence his criticism and stop his push for a more aggressive approach with employers who underreport workplace injuries.
"When you challenge the agency's motives and integrity, that's heresy," Whitmore said Wednesday. "Obviously I did that. And I've paid the price for doing that."
Attorneys for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit that advocates for state and federal government workers, will represent Whitmore for free.
The MSPB hears complaints from federal employees who feel they have been unfairly treated or fired. In the large majority of complaints, the board rules in favor of the federal agencies. Employees who don't prevail before the MSPB can appeal to federal court.
Observer reporters spoke with Whitmore while reporting on injuries inside poultry plants. The newspaper's investigation, published in February 2008, found that a number of injured employees weren't showing up on company injury logs. That made plants appear safer than they actually were.
In years past, leaders of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration have pointed to declining injury rates as proof of the agency's success. But in interviews and a congressional hearing, Whitmore alleged that OSHA has allowed employers to underreport workplace injuries.
OSHA says Whitmore intimidated co-workers and made them feel unsafe at work. The agency began investigating Whitmore after a July 2007 confrontation with Joe DuBois, his supervisor. Whitmore said DuBois spit on him, so Whitmore stuck his foot in the office door and said he would "kick your ass" if DuBois did it again. DuBois has said that he didn't intentionally spit on Whitmore, and he didn't believe the effort to fire Whitmore was based on his criticisms.
Whitmore, 62, was placed on paid leave for more than two years after the confrontation. He was removed from his job July 31.
He said he consistently got high performance rankings during all but the last few of his years
Sunday, November 08, 2009
The Coming U.S. Budget Attack : Information Clearing House - ICH
The Coming U.S. Budget Attack : Information Clearing House - ICH
The Coming U.S. Budget Attack
By Shamus Cooke
November 08, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The United States is moving backwards…fast. State budget cuts are decimating essential health and social services; public education is being destroyed; the social safety net is in tatters. To make matters worse, all of this is occurring when the loss of jobs stands at a twenty-six year high with no end in sight.
But this is only phase one. The federal government intends to balance its books too, at the expense of society’s neediest. Instead of governors presiding over painful cuts, the President will be doing the gutting. And although his proposed budget isn’t due until February, the President’s spokespeople are priming the media to play a major propaganda role in what will be a colossal blow against working and poor people.
Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has been particularly busy promoting the future cutbacks, repeating that “the country must live within its mean;” “deficits must be brought down dramatically” — something that will “require very hard choices.”
What are these hard choices? One possible option is no longer available. The biggest annual deficit producer is the U.S. military, which Obama will not radically reduce. Instead, he will increase it; Taxpayers will pay $660 billion (!) in 2010 toward the military. And maybe more — military commanders see more fighting in the future, not less; consequently, they want more money. The New York Times reports:
“…Admiral. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not say how much additional money would be needed, but one figure in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside defense budget analysts is $50 billion.” (November 4, 2009).
Senate Democrat John Murtha thinks only $40 billion extra will do the trick, making the military budget an even $700 billion for 2010.
A different “hard choice” that could fix the deficit is to drastically raise taxes on the very wealthy. To this end, Obama has made the wholly-inadequate pledge to “roll back the Bush tax cuts.” Taxing the super-rich an extra 4 percent isn’t going to do the trick; not even close. At bare minimum, their taxes should be raised an additional 35 percent, to the pre-Regan level. But Obama would never propose such an idea.
The solutions Obama has proposed are the ones that Geithner is actually referring to when he says “very hard choices.” Last January, Obama told the conservative Washington Post that, to lower deficits, he would “reform entitlement programs” — social security, Medicare, etc. Reform in this case means to eliminate, or drastically reduce. The Washington Post reports:
“President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.”
When will this happen? The Post answers: “[the] administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.” (January 16, 2009). The upward swing in the stock market gave Geithner the green light to begin his anti-entitlement public relations campaign.
By choosing not to drastically reduce military spending and not to greatly increase taxes for the super rich and corporations, Obama will have few other options: the federal deficit is too high, especially after the Bush/Obama bank bailouts.
These bailouts, combined with decades of reduced taxes for the very wealthy, created the conditions that led to our “deficit crisis.” The solution that Obama is proposing will further devastate millions already suffering from unemployment, unlivable wages, and little hope for the future.
It can be further presumed that, while Obama is getting the U.S. “financial house in order,” the Federal Reserve will assist by increasing interest rates — something demanded by U.S. foreign creditors — thereby significantly risking cutting into Wall Street's most recent profits and opening up the possibility of transforming our Great Recession into another full-blown depression.
This is not a matter of “if,” but “when.” The imbalances in the U.S. economy are too massive; a giant “restructuring” must take place. The bank bailouts merely intensified the already enormous economic contradictions. Who pays for this restructuring will shape the future for years to come. As Obama implements his anti-worker plan, he will encounter tremendous resistance. The once-loved President will leave office more hated than Bush.
