Kavanaugh confirmed as 114th justice

Amy Howe

10/06/2018

The Supreme Court announced that Kavanaugh will be sworn in today by Chief Justice John Roberts and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom Kavanaugh clerked. The ceremony will take place at the court and will allow Kavanaugh to “begin to participate in the work of the Court immediately,” a press release stated. A formal investiture ceremony is expected to follow later.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed this afternoon as the 114th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh replaces Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in late July after 30 years on the court, spending many of those years as a pivotal vote on hot-button issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and affirmative action. Kavanaugh’s ascension means that the Supreme Court is likely to shift to the right, perhaps significantly, for years if not decades to come.

Kavanaugh had long been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court pick, and when President Donald Trump nominated him on July 9 to succeed Kennedy, his path to the court looked like it would be a smooth one, with support not only from conservative lawyers and legal scholars, but also from Washington insiders of all ideological stripes. In early September, Kavanaugh sailed through four days of confirmation hearings relatively unscathed: Although Democratic senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed skepticism about Kavanaugh’s views on issues ranging from abortion to presidential power and gun rights, it appeared that he would have near-unanimous support from Senate Republicans and could pick up a few votes from red-state Democrats, particularly those facing tough reelection battles.

But Kavanaugh’s journey to the Supreme Court became a much rockier one in mid-September, when a California psychologist named Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in the early 1980s, when Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh were students at private schools in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Blasey Ford contended that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, pushed her into an upstairs bedroom at a party; Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford alleged, then jumped on top of her and, she believed, was attempting to rape her.

After Blasey Ford’s story became public, other accusations against Kavanaugh followed, including a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale College, that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a party in a dorm room there.

Kavanaugh denied the accusations against him, but the Senate Judiciary Committee held a new hearing on September 27. A nervous but composed Blasey Ford testified first, telling senators that she was “absolutely” certain that it was Kavanaugh who had attacked her in the 1980s. Kavanaugh followed her with testimony that was often emotional or angry, as he forcefully declared his innocence and assailed the accusations against him as the product of an orchestrated effort by the left to torpedo his nomination. Republican senators echoed that idea, while Democratic senators repeatedly called for an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

On September 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee met to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Several Democrats on the committee, including Senators Corey Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California, walked out of the meeting to protest the failure to conduct a new FBI investigation. Later in the day, there was even more drama, as Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona who is not running for reelection, announced that he would vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the floor – but on the condition that the FBI would open a one-week investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Trump ordered the investigation that night, calling for “a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file” that would be “limited in scope and completed in less than one week.” Democrats were sharply critical of the investigation and the report that it produced, noting that the FBI had not interviewed either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. But Senate Republicans were satisfied with the investigation, and on Friday morning senators voted on cloture – that is, whether to limit debate on the nomination and require a final vote within 30 hours.

The cloture vote went down to the wire, with Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, voting against Kavanaugh. But two other key senators, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted for cloture, with Collins indicating that she would announce her final decision on how to vote by 3 pm on Friday. In a speech on the Senate floor that lasted almost 45 minutes, Collins defended Kavanaugh and his record and declared that she would support him. Manchin announced a short while later that he would also vote for Kavanaugh, essentially guaranteeing that Kavanaugh would be confirmed.

But even if there was little suspense at Saturday’s final vote, there was still plenty of theater, both inside and outside the Capitol. Protesters mobbed the east steps of the Capitol before police could clear them, and dozens of demonstrators were arrested. Other protesters gathered across the street from the Capitol, at the Supreme Court. Inside, on the floor of the Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding, senators sat down at their ceremonial desks for a formal vote, which began at approximately 3:45 pm.

