Safer saws would prevent injuries and $2 billion annual loss

By Christiana Oatman, NCL Communications intern

Christiana Oatman is a native Californian and a rising senior at University of the Pacific, where she studies history and gender studies. She is the Communications intern at NCL. Her internship is part of the Fund for American Studies’ Institute of Political Journalism program at Georgetown University.

I recently had the opportunity to watch National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg testify on a panel at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) budget hearing on June 20, 2012 to propose that the CPSC implement tougher safety standards on table saws, ATVs, and other dangerous products frequently used by American consumers. Greenberg urged the CPSC to dedicate staff, money, and resources to finalize a mandatory safety standard.

NCL, along with other consumer organizations, requested in October 2011 that the CPSC consider enacting “a technology-neutral performance standard that would require manufacturers to equip table saws with safety devices that would mitigate injury when the operator comes in contact with, or in close proximity to, the spinning blade.” Multiple forms of safety technology exist, but only one, SawStop, is currently on the market.

Tens of thousands of accidents involving table saws happen every year, including ten finger amputations a day. According to the NCL, “These injuries cost society well over $2 billion every year.”

For the past 50 years, the only safety technology on table saws was the blade guard. The blade guard is often removed because it is inconvenient for many types of cuts. Two thirds of table saw injuries reported were without a blade guard. Updated technology does not create the same hurdles that the blade guard does. The average cost for adding newer safety technology on a table saw is $100, which is cost-effective compared to the potential medical and emotional costs of a table saw accident.

The Web site Fine Woodworking has a table saw safety guide to prevent as many accidents as possible. It recommends that you never use a table saw tired or under the influence, wear gear to protect your eyes and ears and use a riving knife and push sticks. Many table saw safety tips are designed to prevent kickback, when a piece of stock moves towards you, which is one of the most common causes of table saw injuries. Fine Woodworking recommends that you use a blade guard, but also notes that blade guards cannot be used for every cut. Even with all these precautions, accidents do happen and some could have been prevented by the new technology.

As one of the three interns who watched Greenberg’s testimony, I found her arguments convincing, as did the CPSC members who responded and asked her questions. Greenberg and the CPSC members were very sympathetic to those who have been injured by table saws, and hopefully Greenberg’s persuasive skills will lead to a progressive change in CPSC policy.

ILO estimate: 21 million experienced forced labor during 10-year period

By Steven Dorshkind, NCL public policy intern

Steven Dorshkind, a child labor intern at the NCL this summer, is a junior at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, where he is studying politics and history. Steven is currently studying at The George Washington University in the Semester in Washington Politics, which made it possible for him to get this internship.

Slavery seems like a relic of the past, but unfortunately, millions of people are still enduring slave-like conditions. The International Labour Organization (ILO) released a report this month that estimates that 20.9 million people experienced forced labor in the period of 2002-2011. Sadly, about one in four forced labor victims or about 5.5 million individuals are children.

The ILO estimated in 2005 that about 12.3 million persons were in forced labor. A new survey methodology led to the sizable jump in the number of forced labor victims, which the ILO believes is a much more accurate estimate than the 2005 figure. The term forced labor refers to all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the individual has not offered himself voluntarily.

The private sector is responsible for 90 percent of all forced labor, the rest is forced labor caused by governments, including prison labor and forced military service. The private sector forced labor is divided into sexual and labor exploitation. Of all the people exploited for labor, about 44 percent are moved internally or internationally, and the rest are forced into labor in their place of origin or residence. Those who are moved internally are mainly exploited for sexual reasons; 98 percent are women. These women are usually taken from their homes and families and brought to unfamiliar areas where they are forced to perform sexual acts for strangers – sometimes for years.