Once the Obama illusion is completely shattered, workers can begin to act independently. We must demand that the corporate elite pay for the crisis they created. Their efforts to push this crisis onto us must be fought at every step. This can be done by clearly articulating our solutions to the crisis — taxing the super-rich and the corporations, a massive public works campaign, and ending foreign wars (for starters) — and promoting these ideas through local and national coalitions of labor unions, community groups, students, the unemployed, etc. If we are united and fighting for a clear vision of the future, we will win. If we rely on the Democrats to solve this problem our fate is sealed.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
| More
The Coming U.S. Budget Attack
By Shamus Cooke
November 08, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The United States is moving backwards…fast. State budget cuts are decimating essential health and social services; public education is being destroyed; the social safety net is in tatters. To make matters worse, all of this is occurring when the loss of jobs stands at a twenty-six year high with no end in sight.
But this is only phase one. The federal government intends to balance its books too, at the expense of society’s neediest. Instead of governors presiding over painful cuts, the President will be doing the gutting. And although his proposed budget isn’t due until February, the President’s spokespeople are priming the media to play a major propaganda role in what will be a colossal blow against working and poor people.
Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has been particularly busy promoting the future cutbacks, repeating that “the country must live within its mean;” “deficits must be brought down dramatically” — something that will “require very hard choices.”
What are these hard choices? One possible option is no longer available. The biggest annual deficit producer is the U.S. military, which Obama will not radically reduce. Instead, he will increase it; Taxpayers will pay $660 billion (!) in 2010 toward the military. And maybe more — military commanders see more fighting in the future, not less; consequently, they want more money. The New York Times reports:
“…Admiral. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not say how much additional money would be needed, but one figure in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside defense budget analysts is $50 billion.” (November 4, 2009).
Senate Democrat John Murtha thinks only $40 billion extra will do the trick, making the military budget an even $700 billion for 2010.
A different “hard choice” that could fix the deficit is to drastically raise taxes on the very wealthy. To this end, Obama has made the wholly-inadequate pledge to “roll back the Bush tax cuts.” Taxing the super-rich an extra 4 percent isn’t going to do the trick; not even close. At bare minimum, their taxes should be raised an additional 35 percent, to the pre-Regan level. But Obama would never propose such an idea.
The solutions Obama has proposed are the ones that Geithner is actually referring to when he says “very hard choices.” Last January, Obama told the conservative Washington Post that, to lower deficits, he would “reform entitlement programs” — social security, Medicare, etc. Reform in this case means to eliminate, or drastically reduce. The Washington Post reports:
“President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.”
When will this happen? The Post answers: “[the] administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.” (January 16, 2009). The upward swing in the stock market gave Geithner the green light to begin his anti-entitlement public relations campaign.
By choosing not to drastically reduce military spending and not to greatly increase taxes for the super rich and corporations, Obama will have few other options: the federal deficit is too high, especially after the Bush/Obama bank bailouts.
These bailouts, combined with decades of reduced taxes for the very wealthy, created the conditions that led to our “deficit crisis.” The solution that Obama is proposing will further devastate millions already suffering from unemployment, unlivable wages, and little hope for the future.
It can be further presumed that, while Obama is getting the U.S. “financial house in order,” the Federal Reserve will assist by increasing interest rates — something demanded by U.S. foreign creditors — thereby significantly risking cutting into Wall Street's most recent profits and opening up the possibility of transforming our Great Recession into another full-blown depression.
This is not a matter of “if,” but “when.” The imbalances in the U.S. economy are too massive; a giant “restructuring” must take place. The bank bailouts merely intensified the already enormous economic contradictions. Who pays for this restructuring will shape the future for years to come. As Obama implements his anti-worker plan, he will encounter tremendous resistance. The once-loved President will leave office more hated than Bush.
Once the Obama illusion is completely shattered, workers can begin to act independently. We must demand that the corporate elite pay for the crisis they created. Their efforts to push this crisis onto us must be fought at every step. This can be done by clearly articulating our solutions to the crisis — taxing the super-rich and the corporations, a massive public works campaign, and ending foreign wars (for starters) — and promoting these ideas through local and national coalitions of labor unions, community groups, students, the unemployed, etc. If we are united and fighting for a clear vision of the future, we will win. If we rely on the Democrats to solve this problem our fate is sealed.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
| More
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
A Family Voice on Workplace Safety
A Family Voice on Workplace Safety
A scathing critique of the Nevada state Occupational Safety and Health program prompted a recent Congressional hearing that spotlighted how the agency’s shortcomings have tragically affected workers and their families.