Before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, urged Americans who were dissatisfied with the confirmation to go to the polls in November and “vote.” He was followed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who described a vote on a Supreme Court nomination as “one of the most consequential decisions a senator will ever make.” McConnell extolled Kavanaugh as a “superstar, a serious scholar” who is “legendary for his preparation and possesses the qualifications, the temperament and judicial philosophy” to be a brilliant justice. Indeed, McConnell argued, Kavanaugh is “among the best the country has to offer” and “unquestionably deserves confirmation, and the country deserves such a Supreme Court justice.” “A vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh,” McConnell continued, is a vote about the Senate itself, where “the facts matter” and the “politics of personal destruction do not win the day.”

As Pence attempted to begin the vote, the proceedings were periodically interrupted by protesters in the gallery, who often shouted loudly before they were removed from the room. The names of the senators were called one by one, with each senator standing to cast his or her vote. The final vote was 50 to 48: Although Murkowski had already expressed her opposition to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, she withdrew her “no” vote and was recorded as simply being “present” as a courtesy to Senator Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana, who was out of town to attend his daughter’s wedding. (Even with Murkowski’s “no” vote, Daines’ absence would not have changed the outcome of the vote, but her switch to “present” meant that Kavanaugh was confirmed with the same margin as if Daines had been able to vote “yes,” as he intended.)

Kavanaugh is likely to be sworn in as the court’s newest associate justice soon, and he could be on the bench as soon as Tuesday, when the justices return to hear oral arguments again. Right now the court’s docket is packed with cases that present interesting legal issues but are not the kind of high-profile disputes that we have seen in recent years. That could change quickly, however: During the next few months, the justices could decide whether to take up appeals involving hot-button issues like crosses on public land, partisan gerrymandering, and discrimination against LGBTQ employees. And even if they don’t take up issues like abortion, affirmative action, same-sex marriage and the death penalty – in which Kennedy played a key role – this term, such cases are looming on the horizon and could demonstrate whether, as many expect and Republicans hope, Kavanaugh will to move the court to the right.

Magazine of Jesuits urges withdrawal of Kavanaugh nomination

By NICOLE WINFIELD

Associated Press

Friday, September 28, 2018

ROME –  The magazine of the Jesuit religious order in the United States has publicly withdrawn its endorsement of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court justice following testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Jesuit-educated Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her decades ago.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it has no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interest of the country and "should be withdrawn."

"If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault," the editors wrote. "Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country."

The reversal is significant given Kavanaugh has repeatedly cited his Catholic faith and Jesuit education in defending himself against Ford's accusations. In his opening statement Thursday, Kavanaugh twice referenced his days as a student at the Jesuit-run Georgeown Prep high school in Washington, when Ford said the alleged assault occurred.

America in July had endorsed Kavanaugh on the grounds that he might have provided the Supreme Court with the vote needed to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide. The Catholic Church firmly opposes abortion.

"Anyone who recognizes the humanity of the unborn should support the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh," the editors entitled their July 9 editorial, before Ford's accusation was made public.

In their new editorial, America's editors said they were still committed to finding a justice with Kavanaugh's textualist approach to jurisprudence that is suspicious of the kind of judicial innovation that led to the Roe decision. But they said Kavanaugh was not the only candidate available.

"For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson," the editors wrote.

========================================

Kim Jung Un and other dictators would love Kavanaugh to be a supreme court justice - so they could say to us, you installed a drunk (who loves beer), who does not know the legal age to drink.

Kavanaugh wrongly claims he could drink legally in Md.

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

Associated Press

Friday, September 28, 2018

BOSTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly said that he was legally allowed to consume beer as a prep school senior in Maryland. In fact, he was never legal in high school because the state’s drinking age increased to 21 at the end of his junior year, while he was still 17.

Kavanaugh’s drinking has come under intense scrutiny after California professor Christine Blasey Ford alleged that a heavily intoxicated Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were both teenagers at a Maryland house party during the summer of 1982.

The legal age in that state was raised to 21 on July 1, 1982; Kavanaugh did not turn 18 until Feb. 12, 1983.

In a Fox News interview on Monday, Kavanaugh said, “Yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18. And yes, the seniors were legal.”

