Legislation watch
Most Recent Comments
1) Sen. Sanborn’s "journal statement" [by Admin003 on March 3, 2008]Senator Sanborn asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows:
High taxes, excessive regulation, contentious collective bargaining process, and many, many more things—these all make Michigan less competitive, less attractive. California passed this. Our rules would be even more egregious because with just one complaint, you could have MIOSHA in there going through making things more difficult for you. This is something being driven by the Granholm administration. Union bosses would like to see it go through. The trial attorneys would love to use this for a way to start more and more lawsuits.
I mean, safe working places are important to us all, but by following the federal standards, the federal guidelines which you could voluntarily submit to, you could address the problem within the workplace. I urge you to support the bills. You say that perhaps there is not a draft in place; they’re up to now, on the DLEG website, draft No. 15. It proves the age-old adage: If you want to see something get screwed up, let government get involved in it.
And yes, Senator Thomas, I would rather fight than switch.
Reply
Senators Thomas and Whitmer, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 843.
Senator Thomas moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Thomas’ statement, in which Senator Whitmer concurred, is as follows:
Mr. President, I agree that we must promote legislation that will bolster our state’s economy and grow business in Michigan. That’s why I rise in opposition to Senate Bill No. 843. We have heard consistently that businesses are concerned that new ergonomic standards will increase their costs, and this is a very legitimate issue for this Legislature to consider. Yet if you look at the composition of the standards commission that is considering new rules, they include representatives from the business community as well as those from organized labor, the general public, and academia. It is doubtful those in the business community will issue regulations that are ultimately harmful to the community that they serve and their own interests. Rather, it is in their best interest to encourage economics rules which will reduce injuries, increase productivity, and improve quality as a number of our major manufacturers across the state of Michigan have already done.
This legislation would put the state at odds with the federal OSHA requirements that MIOSHA standards be as effective as the federal standards and that MIOSHA promulgate rules that are substantially similar to OSHA’s within six months of a federal standards effective date. Should OSHA ultimately implement a workplace ergonomics rule in the future, this bill would prevent the state from meeting its obligations to match that new federal standard.
Quite simply, this is a bill in search of a problem. Why? Because there are no rules to completely reject at this point. There are only recommendations of a workgroup. There are no formal rules. We, in fact, have an administrative rules process in place. Members of this Legislature, the Majority Leader, and the Senator from Troy all worked on this. I served in the Administrative Rules Committee with them in 2003, where we extended the legislative opportunity to reject to any rules that were promulgated by the boards appointed by the executive branch.
So this is, in fact, an inappropriate intrusion into the administrative rules process that members of this Senate, whether they be in the House and in the Senate now, fought very vigorously to protect. I, as someone who has been a member of the Administrative Rules Committee process for a number of years, want to stand up and support that tradition that exists within the legislative body. If you, too, support that, I believe you should vote “no” as well. Again, this is a bill in search of problem and will not improve the business climate and will likely meet the same fate that it did in the last legislative session should it make it to the Governor’s desk, and that is a ready veto.
Reply
If the cost of the POSSIBILITY of injury is higher than the cost of fixing the ergonomic condition, the business will take care of it on its own. Furthermore, the worker has complete responsibilty to himself to make choices as to his safety. If conditions are unsafe he must make a choice that it is not worth it to work there.
Everytime you protect us you kill us a little bit more until life isn't worth living because we are wards of your state. Live free or die!
Reply
View Full Conversation
