Labor

No more than a thimbleful of hydrofluoric acid killed 37-year-old Alcoa technician John L. Dorton in fewer than seven hours from the moment he inhaled the mist at the plant where he worked in Port Comfort, Texas.

It’s that deadly.

Its transportation to factories and its use there imperils workers and nearby residents. Environmental, safety and advocacy groups for years have demanded that manufacturers substitute safer chemicals or processes whenever possible.

As far back as 2003, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) issued a report called “Needless Risk,” detailing how oil refineries using hydrofluoric acid unjustifiably jeopardize workers and surrounding communities, especially in a time of potential terrorist attacks. 

Only about 50 of the nation’s 148 petroleum refineries boost octane with hydrofluoric acid. The others use sulfuric acid or a different process. Sulfuric acid is hazardous as well, but a tanker spill is more easily cleaned and doesn’t form a potentially lethal, hovering cloud that defies dispersal. In addition, exposure to sulfuric acid manifests instantly as a burn on the skin. So does hydrofluoric acid in high concentrations. But hydrofluoric acid is insidious. A dilute hydrofluoric acid doesn’t immediately burn. Blistering may be delayed by 8 to 24 hours. In the meantime, hydrofluoric acid penetrates the skin, destroying soft tissue and decalcifying bone. If inhaled, it devastates lung and esophagus tissue. After any exposure, chemical maker DuPont recommends treatment occur “within seconds.” Read more...

When the leaders of the G-20 nations arrive in Pittsburgh, I want them to know I am fomenting revolution. Industrial revolution. Specifically, a 21st-century burgeoning of green manufacturing in the United States.

Americans going green — manufacturing windmills and solar cells — would benefit the whole world’s economy and environment. Restoring manufacturing would rebuild the U.S. economy. And a strong United States is essential because countries in the old world, such as Germany, and those in the developing world, such as China, depend on Americans to buy their exports.

For years, during every G-20 meeting, workers took to the streets to protest free trade, and they’ll resurface along Liberty Avenue on Sept. 24 and 25 as American workers demand fair trade. But at each successive gathering of the G-20, the United States has produced fewer and fewer goods to exchange.

Read more...

They came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
And I didn’t speak up because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me,
And by that time no one was left to speak up.

• Martin Niemoeller

China is attacking the U.S. with a stealth weapon of mass economic destruction – unfair trade. U.S. corporations – and China – that profiteer from it prefer to label this “free trade.”

But industrial carnage is the only way to describe the devastation done to the U.S. economy by an accumulated trillion dollar trade deficit with China, the destruction of U.S. jobs by off-shoring them to China, and the disintegration of the U.S. industrial sector that is foreclosing America’s ability to support itself or to manufacture weapons to defend itself.

Read more...

Some in political, media and economic circles seem to verge on euphoric regarding the July 2009 jobs numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday (August 7). Perhaps we need a little dose of sobriety.

The best that can be said about the July jobs report is that it was less bad than in recent months. Read more...

Leo W. Gerard: Your chapter in the new book, “Benchmarking the Advantages Foreign Nationals Provide their Manufacturers,” describes in devastating detail how China in particular, but also other major U.S. trading partners, violate international rules. The abuses you document make clear that it’s impossible for American manufactures to compete internationally. U.S. corporations responded by off-shoring manufacturing and millions of American jobs. Why does the U.S. put up with this unfair trade?

Peter Navarro: The Bush administration put up with unfair trade because it was distracted by the war on terrorism and because of its blind ideological commitment to free trade, regardless of the unfair trading practices adopted by our trading partners. The Obama administration is putting up with unfair trade with China because it is under the mistaken notion that it's more important for China to keep financing our budget and trade deficits than for this country to crack down on unfair Chinese trade practices so that we can restore our manufacturing base. Consumers -- oblivious to the destruction that the Chinese have done to our job base -- have put up with this unfair trade because in the short run they get cheap Chinese goods. The National Association of Manufacturers puts up with this unfair trade because many of its members have offshored their production to China and now find it in their interests to oppose trade reform. What is critical in the politics of this whole situation is that the American people clearly understand how unfair trade practices translate into fewer jobs and lower wages and a bleak future. Only when the American people see the chessboard more clearly will our politicians act appropriately. Read more...

Tomorrow, just as Congress has mandated, the national minimum wage will increase 70 cents to $7.25 an hour, which on the surface, appears a positive step for those workers in this wage bracket. However, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine "calculates that the 70-cent-per-hour minimum wage hike this month would kill 'about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24.'"

The matter of increasing the minimum wage is typically contentious because, on the surface, at least, it's tough to see how workers making more money can be bad for the overall health of our economy or for those workers. But if you dig a little deeper, if employers are forced to pay all their employees more, then these same employers can't afford to higher as many workers leading to increased unemployment.  Particularly in an economy like this, the pie doesn’t get any bigger, so if you’re forced to hand-out larger slices, you’ll be handing out fewer of them. Read more...

Not too long ago, the ticket to the middle class was straightforward. Work hard, play by the rules, and you'll have something to show for it -- a good wage, a secure job and home, and a solid pension.

Our nation -- and economy -- relied on workers around Ohio to build cars and appliances, to lay down rail lines and highways. Their work put them squarely in the middle class. Their work -- and a thriving manufacturing industry -- turned our nation into an economic superpower.
Read more...

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve spoken with the GM and Chrysler car dealerships from my district that have been targeted for total or partial closure by President Obama’s Auto Task Force. They were given no reason, and really no recourse to challenge their closure. It is as if the Car Czar threw a dart at a dartboard to decide which dealerships would be given a pink slip. In fact, we still do not know the formula used to determine which dealers would remain open and which ones would close; which ones would lose certain brands and which would get new brands.

Now, GM is officially pitting dealers against another.  And, remember:  the government owns 60% of GM.  It has committed $50.7 billion directly to GM, plus another $12.5 to their financing arm, GMAC.  When we talk about GM, it’s hard to consider it a private entity.

Read more...

With cash registers not ringing like they used to, trade is becoming a practical solution for small businesses looking to survive and grow.

Small businesses already play a vital role in America’s trade and commerce, representing 97 percent of all exporters. Yet, with only one percent of small firms exporting their goods—making up slightly more than a quarter of the country’s export volume—trade remains dominated by larger businesses. Read more...

Last week I was proud to support the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 (H.R. 626). This legislation will make the Federal Government a more family friendly, competitive employer. This legislation is headed to the Senate for their consideration.

As the country’s largest single employer, the federal government is responsible for over 2.7 million jobs. The federal government is facing the retirement of 40% of its workforce over the next ten years and must be able to compete with private sector opportunities in order to attract talented new employees. Under current law, federal employees who want paid time off for the birth or adoption of a child only have the option of using their accrued sick days and vacation time to supplement unpaid leave. It is difficult for relatively new employees or those who experience reoccurring health problems to save up enough time for paid parental leave. Even for older employees who rarely get sick, unpredictable life events can make it equally difficult to accrue sufficient parental leave time. Parents should not be forced to choose between their new child and their paycheck. Read more...