In testimony Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said all of his comments during the Fox interview were accurate and could be made part of the record.

Pressed at the hearing about his drinking habits in high school, he again claimed he had not broken the law.

“Yes we drank beer, my friends and I, boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. I still like beer,” he said. “The drinking age as I noted was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink.”

At another point, Kavanaugh, who has denied all of Ford’s accusations, stated correctly that the drinking age had been 18 in Maryland for “most” of his time in high school, but the age limit had been at 21 for more than seven months before his 18th birthday.

While he admitted in his congressional testimony that there were probably occasions during his time at Georgetown Prep in Maryland that he had consumed “too many beers,” a combative Kavanaugh denied he had ever gotten out of control or acted inappropriately toward women.

“I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone,” Kavanaugh said.

There was a grandfather clause in the Maryland law, but only for those who were 18, 19 or 20 on the day the increase went into effect, thereby not including Kavanaugh.

Alcoholic consumption by Kavanaugh also would have been illegal during notorious Beach Week, an annual trip to the Eastern Shore that involved heavy drinking, according to numerous eyewitness accounts.

Kavanaugh could legally drink in nearby Washington D.C., for the final five months of high school. The drinking age there did not increase to 21 from 18 until 1986.

=======================================

Wrong, he does not know the legal age to drink, he is a federal judge - who likes to talk over women senators and interrupt them hmmmm..........

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Millions of Americans still trapped in debt-logged homes ten years after crisis

Michelle Conlin, Robin Respaut

September 14, 2018

EAST STROUDSBURG, Pa., 2018 (Reuters) - School bus driver Michael Payne was renting an apartment on the 30th floor of a New York City high-rise, where the landlord’s idea of fixing broken windows was to cover them with boards.

So when Payne and his wife Gail saw ads in the tabloids for brand-new houses in the Pennsylvania mountains for under $200,000, they saw an escape. The middle-aged couple took out a mortgage on a $168,000, four-bedroom home in a gated community with swimming pools, tennis courts and a clubhouse. 

“It was going for the American Dream,” Payne, now 61, said recently as he sat in his living room. “We felt rich.”

Today the powder-blue split-level is worth less than half of what they paid for it 12 years ago at the peak of the nation’s housing bubble.

Located about 80 miles northwest of New York City in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, their home resides in one of the sickest real estate markets in the United States, according to a Reuters analysis of data provided by a leading realty tracking firm. More than one-quarter of homeowners in Monroe County are deeply “underwater,” meaning they still owe more to their lenders than their houses are worth.

The world has moved on from the global financial crisis. Hard-hit areas such as Las Vegas and the Rust Belt cities of Pittsburgh and Cleveland have seen their fortunes improve.

But the Paynes and about 5.1 million other U.S. homeowners are still living with the fallout from the real estate bust that triggered the epic downturn.

As of June 30, nearly one in 10 American homes with mortgages were “seriously” underwater, according to Irvine, California-based ATTOM Data Solutions, meaning that their market values were at least 25 percent lower than the balance remaining on their mortgages.

It is an improvement from 2012, when average prices hit bottom and properties with severe negative equity topped out at 29 percent, or 12.8 million homes. Still, it is double the rate considered healthy by real estate analysts.

“These are the housing markets that the recovery forgot,” said Daren Blomquist, a senior vice president at ATTOM.

Lingering pain from the crash is deep. But it has fallen disproportionately on commuter towns and distant exurbs in the eastern half of the United States, a Reuters analysis of county real estate data shows. Among the hardest hit are bedroom communities in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions, where income and job growth have been weaker than the national norm.

Developments in outlying communities typically suffer in downturns. But a comeback has been harder this time around, analysts say, because the home-price run-ups were so extreme, and the economies of many of these Midwestern and Eastern metro areas have lagged those of more vibrant areas of the country.

