Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 27, 2009

The vote was 20 in favor, 16 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 3 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 Senator Thomas’ statement is as follows:

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senate Bill No. 93. While I agree that we must promote legislation that will boaster our state’s economy and grow business in Michigan, I must rise in opposition of this bill, just as I did in previous sessions of this Legislature. We have heard consistently that businesses are concerned that new ergonomic standards will increase their costs. This is a legitimate issue for the Legislature to consider. However, if you look at the composition of the commission that will be considering these new rules, these proposed rules, they include representatives from the business community as well as organized labor, academia, and the general public. It is doubtful that those in the business community will issue significant regulations that will harm their own business as they move forward. Rather, it is in their best interest to encourage ergonomic rules that will reduce injury, increase productivity, and improve quality as a number of our state’s major manufacturers have already voluntarily done.

Frankly, this bill is a bill in search of a problem. There are no rules specifically to object to. We are still in the administrative rules process. There are only recommendations pending before a workgroup of the commission. I worked with some of my colleagues here in 2003 on the Administrative Rule Committee, chaired by two members of this chamber, Senators Pappageorge and Bishop, where we provide the Legislature with the opportunity to object to any rules promulgated by boards appointed by the executive branch. So the Legislature does have oversight.

This legislation is an inappropriate intrusion into the administrative rules process, as one who supports the tradition that has existed in this Legislature of that process. I would hope that my colleagues would join me in rejecting this legislation and letting the administrative rules process continue and the commission appointed to review and implement new standards complete their work free from legislative interruption.

 Senator Jacobs’ statement, in which Senator Whitmer concurred, is as follows:

Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to this Senate bill. I think we have to look at the history of what has been going on in order to have a measured conservative approach to protecting workers. Now, it is important to note that the General Industry Safety Standards Commission and the Occupational Health Standards Commission conducted a joint meeting just a few weeks ago to address this proposed standard that this workgroup has been working on. Almost 80 people showed up for this meeting. There was a public comment period, and there was only one person who stood up in opposition to this standard. There were people who came from all different businesses as well as businesses being represented on both of these commissions. So businesses had tremendous input in this very conservative approach to protecting workers. I think we are going down the wrong road to try to circumvent the rules process by passing this bill.

So I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on Senate Bill No. 93.

 

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

I rise today in opposition to this legislation. Since the day I arrives down here in Lansing over six years ago, we have had a pretty vigorous debate on reducing the health care cost of our corporations. We have a tremendous disadvantage to domestic corporations compared to foreign lands because they undertake health care obligations for their workers. If we are going to deny workers the opportunity to work under a safe environment, it seems that common sense would dictate that we are going to elevate the costs of our corporations to take care of their workers—an obligation that many of us have stood steadily forward. I would only cite a recent example that occurred in Flint, Michigan.

We had a worker working on a project that the state of Michigan actually helped fund to the tune of about $6 million. There was a worker who was hurt on that because he violated the corporation violated—because he was under the obligation to do what his employer said or lose his job. He fell several stories from the old historic Durant Hotel. For centuries here in America, workers who were trying to provide for their families were dictated to and literally held hostage in regards to their workplace employment by employers who didn’t have the employers best interest at heart. But the bottom line I think it would be very easy to find instances where workers had to decide whether they were going to work in a safe environment or do what the bosses or the corporation workers had indicated.

I haven’t seen in my six years down here a need or a request or an outcry for changing the ergonomics requirements in this state. So I think we ought to do the right thing and stand up for the workers who have a more difficult time today than ever. In this environment when we see corporation cuts, layoffs across this country, and recently determined yesterday and announced yesterday, 600,000 more Americans joining unemployment rolls—that we would compromise Michigan workers by saying you have to decide whether you are willing to work in an unsafe environment to keep your job. I think all of us understand that this has happened in the past and that this could offer future opportunities ready to compromise the safety of Michigan workers.

So I think this is counterproductive to all the recent years’ work in reducing the health care costs of manufactures and companies in this state. So I think we ought to do the common-sense thing and say today that we do not support reducing the health care and safety obligations of our employers across this state.

 Senator Basham’s statement is as follows:

Probably everything has been said on this issue, but not by everybody. We are currently on the ergonomic standard advisory committee draft No. 17. It was going forward with folks from labor, management, the general public, technical folks, liaison folks, and staff from MIOSHA. This is a process that works. I don’t understand why the Legislature wants to circumvent a process that works when we should be about collaboration. We should be about protecting the interest of folks from getting carpal tunnel syndrome and other issues related to competitive movement at the worksite.

