This morning his I attended a press conference with Representative Barbara Lambert held at IHOP to highlight the public health risk created when food service workers lack paid sick days.
That’s me in the rear with the hat, Lindsay Farrell to the right of me, and Rep. Lambert to the left of the sign.
“No one should get fired just because they got sick,” said Representative Lambert. “But for far too many food service workers, if you get sick, the only choices are risking your job or coming to work sick and serving our food. Small employers will be exempt and only those with 50 or more employees would be required to comply with this legislation. Allowing a truly ill employee to take sick time off is the right thing to do.”
Rep. Barbara Lambert at the Rotary Lobster Bake with Genivieve Salvador and Rep. Paul Davis.
Paid sick days advocates at the press conference distributed mock-up menus with dishes like “Chicken Snot Pie” and “Grilled Sneeze and Tomato.”
“When people have to go to work sick, it shouldn’t surprise us that illness spreads,” said Lindsay Farrell, Legislative Director of Connecticut Working Families. “Almost 80% of food service workers lack paid sick days. Think about that next time you’re out to eat.”
An estimated 600,000 workers in Connecticut lack paid sick days. Some of the largest groups of workers without paid sick days include workers in food service, retail and healthcare. 78% of employees working in food service and accommodations lack paid sick days. When those workers can’t afford to miss pay and come to work sick, they risk spreading illness to their coworkers and to the general public.
According to the Center for Disease Control, there are 23 million ‘norovirus’ infections (often called ‘stomach flu’) every year in America – about half of which are attributable to ill food service workers.
The Labor Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly approved a measure to create a basic workplace standard for paid sick days. The bill (SB 63) would allow workers at business with more than 50 employees to earn paid sick time – up to 5 days per year. The bill explicitly protects flexibility for employers who already have paid leave policies. A similar bill passed in the House of Representatives last year, but wasn’t called for a vote in the Senate.
A new study published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) drew a connection between the lack of paid sick days and the spread of H1N1, the so-called “swine flu” virus. The report, “Sick at Work: Infected Employees in the Workplace During the H1N1 Pandemic” made the following findings:
• An estimated 8 million American employees came to work while infected with H1N1.
• An estimated 7 million people contracted the illness from a sick co-worker.
• Workers without paid sick days were far more likely to come to work while infected with H1N1.
In 2008, it made headlines across Connecticut when dozens of UCONN students caught a “norovirus” after a banquet at Adam’s Mill Restaurant in Manchester. A subsequent investigation by the Connecticut Department of Public Health attributed the spread to a single ill food service worker – the salad preparer. The DPH’s Connecticut Epidemiologist publication recommended, “Correct handling of cold foods, strict hand washing after using the bathroom, and paid sick leave may substantially reduce foodborne transmission of Noroviruses.“
Video of the event, courtesy of Aldon Hynes:
part 1: http://qik.com/video/5513205
part 2: http://qik.com/video/5513384
In the first Federal trial of its kind in the United States, Pfizer biotech worker Becky McClain will get her day in court to challenge the dangerous and unhealthy conditions which she alleged that Pfizer Inc. subjected her to while working at the Pfizer Groton Connecticut facility as a molecular biologist. McClain is suing for free speech and retaliation by Pfizer. Her case is being heard in Hartford CT Federal Courthouse today with US Federal Judge Vanessa Bryant.
McClain was the health and safety officer at the Groton, Connecticut Pfizer plant. She raised serious public health and safety concerns over her working conditions while working on stem cells at the facility. Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world with revenue of $48 billion a year allegedly refused to address her safety concerns despite repeated requests from McClain.
McClain alleged she was exposed to infectious genetically engineered viruses making her sick while the company ignored her safety complaints and refused to provide her with a safe work environment. McClain went to the workers comp system and was told that the Connecticut workers compensation system did not have jurisdiction to order Pfizer to release the records that were involved in her exposure on the job. These records provided identification in her exposure in her case making it impossible for her to show the causes of her injuries on the job. McClain was lucky enough to know that she had an exposure but other workers may not have similar opportunities to know where and when they were exposed. Workers in the industry are not provided information about where and when they may have received their exposures in the industry.
This case also shows a major flaw for workers in the biotech industry who have to prove where they got injured in order to receive workers compensation. The ability to prove where you have been injured when working in biotechnology industry due to the lack of standards, labor of regulation by OSHA and other government agencies and secrecy and confidentiality agreements required of all employees has been severely impacted. Workers high tech industries such as biotech and nanotech are unable to prove where they got injured and as a result, they are not eligible for workers compensation and end up going to SSI and other Local, Federal and State agencies for their medical care and compensation. The means a whole category of workers in these new technology industries are unable to get medical coverage and compensation under the present workers compensation structure. This cost shifting and limiting of the liability of Pfizer and other companies has resulted in government agencies having to take care of the corporation and insurance companies liabilities. This is a important and growing issue for the American people as well as the public health care questions.