“The markets that came roaring back are the coastal markets,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. He said land restrictions and sales to international buyers have helped buoy demand in those areas. “In the middle of the country, you have more flat-lined economies. There’s no supply constraints. All of these things have weighed on prices.”

In addition to exurbs, military communities showed high concentrations of underwater homes, the Reuters analysis showed. Five of the Top 10 underwater counties are near military bases and boast large populations of active-duty soldiers and veterans.

Many of these families obtained financing through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA makes it easy for service members to qualify for mortgages, but goes to great lengths to prevent defaults. It is a big reason many military borrowers have held on to their negative-equity homes even as millions of civilians walked away.

A poor credit history can threaten a soldier’s security clearance. And those who default risk never getting another VA loan, said Jackie Haliburton, a Veterans Service Officer in Hoke County, North Carolina, home to part of the giant Fort Bragg military installation and one of the most underwater counties in the country.

“You will keep paying, no matter what, because you want to make sure you can hang on to that benefit,” Haliburton said.

These and other casualties of the real estate meltdown are easy to overlook as homes in much of the country are again fetching record prices.

But in Underwater America, homeowners face painful choices. To sell at current prices would mean accepting huge losses and laying out cash to pay off mortgage debt. Leasing these properties often won’t cover the owners’ monthly costs. Those who default will trash their credit scores for years to come.

DREAMS DEFERRED

Special education teacher Gail Payne noses her Toyota Rav 4 out of the driveway most workdays by 5 a.m. for the two-hour ride to her job in New York City’s Bronx borough.

“I hate the commute, I really, really do,” Payne said. “I’m tired.”

Now 66, she and husband Michael were counting on equity from the sale of their house to fund their retirement in Florida. For now, that remains a dream.

The Paynes’ gated community of Penn Estates, in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, is among scores that sprang up in Monroe County during the housing boom.

Prices looked appealing to city dwellers suffering from urban sticker shock. But newcomers didn’t grasp how irrational things had become: At the peak, prices on some homes ballooned by more than 25 percent within months.

Today, homes that once fetched north of $300,000 now sell for as little as $72,000. But even at those prices, empty houses languish on the market. When the easy credit vanished, so did a huge pool of potential buyers.

Eight hundred miles to the west, in an unincorporated area of Boone County, Illinois, the Candlewick Lake Homeowners Association begins its monthly board meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.

Nearly 40 percent of the 9,800 homes with mortgages in this county about 80 miles northwest of Chicago are underwater, according to the ATTOM data. Some houses that went for $225,000 during the boom are now worth about $85,000, property records show.

By early 2010, unemployment topped 18 percent after a local auto assembly plant laid off hundreds Hof workers. At Candlewick Lake, so many people walked away from their homes that as many as a third of its houses were vacant, said Karl Johnson, chairman of the Boone County board of supervisors.

“It just got ugly, real ugly, and we are still battling to come back from it,” Johnson said.

While the local job market has recovered, signs of financial strain are still evident at Candlewick Lake. 

The community’s roads are beat up. The entryway, meeting center and fence could all use a facelift, residents say. The lake has become a weed-choked “mess,” “a cesspool,” according to residents who spoke out at an association meeting earlier this year. Association manager Theresa Balk says a recent chemical treatment is helping.

Annual homeowner’s dues of $1,136 are being stretched to pay for all the upkeep. But those fees may be a big deterrent for many would-be buyers at Candlewick Lake, said association board member Randy Bureau.

“A gated community like this, with our rules and fees, it may be just less attractive now to the general public,” he said.

Dozens Arrested in Marriott Worker Protests in San Francisco

By Anoushah Rasta

Sep 3, 2018 

Hundreds of union members took to the streets of San Francisco for a Labor Day protest Monday that resulted in dozens of arrests.

An estimated 500 Marriott employees walked out to demand better pay from the hotel giant. The group marched to the Marriott hotel in Union Square, where an estimated 75 protesters were arrested for blocking traffic on Powell Street.