For example, if you redesign a tool that might cost you a couple hundred dollars, you could save thousands, maybe tens of thousands of dollars from having to have surgery, physical therapy, and loss time from work. There are numerous reasons that some management folks and most labor folks support ergonomic rules.

There is no reason to vote for this bill which would be voting against management and labor moving forward with a set of ergonomic rules. I’ll be voting against this piece of legislation. I would encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to vote against this bill.

 Senator Anderson’s statement is as follows:

I would urge members to stop just a moment and take a deep breath. What we are trying to do now is taking a preemptive measure to prevent a rule that hasn’t even been promulgated yet. We also need to stop and take a minute to think about the fact that millions of dollars are currently being lost by employers in this state due to on-the-job injuries, medical bills, and surgery for their employees, and lost productivity. Protecting workers and helping employers shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. We just need to stop and think about the effects of what we are doing today.

I would like to share with members the fact that I may be the only member sitting here who has had carpal tunnel surgery on both hands. I know the employer I worked for took action to try to protect their employees by changing the job to fit the employee. I think that there are many things that employers can do to do that don’t cost anything. It won’t break the bank.

I think we need to stop and realize what we are doing here.We are taking action for a problem that doesn’t even exist yet. I think it’s a little disingenuous of folks to get up and say how much we are going to save employers, when we are disregarding the cost to human lives and to those employers for lost productivity. I would urge members to vote “no.”

Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows:

I want to clear up some confusion here. Senate Bill No. 93 does not suggest reduction in workplace safety. I just want to make sure that we do not further burden Michigan’s already-crippled economy.

Again, I reiterate to you this will be a cost to Michigan businesses and job providers of at least $500 million. The good Senator from the 4th District said there is not even really a rule in places when, in fact—he heard testimony in committee to say that if you look at the DELEG website, you can see after six years and 17 drafts as to the model. It is wrong-minded and naive to consider that this administration will not implement. The notion that this administration will not implement one of the 17 drafts is naive and, I suggest, even disingenuous. Check the DELEG website as I had indicated.

Now, two states have already put into implementation these burdensome ergonomic rules. One state, Washington, found the results so disastrous the people of the state of Washington went back and repealed these disastrous ergonomics rules.

Michigan rules would be even more burdensome than that liberal state of California, which takes two complaints to begin a MIOSHA investigation. Michigan, you would be able to do this after only one complaint. Michigan has already reduced workplace injuries 40 percent over the past six years, a time that the administration’s DELEG was crafting up all these burdensome rules. So we have shown that voluntary implementation of the rules is most effective at working at reducing workplace injuries.

We don’t need to further burden Michigan’s already-crippled economy making Michigan less competitive with surrounding states to attract new businesses here. We don’t need more rules. We don’t need higher taxes. We don’t need more burdensome regulation when Michigan has shown voluntary implementation will suffice.

 Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

As chair of the Senate Finance Committee, I just want to make a few comments. My good colleagues on the other side of the aisle are urging us to wait, just hold on, and don’t act. We also feel very strongly that the need is now to send a positive message to Michigan’s businesses home team, if you will, the long-serving, tax-paying, civic-minded businesses in our state that have been trying to hold on.

Believe me, these onerous ergonomic rules will be viewed and perceived as a tax increase should they go through; In the worst time ever in the last 50 years, to scare more Michigan businesses, job providers, out of our state. That is why we are saying we can’t afford to wait, to relax, and just see what happens. Let us act now. Let us pass Senate Bill No. 93, and I want to say to all my colleagues this is really, really urgent.

 it is amazing to me how loudly the dems will yell when forced to NOT pass new rules and taxes.

 a group of people who know nothing about ergonomics has worked in committee with themselves for years to pass a law that will cost billions to implement under the PROMISE that it will save money.

if ergonomics is so wonderful, the business community will pick it up VOLUNTARILY, not under government  coersion, and implement it.

that's allowing the FREE MARKET to rule, not the government.

 

 Having practiced ergonomics for over 20+ years in industry for both office and industrial work, I have documented yearly follow-ups whereby symptoms reported at time of request for ergonomic services have been successfully dissipated and attributed to ergonomic intervention. Also being proactive is difficult to measure but many of these individuals do not develop symptoms that are repetitive and place them at high potential for symptoms that can increase if not checked early. This always impacts medical costs within our company. Also having practiced in the workers compensation field I am well acquainted with the costs of injuries and all the related monetary areas it affects a company. Those who are ignorant to what the field does should get a little more educated before "shooting their mouth off" on a subject they are swayed by others with a different agenda. Little snippets of news and propaganda teach little but it is funny how so many people "parrot" what they hear without knowing what is being said. George Las Vegas