| |
 |
Friday, March 25, 2005 |
The Usual Suspect was given the opportunity to continue his ongoing education by attending a hearing at the State Capitol where was debated a bill designed to criminalize the behavior of railroad officials who obstruct the medical treatment of injured employees or who discipline or threaten to discipline injured employees who request medical treatment. Here is the text of the bill:
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to crimes; making it a crime for a railroad
1.3 or a person employed by a railroad to obstruct the
1.4 treatment of a railroad worker injured on the job or
1.5 to discipline or threaten to discipline the railroad
1.6 employee injured on the job for requesting treatment
1.7 or first aid; proposing coding for new law in
1.8 Minnesota Statutes, chapter 609.
1.9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.10 Section 1. [609.849] [RAILROAD THAT OBSTRUCTS TREATMENT OF
1.11 AN INJURED WORKER.]
1.12 (a) It shall be unlawful for a railroad or person employed
1.13 by a railroad to:
1.14 (1) deny, delay, or interfere with medical treatment or
1.15 first aid treatment to an employee of a railroad who has been
1.16 injured during employment; or
1.17 (2) discipline or threaten to discipline an employee of a
1.18 railroad who has been injured during employment for requesting
1.19 medical treatment or first aid treatment.
1.20 (b) A railroad or a person who violates paragraph (a),
1.21 clause (1) or (2), shall be fined not more than $10,000 for each
1.22 violation.
1.23 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.]
1.24 Section 1 is effective August 1, 2005, and applies to
1.25 crimes committed on or after that date.
Seems pretty innocuous. That is if everyone is truly concerned about the injured parties. But what a spectacle we beheld. On the one side was a veritable army of railroad attorneys and spokesmen, all there on the carriers' dime, eager to dispute the anecdotal testimony offered by the other side. And what can we say about the other side? UTU State Legislative Rep., UTU legal counsel, unpaid injured workers who have experienced the reality of being hurt at work. Lawyers spinning abstract legal arguments and concerned about preserving the beauty and purity of a Federalist legal system. Arguing for the PREEMPTION PRINCIPLE giving the FRA complete authority over that which they choose to regulate. And on the other hand, workers from the down and dirty trenches of real railroad operations. Those who have experienced the post-injury treatment, the harassment, the intimidation and subtle threat of dismissal for insubordination first hand.
The company lawyers appealed to the US Code of Federal Regulations and in particular Title 49, PART 225 RAILROAD ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS: REPORTS CLASSIFICATION, AND INVESTIGATIONS (49CFR225). In particular Sec. 225.33 requires the railroads to develop and implement Internal Control Plans which, in part,
"declare the railroad's committment to . . . the principle, in absolute terms, that harassment or intimidation of any person that is calculated to discourage or prevent such person from receiving proper medical treatment or from reporting such accident, incident, injury or illness will not be permitted or tolerated and will result in some stated disciplinary action against any employee, supervisor, manager, or officer of the railroad committing such harassment or intimidation."
They also cited the section that enumerates the schedule of civil penalties for violating this law.
However, Sec. 225.1 clearly states the Purpose of this part is a reporting standard. It also clearly states the Preemptive clause:
The purpose of this part is to provide the Federal Railroad
Administration with accurate information concerning the hazards and
risks that exist on the Nation's railroads. FRA needs this information
to effectively carry out its regulatory responsibilities under 49 U.S.C.
chapters 201-213. FRA also uses this information for determining
comparative trends of railroad safety and to develop hazard elimination
and risk reduction programs that focus on preventing railroad injuries
and accidents. Issuance of these regulations under the federal railroad
safety laws and regulations preempts States from prescribing accident/
incident reporting requirements. Any State may, however, require
railroads to submit to it copies of accident/incident and injury/illness
reports filed with FRA under this part, for accidents/incidents and
injuries/illnesses which occur in that State.
So do you buy the argument that the state is precluded from passing such a law as described above? Or does the intent of 49CFR225 clearly allow it? As one state Representative asked of the railroad lawyers, "Does the mandated reporting form include the relevant times so that FRA can actually determine if medical treatment has been interfered with?" Any armchair lawyers have an opinion on this?
7:17:00 PM 
Google It!
|
|
Ralph Nader points out that when Bush says that the safety of all Americans is his highest priority, even under the narrowest definition of "safety", the President has botched it. He even mentions the shipments of hazardous materials that many of us deal with every day.
"It gets worse. Every day, toxic chemicals and lethal wastes are transported by rail and truck through many populated areas. Within a few blocks of the Congress, about 8500 rail cars pass every year, loaded with chlorine, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and other toxic vapors that could destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people in an hour.
The District of Columbia recently adopted a temporary ban on such shipments, but the railroad company CSX objected. Resolution of this conflict is still pending."
How to explain Bush's negligence in securing such potentially deadly targets?
"Now either Bush is severely negligent, while using the "war on terrorism" to help him get re-elected, or he knows that he and his cabinet members are exaggerating the terrorist threat here. For if, as Bush often says, there are Al-Qaeda cells in this country that are suicidal, funded, hate this country and know they are being hunted, why have they not struck back at any one of a million targets since 9/11? One answer could be that they are simply not here. Out of 5,000 arrests by Attorney General John Ashcroft of suspected terrorists, he has convicted two, and these convictions were overturned by a court in Michigan. He is zero for 5,000, according to Professor David Cole of Georgetown University, author of Enemy Aliens."
We are either still at risk for some kind of catastrophic terrorist attack or we never were.
4:31:12 PM
Google It!
|
|
© Copyright 2005 The Usual Suspect.
|
|