The protesters waved signs that read "One job is not enough," arguing Marriott employees aren’t making enough money to keep up with the rising cost of living in San Francisco. Among the workers protesting were hotel room cleaners, dishwashers and bellmen.

"One job would be enough if these greedy corporations would share some of the wealth," one protester said, adding that many of the workers need a second job to keep up.

The workers announced they’ll be holding a strike vote soon, saying their contracts expired weeks ago and claiming Marriott is making negotiation nearly impossible.

"It took them four negotiations before they gave us a counter proposal, and then on the fifth negotiation, they gave us a proposal that is actually worse than what the union won five years ago," protester Nix Guirre said.

A Marriott spokesperson released the following statement Monday afternoon:

"Marriott International’s strength is rooted in our core value of putting people first. We celebrate and thank our associates for their contribution on this Labor Day. We also respect our associates’ right to voice their opinions. Marriott International has longstanding and productive relationships with Unite Here and is negotiating in good faith and in a timely fashion to obtain the best outcomes for our associates and guests."

Trump rolls back worker safety rules

By IAN KULLGREN

09/03/2018

'We want to protect our workers,' Trump said in 2017. But his administration has weakened measures designed to keep them safe.

When President Donald Trump came into office pledging to cut regulations “massively,” he made a point of exempting regulations that protected workers’ health.

But almost two years in, the Trump administration has done the opposite, rolling back worker safety protections affecting underground mine safety inspections, offshore oil rigs and line speeds in meat processing plants, among others.

Trump's deregulatory moves on worker safety are at odds with his public stance as a champion of working class Americans, but consistent with his naming two management-side attorneys bent on rolling back economic protections for workers to the National Labor Relations Board, which regulates labor unions, and with his nominations of two reliably pro-management jurists to a now-Republican-majority Supreme Court that recently dealt a heavy financial blow to public-employee unions.

One of those Supreme Court nominees, Brett Kavanaugh, will on Tuesday begin Senate confirmation hearings, where Judiciary Committee Democrats will almost certainly quiz him about dissenting opinions in which he denied undocumented workers had the right to bargain collectively and that San Diego's Sea World bore responsibility for a deadly attack on one of its employees by a killer whale.

“When you look at core worker protections and union rights, the administration and the president have been totally anti-worker,” said Peg Seminario, director of occupational safety and health for the AFL-CIO.

To Trump, rules that protect workers — even rules that protect worker safety — are often a hindrance to boosting employment, especially in traditional industries like manufacturing and coal mining.

Deputy White House press secretary Lindsay Walters said in a written statement that the administration “is committed to protecting health and safety on the job while respecting the right of Americans to make their own decisions. Too often in the past, agencies issued regulations that constricted the freedom of American workers and small business owners to work in the best way.”

At an August campaign rally in Charleston, W.Va., the president said, “We are back. The coal industry is back.” Whether coal mining jobs are on the rebound is a matter of some dispute. But there’s no question that the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back mining safety regulations.

Trump’s mine safety chief, David Zatezalo, is a former coal executive who as recently as 2011 was cited by the agency he now leads for a pattern of safety violations. When Zatezalo was president and CEO at Rhino Resources, a West Virginia miner was killed when a portion of a rock wall collapsed. The accident occurred after Rhino already had been cited for one worker safety violation, and before it received a second.

Zatezalo, at his confirmation hearing, told senators that “the management of that particular group and that particular site was not doing what they should have been doing.”

Under the Obama administration, inspections had to occur before workers began their shifts — to scale away, for instance, loose pieces of rock that might fall on them. But in April, the Zatezalo-led Mine Safety and Health Administration said it would allow inspections to begin while miners were already at work. The change was first proposed two months before Zatezalo was confirmed.

“These additional amendments provide mine operators additional flexibility in managing their safety and health programs and reduces regulatory burdens without reducing the protections afforded miners,” MSHA wrote in the final rule.

