DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos / US Congress

US Congress

#TRUCKING DANGER: SAY NO TO HB19 & SB17!

By

Republished from Texas Watch www.texaswatch.org

Large truck danger

Year after year, Texas has the highest number of large truck wrecks in the nation. From 2016 to 2019, the number of truck crashes in our state increased by almost 30%. To protect the lives of Texas families, we need more safety measures, not less. Legislation pushed by trucking lobbyists will endanger all of us on the roads.

HB19 and SB17 will harm families devastated by 18-wheeler wrecks. These bills give trucking corporations less incentive to follow safety measures, which means you and your family will be at greater risk on the roads. The bills will make it harder to punish trucking companies through our courts when they violate safety standards. When bad actors do not follow the rules, they need to be held fully accountable by a jury of our peers in order to help protect us all. And when recklessness causes death, serious injuries, or the inability to work, trucking companies must take responsibility.

Please contact your Texas state legislators and let them know you oppose HB19 and SB17!

Global Asbestos Awareness Week

By

Easily inhaled asbestos fibers

The theme of the 2021 Global Asbestos Awareness Week is “One Word. One Week. One World.” Since 2005, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) has hosted a week of education and action to end the use of asbestos. Though the dangers of asbestos have been known for decades, there remains a need to educate the public and those in office who can make a difference in its importation and use. April 1-7 of each year we are reminded that this danger still exists and threatens lives. Since the first Global Asbestos Awareness Week in 2005 until today, it is estimated 600,000 Americans lost their lives to asbestos-caused illnesses.

U.S. Senate passed 16th resolution for “Global Asbestos Awareness Week”

The Senate once again formally recognized the need for public exposure to the dangers of asbestos. Linda Reinstein, mesothelioma widow and ADAO co-founder, congratulated the Senate for the passage of S. Res. 145. Reinstein wrote, “We are grateful to Congress for passing this resolution and once again putting the dangers of asbestos exposure on the national radar, but we must do more.” She further emphasized, “With this continuation of use and an increase in imports, awareness of the dangers of asbestos, and an eventual ban on imports and use, are more important than ever. Unlike the more than 70 countries that have banned asbestos, Americans remain at risk of asbestos exposure every day from a variety of places, including our schools, homes, workplaces, and from unsuspecting products on consumer shelves like toys and cosmetics.”

What are the dangers of asbestos?

Asbestos is a mineral that can be used in the manufacture of many products, including insulation, shingles, brake pads, tile mastic, cosmetics and hundreds of other uses. Though it’s been known for over a century that asbestos exposure can be deadly – no matter the level of exposure ­– there is still no ban in the United States.

Inhalation of asbestos causes a spectrum of diseases including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. There is currently no cure for mesothelioma – a disease which can be caused by even brief or intermittent asbestos exposures. 

How can Global Asbestos Awareness Week help?

Each year, goals are set to push forward the asbestos banning agenda. This year there are four main points:

            • Banning the mining, manufacturing, and use of asbestos

            • Preventing asbestos exposure

            • Increasing compliance and enforcement of existing laws and regulations

            • Strengthening international partnerships

Reinstein reported, “The United States imported nearly 30 percent more asbestos in 2020 than in the prior year. With this continuation of use and an increase in imports, awareness of the dangers of asbestos, and an eventual ban on imports and use, are more important than ever.”

What can you do to help?

If you suspect asbestos in your home or business built before 1980, have an abatement professional inspect before any remodeling or disturbance of the material. If you’ve been exposed, let your doctors know so they can create a baseline and monitor you for signs of asbestos disease.

During this Global Asbestos Awareness Week, let your congressional and senatorial representatives, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), know your concerns and the need for a ban. This is long past due; let’s make it happen!

Protecting the Right to Organize Act – PRO Act

By

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, is a proposed United States law that would amend previous labor laws such as the National Labor Relations Act, for the purpose of expanding labor protections related to employees’ rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace. It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization, and it would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union. The PRO Act would weaken “right-to-work” laws, which exist in 27 U.S. states. It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.

Background

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, also known as the PRO Act, follows a series of past legislation passed by Congress concerning labor rights. A number of landmark bills were passed during the New Deal period, including the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered one of the most important Acts of Congress at the time.

Following the New Deal, a number of bills were passed which restricted the activities of labor unions. Among these was the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act), which among other things prohibited secondary boycotts and closed shops.

In 2009, the Employee Free Choice Act, another bill which would have amended the National Labor Relations Act, failed to pass.

In the State of California, following the passage of California Assembly Bill 5, Proposition 22 was passed in 2020. Proposition 22 was intended to classify so-called gig workers for app-based companies (such as Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Postmates) as “independent contractors” rather than full employees.

Content of the PRO Act

The PRO Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also known as the Wagner Act), the Taft-Hartley Act, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (also known as the Landrum–Griffin Act).

According to the summary text of the PRO Act, it revises definitions under labor law, permits labor unions to encourage participation in secondary strikes, and prohibits employers from litigating against unions which conduct such secondary strikes:

Among other things, it (1) revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards; (2) permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and (3) prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.

The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired. It would also allow unions to override “right-to-work laws”, allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union. Right-to-work laws exist in 27 U.S. states, and the PRO Act would weaken these laws in favor of workers. It would also make illegal company-sponsored mandatory meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization. The PRO Act would classify some workers who are classified now as “independent contractors”, instead as “employees”. The bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to define an employee as:

“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”

This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively. This would potentially include those who work for app-based companies such as Uber, DoorDash, or Lyft, and overall could include hundreds of thousands or millions of workers. The bill would allow for workers to sue employers and would make it easier for employees to join a union.