At the October 29 hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Education and Labor Committee, members examined many of the findings from a special study by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) after Nevada experienced 25 workplace fatalities in 17 months, from January 1, 2008 through June 1, 2009.
Nevada is one of 27 states and American territories that take federal funding to enforce workplace health and safety standards, in lieu of enforcement by OSHA itself. OSHA has oversight responsibility for the state agencies and conducted this review as the first in a series of studies to be conducted on the performance of the 27 state agencies.
Among other findings, the special oversight review cited repeated failures by the Nevada agency to:
impose stiff penalties after potentially preventable accidents;
issue citations or notices of violations for previously identified hazards;
ensure that its investigators receive proper training; and
allow families of killed or injured workers to participate in investigations.
Many of these findings were also highlighted last year in a Pulitzer prize-winning series by Alexandra Berzon in the Las Vegas Sun investigating deaths in construction accidents that were also covered in the federal report.
The impact of the state agency’s failures on affected families was demonstrated by Debi Koehler-Fergen, the mother of Travis Wayne Koehler, who was killed at the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas on February 2, 2007. Mr. Koehler had been sent by his supervisors to help a colleague correct a problem for which neither man had proper training and that was normally handled under contract by an outside company. When toxic gasses were released, both men died and a third man was severely and permanently injured.
Mrs. Koehler-Fergen told committee members that she was treated disrespectfully by a top Nevada OSHA official, who was seated next to her at the hearing and who had explained the results of the state report on her son’s death in a public area of the agency while other employees watched her cry, instead of taking her to a private office.
She also said that she was bitterly disappointed by the agency leaders’ decision to downgrade the violations cited to serious from “willful neglect” and “repeat serious” that the key investigator’s findings seemed to warrant against the hotel’s owners. Her complaint to the federal OSHA helped prompt its review of the state agency.
Mrs. Koehler-Fergen is a volunteer with United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities, a Public Welfare Foundation grantee that helps bring the perspective of surviving family members into policy discussions about improving workplace safety and health.
Rep. George Miller, who chairs the House committee and led the hearing, expressed concern that families are often cut out of the investigation process after a loved one has been killed or injured on the job. He said that it’s “an ongoing effort” on the part of the committee to change that, at both the federal and the state level.
To see Mrs. Koehler-Fergen testifying click here.
Go Back
A scathing critique of the Nevada state Occupational Safety and Health program prompted a recent Congressional hearing that spotlighted how the agency’s shortcomings have tragically affected workers and their families.
At the October 29 hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Education and Labor Committee, members examined many of the findings from a special study by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) after Nevada experienced 25 workplace fatalities in 17 months, from January 1, 2008 through June 1, 2009.
Nevada is one of 27 states and American territories that take federal funding to enforce workplace health and safety standards, in lieu of enforcement by OSHA itself. OSHA has oversight responsibility for the state agencies and conducted this review as the first in a series of studies to be conducted on the performance of the 27 state agencies.
Among other findings, the special oversight review cited repeated failures by the Nevada agency to:
impose stiff penalties after potentially preventable accidents;
issue citations or notices of violations for previously identified hazards;
ensure that its investigators receive proper training; and
allow families of killed or injured workers to participate in investigations.
Many of these findings were also highlighted last year in a Pulitzer prize-winning series by Alexandra Berzon in the Las Vegas Sun investigating deaths in construction accidents that were also covered in the federal report.
The impact of the state agency’s failures on affected families was demonstrated by Debi Koehler-Fergen, the mother of Travis Wayne Koehler, who was killed at the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas on February 2, 2007. Mr. Koehler had been sent by his supervisors to help a colleague correct a problem for which neither man had proper training and that was normally handled under contract by an outside company. When toxic gasses were released, both men died and a third man was severely and permanently injured.
Mrs. Koehler-Fergen told committee members that she was treated disrespectfully by a top Nevada OSHA official, who was seated next to her at the hearing and who had explained the results of the state report on her son’s death in a public area of the agency while other employees watched her cry, instead of taking her to a private office.
She also said that she was bitterly disappointed by the agency leaders’ decision to downgrade the violations cited to serious from “willful neglect” and “repeat serious” that the key investigator’s findings seemed to warrant against the hotel’s owners. Her complaint to the federal OSHA helped prompt its review of the state agency.
Mrs. Koehler-Fergen is a volunteer with United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities, a Public Welfare Foundation grantee that helps bring the perspective of surviving family members into policy discussions about improving workplace safety and health.
Rep. George Miller, who chairs the House committee and led the hearing, expressed concern that families are often cut out of the investigation process after a loved one has been killed or injured on the job. He said that it’s “an ongoing effort” on the part of the committee to change that, at both the federal and the state level.
To see Mrs. Koehler-Fergen testifying click here.
Go Back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