The company also allegedly retaliated against McClain for making complaints to OSHA about these serious public and worker health hazards and eventually fired her.
Background Information On The Becky McClain Case
Becky McClain, former Pfizer molecular biologist
Dangers in Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Lack of Safety Oversight and Lack of Worker Rights
Voters in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional district are concerned about special interest influence on members of Congress and expect Congress to fix our broken political system, according to polling released today by Connecticut Common Cause.
The poll, which was conducted by SurveyUSA for Common Cause, MoveOn.org Political Action, and Public Campaign Action Fund, found that voters believe that Democrats and Republicans have done too little to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington, DC, and that they want Representative Himes to work to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform.
“Voters want Congress to act quickly to fix our broken political system,” said Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director of Common Cause in Connecticut. “Representative Himes must be commended for his co-sponsorship of this legislation, and should know that taking bold steps to reform the way Washington works is good politics.”
The survey also found that 80 percent of voters in the 4th District believe that members of Congress are overly influenced by campaign contributors, and 63 percent are opposed to the recent Supreme Court decision lifting certain restrictions on corporate and union spending to support or defeat candidates.
The Fair Elections Now Act would allow candidates to run competitive campaigns for office on a blend of limited Fair Elections funding and donations of $100 or less. Sponsored by Representative John Larson (D-Conn.), the Fair Elections Now Act has the broad bipartisan support of 140 House members.
The poll of 523 likely voters in the 4th Congressional District of Connecticut was conducted by SurveyUSA from March 10-March 14, 2010. The full memo can be found at www.fairelectionsnow.org/2010march-polling.
Twelve renowned economists, academics and leading thinkers — including John Bogle, and Nobel Laureates George Akerlof and Daniel Kahneman — today called for the fiduciary standard, as established under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and affirmed by the Supreme Court, to be included in financial reform legislation, and apply to all who provide investment or financial advice.
Senators Tim Johnson and Christopher Dodd are expected to drop the fiduciary standard in legislation scheduled to be introduced today and, instead, add a study. A study could delay implementation of the fiduciary standard indefinitely.
The fiduciary standard requires advisors to put the interests of their clients first.
John C. Bogle, the Founder of the Vanguard Group and a signatory of the Fiduciary Statement, noted, “Restoring the faith of investors must begin with a demand that investment and financial advisors stand up for the rights of their clients.” Bogle concluded that congressional action was needed to affirm the basic principle that when rendering investment advice, “No man can serve two masters.”
Statement from the President on Financial Reform
It has now been well over a year since the near collapse of the financial sector, and yet today the same failed system that brought on this crisis remains in place. The financial crisis has resulted in more than 8 million American workers losing their jobs, trillions in household wealth being wiped out and hundreds of thousands of small businesses without the credit they need to grow. We cannot wait any longer for real financial reform that brings accountability to the financial system and makes sure that the American taxpayer is never again asked to bail out the irresponsibility of our largest banks and financial institutions.
This proposal provides a strong foundation to build a safer financial system. It creates a new consumer financial protection agency to set and enforce clear rules of the road and establishes stronger supervision for the largest financial firms under the Federal Reserve. It brings transparency and oversight to derivatives and other financial markets that were central to the crisis and separates banking from proprietary trading and hedge funds. The proposal will also provide the government with essential tools to respond in a financial crisis, so that we can wind down and liquidate a large, interconnected failing financial firm. It allows us to protect the economy and taxpayers so that we can end the belief that any firm is “Too Big to Fail”.
As the bill moves forward, I will take every opportunity to work with Chairman Dodd and his colleagues to strengthen the bill and will fight against efforts to weaken it.
American families deserve a strong, independent consumer financial protection agency that is accountable for setting and enforcing clear rules across the financial marketplace. And I will not accept attempts to undermine the independence of the consumer protection agency, or to exclude from its purview banks, credit card companies or nonbank firms such as debt collectors, credit bureaus, payday lenders or auto dealers.
I will oppose any loopholes that could harm consumers or investors, or that allow institutions to avoid oversight that is important to financial stability.
We need to ensure the ultimate bill provides strong, clear authority for setting and enforcing rules, limiting excessive risk taking in the financial system, and winding down the largest financial firms when necessary in a way that does not cause a financial panic. All derivatives must be regulated and shareholders should have a say not just on pay but also other compensation that rewards risk taking. We will stand firm against any attempt by the financial sector to avoid their responsibilities: in any future crisis the big financial companies must pay, not taxpayers.