In a written statement, a DOL spokeswoman said miners still will be notified of hazards that aren’t corrected promptly (a protection that was in the Obama rule). "MSHA believes that the additional required communication and notification," she said, "will encourage prompt corrective action and help prevent fatalities and other accidents.”

At the Interior Department, administration officials are seeking to roll back regulations on offshore oil rigs — former President Barack Obama’s response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout that killed 11 workers and flooded the Gulf of Mexico with millions of barrels of oil. A proposed rule would rescind the requirement that only government-approved third parties may inspect blowout preventers that seal a well in the event of a pressure surge.

The revisions would also allow rig operators to test equipment less frequently, to prevent “wear and tear.” All told, the changes would save industry more than $900 million over 10 years.

But environmental advocates and southern lawmakers of both parties worry the changes could lead to another deadly spill.

“History itself has demonstrated that the industry can’t be trusted to self-regulate,” said Shanna Devine, a worker health and safety advocate for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. “That resulted in the same regulation the Trump administration is now trying to roll back.”

At the Agriculture Department, officials are weighing whether to raise line speeds at meat-packing plants, a change that worker advocates say would increase repetitive motion injuries and accidents. According to government data, the injury rates in meatpacking are already higher than in U.S. industries as a whole.

USDA in February proposed lifting line speed requirements in hog processing plants — part of an effort to streamline food safety inspections at the plants, which currently may process no more than 1,100 hogs per hour. Agriculture department officials wrote in the proposal that they seek to remove “unnecessary regulatory obstacles” and cut food safety inspection staff, saving taxpayers $8.7 million. The change would also would free up line inspectors to inspect other areas of the plant, they wrote.

But “common sense would tell you [that] you cannot increase line speeds at a fast, repetitive motion and not expect injuries to go up,” said Mark Lauritsen, director of meat packing and food processing for the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Increased speeds could lead to shoulder, neck, back and wrist injuries, Lauritsen said. In addition, increased line speeds could cause workers to take shortcuts in an environment that’s already dangerous.

“It’s hot, it’s humid, it’s slick, it’s bloody,” he said.

Dan Kovich, director of science and technology for the National Pork Producers Council, the industry’s chief advocacy group, says the proposal will increase line speeds in a way that will be invisible to the naked eye. He noted that the program to raise line speeds began as a pilot program under former President Bill Clinton.

As for the effect on workers, “that’s really outside our area of expertise,” Kovich said.

The Trump administration denied a similar poultry industry petition for unlimited line speed increases this year, but said it would consider applications to raise line speeds from 140 to 175 birds per minute at certain plants.

Poultry workers already face higher injury rates than manufacturing workers overall, worker advocates note. At a plant in Maryland in 2014, government researchers found that more than one-third of workers suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. Many more don’t report dangerous conditions due to fear of retaliation, according to the Government Accountability Office, making it hard for the government to accurately assess the scope of the problem.

Officials at USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service said they worked with the worker safety arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing the updated inspection proposals. In addition, they said, plants seeking increases must agree to monitor injuries.

But USDA food safety officials acknowledge that safety wasn’t a top priority. “We don’t regulate worker safety,” acting administrator Paul Kiecker said. “What we regulate at FSIS is the food safety. That’s not to say we are not interested in employee safety. We are definitely interested in that.”

The National Chicken Council, the main advocacy group for the poultry industry, noted that injury rates among workers have fallen over the past two decades.

At the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Trump officials are seeking to loosen reporting requirements for injury and illness data from large companies. A rule proposed in July in would relieve companies with 250 workers or more from a previous obligation to submit detailed injury and illness data, which OSHA had intended to publish online.

“Companies will have an easier time hiding injuries and illnesses,” said Debbie Berkowitz, a former Obama OSHA official and director of worker safety and health for the National Employment Law Project. “This is on top of the fact that OSHA’s presence in the workplace is declining.”

