Election2008 Home
We need those to clowns out of office before they screwup any thing else.
They don't have interest at heart.
Labor Department Changing Safety Rules and Putting Workers' Lives At Risk
|
Does our government want to help make employees less safe on the job? It seems the labor department would like to change safety rules that limit a workers' exposure to chemicals and toxins on the job. Once again, our government is choosing what is best for big business, and putting the lives of workers in jeopardy. Have you heard about this? What do you think?
From The Washington Post... A copy of a eleventh-hour proposed rule that would make it harder to set new safety rules limiting workers' exposure to chemicals on the job has been obtained by the Washington Post. This is from Cate Groves at the Care2 News Network... There is a link in the story to the proposed new rules. It's a PDF document that you can read for yourself. The proposal adds another layer of procedure as well as challenges to be answered before the Labor Department can even CONSIDER new regulations for a workplace toxin. It also wants to change the limits of acceptable toxicity exposure by assuming no workers will remain at any one job for 45 years, which has been the standard measuring rule used. What do you think? Let me know in comments. July 25, 2008 -- Posted by Catherine Morgan |
Loranzie L.
Wednesday July 30, 2008, 7:12 AM
We need those to clowns out of office before they screwup any thing else.
They don't have interest at heart.
They don't have interest at heart.
Loranzie L.
Wednesday July 30, 2008, 7:12 AM
We need those to clowns out of office before they screwup any thing else.
They don't have interest at heart.
They don't have interest at heart.
Loranzie L.
Wednesday July 30, 2008, 7:12 AM
We need those to clowns out of office before they screwup any thing else.
They don't have interest at heart.
They don't have interest at heart.
Loranzie L.
Wednesday July 30, 2008, 7:12 AM
We need those to clowns out of office before they screwup any thing else.
They don't have interest at heart.
They don't have interest at heart.
Jan Sadauskas
Wednesday July 30, 2008, 6:15 AM
There shouldn't be industries that use carcinagins and if there was none then there wouldn't be a need to determin how long a person can work with ongoing exposeture to carcinagins. That would eliminate one safety hazard anyway. Then we could work on others.
Katrina Schumann
Tuesday July 29, 2008, 7:33 PM
the way "our" Gov works is this: they use as many ways to harm health as they can so that the docs & Pharm companies get $; everything goes as long as it's AGAINST the people; every other country KNOWS we are enslaved & poisoned & giving false info re news or it is suppressed illegally as it is exactly what went on in Hitler's day; in groups other countries state what WE are shown going on in THIER countries is not true; we are the worst country on earth & democracy has become the most despised name on the planet due to the graft & corruption of the Gov. Formaldehyde agressively used in everything; all carpeting, new materials, clothes, shampoos, etc: oh and Clorox bought Burt Bee's & the NEW LAW passed says they do NOT have to list toxins any longer; deception & mockery of all decency is what our country is known for. The Truth is Relevant is because they believe themselves to be gods; whatever they say is truth; whether it is lies which it is 99% of the time; to the point of back dating items claiming was done way back when; sad but true; "elections" are a joke; rigged; all deoderants, cleaning supplies, etc; you THOUGHT you we keeping house clean with; TOXINS to make you ill; now you know the truth of the matter of why other countries live longer & have healthier lives than we do.
Robert D.
Tuesday July 29, 2008, 7:08 PM
I one breath they state that workers health is paramount as per the original law. The next breath it adds steps to procedure and allows for more open doors to opposing views and factors,including cost analyses.
To use an example from the erly days of this admin (first 100 days) more arsenic ppm in the water allowed. This rule of the Clean Water act got recinded. I hope this new rule does not come to pass either.
To use an example from the erly days of this admin (first 100 days) more arsenic ppm in the water allowed. This rule of the Clean Water act got recinded. I hope this new rule does not come to pass either.
Robert D.
Tuesday July 29, 2008, 7:02 PM
This new rule reads like an open door to reassess existing rules by industry taking into account cost factors. A potential for loosening of existing standards might happen under these new rules.
Tuesday August 19, 2008, 7:03 PM