Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 19, 2011

The vote was 25 in favor, 12 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 13 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Hunter, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 20 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Hunter’s statement is as follows:

I rise in opposition to this bill. Study after study has proven that proper ergonomic standards will both save money and increase worker productivity. The private sector has embraced ergonomic standards, and they did so knowing that it was in their best interest.

This bill, however, is a solution in search of a problem. This bill would prevent an advisory board under MIOSHA from promulgating rules. Well, this board has not yet promulgated any rules. In fact, Governor Snyder made clear in his State of the State address that he has no interest in MIOSHA promulgating rules. Don’t you, shouldn’t we, trust what our Governor says?

I also think that there is a general fundamental misunderstanding among some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about MIOSHA. The business community does not want us to eliminate MIOSHA. We heard testimony in committee to support this yesterday. If you think this bill eliminates MIOSHA, you are wrong. NFIB testified that they have a great working relationship with MIOSHA and would much rather deal with them than deal with MIOSHA. In fact, if MIOSHA were to disappear tomorrow, then there could be examples of businesses having to go all the way to Chicago to receive training in best practices. Our small businesses have a relationship with MIOSHA workers, and they support the department.

Additionally, this bill makes an exemption for the enforcement of federal rules. Well, folks, there are no federal regulations. This bill was introduced out of fear of something that might happen. It is premature, unnecessary, and overall, I think, a bad idea. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Before I sit down, Mr. President, I would like to make one observation. You have heard in committee and even on the floor that this is a one-of-a-kind standard and rule here in Michigan. Well, what about this one-of-a-kind law that we have only in the state of Michigan that is called drug immunity? What does that do to protect our citizens? What does that do to advance good public policy in this state as an, indeed, one-of-a-kind law that only exists here? So I think that argument just doesn’t hold water.

The Republican's move ahead in their headlong charge to make labor cheap and workplaces unsafe in Michigan. Michigan's workers are gaining speed in our race to the bottom.

 There is a big difference between "making workplaces unsafe" and preventing bureaucrats from imposing rules that bind all companies, but are only appropriate for one.  this happens often.  think before speaking next time!

All workers perform their task with basically the same tool, their body. If a certain movement or action is harmful to a workers body on one job, that same movement or action can be harmful on another. Ergonomics have been studied by scientist and engineers, and they have determined what motions are most harmful, not bureacrats. Ergonomics can actually save companies money, by keeping their workers healthy and efficient.

Research, and know a little about what you comment on before speaking next time.

 I believe government is our problem and the republicans are doing their best to remove government from our lives.  Why should a company be held responsible for the stupid actions of its employees: how about GM workers caught on film during lunch break in the parking lot boozing and doping up before going back to build the cars we drive.  Maybe this bill should have been passes, but I also object to the government sticking their noses into our personal lives, but what do we do?

Yes, the republicans are doing their best to remove government from our lives. They would like to remove all worker safety programs because they cost business money, in the short term. Actually in the long term they save money, and lives. But short term profit is more important to many businesses, and to some, the life of a worker is not as important as quarterly profits. These are the people that lobby the republican party.

Ergonomics addresses repetitive motion injuries, not "stupid actions" by employees. If a job can be done without injuring a worker, don't you think it is only common sense to do it safely?

Don't know really what connection discovering some employees were breaking rules on their lunch break has to do with ergonomics, but it is unfair to judge the thousands of people GM employs by the actions of a few.

I would much prefer the government "sticking their nose" into worker safety than sticking their nose into a woman's right to make choices about what to do with her body.

Where does it end? How much intervention is required. Jobs are needed, people are ready to go, but we need to quit hobbling the business'. employment is voluntary. If the repitition is a problem, move on. Somebody would love to give it a shot. Employers don't go looking for tasks that will injure employees.

You must be joking. Ergonomic regulations haven't cost us jobs, and are not preventing businesses from hiring. What businesses need to create jobs is a demand for their product. And to spur that demand, they need to build something people will buy, at a price they can afford. Bringing our safety standards down to the level of a Chinese sweat shop is not going to build the kind of economy and society we want. Innovation, and an educated work force is the key to a better future. We need to get into the race to the top, not the bottom.

tfaber - I stand with you on this gypsy works harder at not working than working if gypsy dont like his job then move on. - RTB