A NELP study released in June found that OSHA enforcement fell from 2017 to 2018, after Trump took office.

Under the proposal, companies still must submit summaries of the data to OSHA for review. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the proposal should go further, arguing that proprietary information — such as hours and number of workers — could be of value to competitors.

“It leaves a big, glaring weakness exposed,” said Marc Freedman, the Chamber’s vice president of employment policy.

The Labor Department spokeswoman said the proposal “would protect both the safety and the privacy of America’s workers.”

“Injury and illness data must still be reported and posted in individual establishments and will continue to be used for enforcement purposes,” she said in a written statement. “The proposed rule would protect workers’ personally identifiable information and sensitive medical information from Freedom of Information Act inquiries. The proposal would not change the existing requirements for the electronic submission of summaries of work-related injuries and illnesses each year.”

Since Trump took office, OSHA also scrubbed a running list of worker deaths from its home page.

A notable exception to the administration’s resistance to worker-safety regulation was its decision to defend in court an Obama-era rule regulating crystalline silica — a mineral dust long known to cause deadly lung ailments. After some initial delays, the rule took effect for most employers in June.

That action was more in tune with Trump's earlier rhetoric. "We need regulations for safety and environment and things,” President-elect Trump assured workers at an Indianapolis air-conditioner plant in December 2016. “We want to protect our workers,” President Trump repeated one year later in a speech touting the cancellation or delay of 1,500 regulatory actions.

At EPA, Trump officials are working on new rules to limit asbestos exposure as part of a congressionally mandated update to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. On its face, it would seem to be strengthening safety.

But advocates worry that the rules, intended by Congress to limit asbestos, could open the door to new products containing the toxin.

EPA’s significant new use rule, proposed in June, lists 14 uses of asbestos that would trigger scrutiny by EPA. All were used at one time but have been halted by industry voluntarily, said Betsy Southerland, former director of the EPA’s science and technology office.

But the rule doesn’t require every new use of asbestos to be approved by the EPA, though advocates believe Congress gave the agency authority to do so. That means a company conceivably could develop at new use for asbestos and not have to notify the agency, said Southerland, who resigned in 2017.

“You never know what industry is going to come up with,” Southerland said. “They could want to use it to create new chemicals in the future.”

In addition, the EPA’s proposal for evaluating asbestos risks doesn’t consider so-called legacy hazards — for example, particles of asbestos insulation or asbestos tiles that could be inhaled by workers when removed. That means workers could be more highly exposed than the general public if and when the EPA approves new uses.

“What the Trump EPA has done is essentially cooked the books to undervalue the risks posed by asbestos,” said Scott Faber, a top lobbyist for the Environmental Working Group, which has opposed a variety of Trump policies. “You don’t need to be a toxicologist to understand that you can’t determine whether a chemical is safe or not if you don’t understand the whole picture.”

EPA spokeswoman Molly Block noted that the proposal was subject to multiple rounds of public comments.

“Based on that input, the agency is confident that the uses identified in the SNUR constitute the universe of uses that could come back onto the market if someone wanted to reintroduce the use,” Block said in a statement. “Thus the proposed [significant new use rule] is a good complement to the risk evaluation.”

Advocates suspect industry influence may have played a role. Nancy Beck, a deputy assistant administrator the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, previously served as the senior director for regulatory science policy for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry. Block noted that Beck, who declined to be interviewed, worked in the EPA under President George W. Bush and in the White House Office of Management and Budget under Bush and Obama.

“The amount of time and energy they put into rolling back this vital worker health and safety protections could have easily been put into implementing existing protections and enacting new rules that are needed,” said Devine, the Public Citizen advocate. “This Labor Day, it’s clear where the administration’s interests lie.”

=================================

Cheap labor in unsafe conditions, unpaid overtime, toxic pollution, and no healthcare. Worker safety should take a back seat to profits of company executives. Turning America into China.