Support for the PRO Act

A letter signed by over 100 labor unions, advocacy organizations, churches, and political groups supported the PRO Act. This included but not limited to the AFL-CIO, EPI, Public Citizen, AFT, Sunrise Movement, CPD, SEIU, PFAW, CWA, FoEI, HRW, USW, IWPR, GBCS, IFPTE, NETWORK, Patriotic Millionaires, and Oxfam. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO said, “If you really want to correct inequality in this country … passing the PRO Act is absolutely essential to doing that.” The bill has received backing from the Labor Caucus and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Joe Biden endorsed the PRO Act, and has called labor law reform one of the top priorities of his administration.

Legislative Activity

On February 4, 2021, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-03) introduced the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 in the House of Representatives. Of the bill’s 213 cosponsors, 3 – Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), and Chris Smith (NJ-04) – were Republicans; the other 210 were Democrats.

The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 225 to 206 on March 9, 2021. Five House Republicans (Brian Fitzpatrick, John Katko, Chris Smith, Jeff Van Drew, and Don Young) joined the House Democrats in voting for it, while one Democrat (Henry Cuellar) voted against it. The bill now advances to the U.S. Senate; however, the bill is unlikely to pass as it would require universal Democratic support and 10 Republican crossover votes to pass in case of a filibuster.

Photo by Thibault Penin on Unsplash

EPA Asbestos Risk Assessment Is Flawed

By

asbestos risk - fibers

The dangers from asbestos were identified decades ago; still, the long-awaited Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft of its asbestos risk assessment is flawed. The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) is a non-profit independent organization dedicated to alerting the public and government agencies, especially the EPA, about the deadly risks posed by exposure to asbestos. Linda Reinstein, ADAO president, released this statement after reading the EPA’s assessment draft.

“For nearly four years, ADAO and other stakeholders have urged EPA to use the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to ban asbestos in the United States. The risks of asbestos have been well-documented for decades. As it stands, the draft asbestos risk assessment the EPA has proposed will perpetuate the dangers of asbestos and undermine the chance for the national ban on asbestos the nation desperately needs.”

What are the risks?

Inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma. It is a silent killer as it can wait decades, up to 50 years, before it shows up and is diagnosed. These are preventable deaths. Yet, almost 40,000 people die from one of these diseases each year in the United States alone.

Even Bob Sussman, the former EPA Deputy Administrator, states the “EPA’s incomplete and un-protective risk evaluation is a big step back from the decades of high-quality work by government scientists on this extremely dangerous carcinogen.” Sussman also serves as ADAO counsel.

While the US refuses to ban asbestos, nearly 70 countries have – including most industrialized nations. The US continues to import and use tons of raw asbestos every year.

What can be done?

A host of experts and advocates agree that this mineral – asbestos – is a preventable risk for everyone. Asbestos exposure can occur through many circumstances, including job sites, remodeling, old buildings, even makeup marketed to teen girls. As Reinstein states, “The evaluation, as proposed, fails to protect the public from this deadly and knowable threat. EPA continues to drag its feet and has repeatedly put chemical company concerns before protecting the public. We urge them to act, but we can’t afford to keep waiting, which is why we call on Congress to pass the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN).”

If this concerns you, contact your congressional representative and tell them you want this bill passed.

Talc Safety Topic of Congressional Hearings

By

Talc safety has been a concern for years. More recently, the clear possibility of asbestos contamination in talc has led to heightened concern about critical diseases, such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer being caused by use of talc based products.  

Why is asbestos connected to talc safety?

Both talc and asbestos are minerals found in underground mines. Geologists know that these two minerals are often found intertwined in veins, making cross-contamination a real risk.

Talc everyday uses

Aside from baby powder, talc is used in a wide range of cosmetics for its moisture absorption and silkiness. Recently asbestos was found in four cosmetic products from Claire’s and Justice – both catering to makeup for children. It was also used for feminine hygiene, crayons, children’s toys, chewing gum, and a plethora of common products. There is no safe level of asbestos as its microscopic fibers can infiltrate lungs and harbor the potential for developing into lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma for fifty years or more.

Congressional hearings on talc safety

Concerns recently grew when the FDA found asbestos in several products, including baby powder. An initial hearing was conducted in March of 2019 over cosmetic talcum powder’s safety. This hearing specifically focused on talc’s connection with ovarian cancer.

The second hearing was launched when the FDA found asbestos in a sample of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) baby powder in October 2019. Under consideration may be the use of warning labels or regulation of talc products.

Congress speaks

The hearing questioned the testing methods used.  William Longo, founder of Materials Analytical Service, stated, “Independent labs throughout the country and over the course of several decades have documented the presence of asbestos in consumer talc products, including Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. The methods used in the past and today by the industry are not sensitive enough to detect trace levels of asbestos.”

While Longo once denied the presence of asbestos in talc, he stated there is now more sensitive testing. He also received access to thousands of internal J & J documents showing their knowledge of small amounts of asbestos in their talc for decades. There is no safe level, yet J&J kept this information from regulators and the public. Protecting the J&J brand and the public trust of their products was their focus. They now have paid out billions of dollars in thousands of lawsuits with thousands more in process.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy tried to convince the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, Alex Gorsky, to testify at the hearing. He turned down the invitation.

Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said Gorsky’s refusal made sense as the “CEO and his advisers probably figured that the downside was greater to testifying than not.”