How about NOBEL-PRIZE WINNNING Economist Paul Krugman?
“For a real piece of passable legislation … it looks very good. … Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.
This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”
“Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant. But, despite what the critics charge, this is not a government takeover. And the program is not only fully paid for, it should actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades. …
It would also require insurance companies to accept all applicants, even those with a pre-existing condition. And it would make a start at reforming the medical care system to improve quality and lower costs.”
“The federal budget is [currently, pre-reform] on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care and the aging of the U.S. population.”
“CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010–2019 period.”
WASHINGTON – A group representing Catholic hospitals Saturday rallied behind President Barack Obama’s health care bill ahead of a House vote in which anti-abortion lawmakers could play a decisive role.
The chief executive of the Catholic Health Association, Carol Keehan, wrote on the group’s Web site that although the legislation isn’t perfect, it represents a “major first step” toward covering all Americans and would make “great improvements” for millions of people.”
Or the folks who opposed Medicare in the first place, brought you the Iraq War, unregulated Financial Markets leading to the ‘07-Now Recession and ‘08-Now Fiscal Crisis, and doubling of the Federal Deficit?
Rep. Staples received a B.A. from Wesleyan University in 1980, where he was awarded the Frank Ryder Scholarship for Public Service. In 1984, he earned a Masters in Government Administration from the University of Pennsylvania, and was named a Samuel A. Fels Scholar. Cam earned a J.D. from The University of Connecticut School of Law in 1989. He practiced civil litigation with the law firm of Updike, Kelly & Spellacy from 1989 to 1993. Mr. Staples served as General Counsel to the CT State Medical Society from 1993 to 2004, when he became a partner in the New Haven law firm of Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
Mr. Staples continues to represent the Connecticut State Medical Society, regarding physician practice management issues within the context of organized medicine and regarding class action litigation by medical societies against managed care companies. He is also a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, a member on the New England Association of Schools and Colleges Committee on American and International Schools abroad, and is a member of the National Conference of State Legislature’s budget and revenue committee, where he analyzes budgetary policy at a national level.
Prior to his tenure in the legislature, Rep. Staples served three terms representing the 9th ward on the New Haven Board of Aldermen and served as Majority Leader from 1991-1992.
Representative Cameron Staples was elected to the House of Representatives for the 96th Assembly District of Hamden and New Haven in 1993. He is House Chair of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, and also serves on the General Law and Judiciary Committees. At the conclusion of his freshman term, Rep. Staples was selected by his colleagues as the member of the legislature with the “Best Future Promise.” From 1995 to 2002, Rep. Staples served as co-chair of the Education Committee.
In my conversation with Cam Staples it became clear that he is:
A. A deeply committed progressive with a stellar voting record on progressive issues.
B. Particularly interested in improving education in Connecticut.
C. Also committed to making our state tax structure more progressive.
As such, it would be a shame to lose his very influential voice in the Legislature.
But he is also deeply involved in protecting consumers, particularly in the health field, in his private practice, and believes he can do even more to help as Attorney General. While George Jepsen remains my first choice for the post, I was impressed with Cam Staples and can only hope that he returns to the legislature if he does not secure the nomination at the convention.
I do hope that someone who has clearly disqualified herself for this office does not choose to primary simply because she thinks she can win on name recognition alone.
The events or calendar listing on a candidate’s website is indicative of one of two things, or possibly both – how active the candidate is, and how active his web team is.
For the Democrats, reported on here, the clear winner is Dan Malloy, although Ned Lamont has a very respectable showing. The Republican showing is truly pitiful, other than for Peter Schiff.
Governor
Tom Foley’s calendar lists two events. Michael Fedele’s calendar lists two events, both last February.
It gets worse. Dodd is also likely to refuse to include language the White House wants limiting trading activity of big bans. Politico has the story:
The Merkley-Levin legislation also embraces President Barack Obama’s call for curbing the size of the nation’s financial behemoths, requiring large, interconnected nonbank financial firms to keep more capital on hand and place a firm ceiling on the amount of proprietary trading they can do…
Joining Merkley and Levin in supporting the Obama administration’s push for these rules are Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), another member of the banking committee; Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
The Obama administration proposal is widely expected to be left out of the bill Dodd hopes to unveil in the coming days.
Merkley and Brown were among those Democrats who expressed strong concerns about another concession Dodd is making to Republicans: housing a new consumer watchdog in the Federal Reserve, which has been widely criticized for failing to use its existing consumer protection powers to curb predatory lending practices — especially out-of-control subprime mortgage lending — in the lead up to the financial crisis.