The highest incidence of forced labor occurred in Central and South Eastern Europe (non-European Union (EU)) at 4.2 individuals per thousand, Africa at 4.0, the Middle East at 3.4, Asia and the Pacific at 3.3, Latin America and the Caribbean at 3.1, and Developed Economies and EU nations at 1.5. Of these, 74 percent of people are 18 years and older, and of those 55 percent are women and girls, some 11.4 million, while 45 percent are men and boys (about 9.5 million).

The average period of time that victims spend in forced labor, in reported cases, is approximately 18 months. Unfortunately, many people serve in forced labor for a great deal longer, some reported cases have gone as far as six to ten years. Most of these reported cases with long durations end due to some form of intervention. By estimating the amount of time that an unreported case persists, the ILO estimates that the average unreported case of forced labor lasts about 29.4 months, or just about two and a half years.

The sickening truth is that modern-day slavery is still out there, and it is destroying the lives of millions of people. To understand the magnitude of the phenomenon, one must imagine a population similar to New York State’s – a forced labor site where the entire population is coerced to perform labor and all the inhabitants have their basic human rights and freedoms erased. The magnitude of this problem becomes evident, and the need for a solution becomes manifest. One hopes that the ILO forced labor estimate will create the will needed to address this vexing problem.

LifeSmarts and FCCLA: Strong traditions for a new generation

By Seth Woods, LifeSmarts Outreach Coordinator

The last time I wrote for the Savvy Consumer blog, I reminisced about returning to my state’s LifeSmarts tournament. This time, I’m going even further down memory lane, to the FCCLA Leadership Camp in Hardinsburg, Kentucky. It’s a beautiful campus near a small farming town, and it had nearly been ten years since I had last been there. (Like many LifeSmarts players, I was also a member of FCCLA, and a rather active one at that: I was the State Parliamentarian my senior year.) I had been invited back this summer to discuss LifeSmarts, leadership, and the importance of consumer education.

Things started out slowly, but the teens quickly became interested when the buzzers came out. To make things more interesting, we divided into teams based on officer groups. First we had the qualifying matches, some of which were very close (including a 90-70 nail-biter won by my successors, the VP’s for Parliamentary Law). But we weren’t finished yet: teams that hadn’t won were still eligible to qualify for a “wild card” spot for the Finals by earning a high score on the TeamSmarts multiple choice test.

This is very similar to what FCCLA chapters can do to qualify for the National LifeSmarts Championship: either win their state tournament and represent the state, or earn a “wild card” by scoring highest on the special FCCLA TeamSmarts quiz in February. Thanks to a grant from Experian, the winning team receives $2,500 to fund its trip to the national championship, this year in Atlanta. (For more details, check out www.lifesmarts.org and click on “Welcome FCCLA.”)

Once we had our finalists, it was time for the championship game. Instead of using the buzzers, though, teams faced “The Word Wall.” On a wall were 50 vocabulary terms, and each team had a rolled-up paper tube. A definition was read out, and the first to swat the correct term won the point. The first team to five points won the game. (Teachers, this makes a fun and easy classroom activity—again, check out our Web site for more ideas!)

About ten minutes later, we had our winners. Gold medals (not really, it was “gold”-fish crackers) went to the Vice-Presidents for Membership, and the First Vice-Presidents earned second place. I was glad to see that these guys had picked up on LifeSmarts so quickly; the officers quickly understood the rules and were excited to show how much they knew. The state officers even wanted to play their own match after everyone had gone to bed!

Of course, I was happy to oblige; this may have been the first recorded instance of “Midnight LifeSmarts.” Everyone had a great time, and it was especially meaningful to me. Not every day can you bring something new back to your roots!

Understanding Bloomberg’s ‘audacious’ soda proposal

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped a bombshell a few weeks ago. He proposed limiting sugary drinks sold by restaurants, cinemas, street vendors and stadiums in New York City to 16 ounces. Why did the Mayor make this audacious proposal? For one reason: obesity rates in the US and New York City are soaring and the experts say by 2030 40 percent of Americans will be obese. Two thirds of adults are now overweight or obese; (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 68 percent of adults in the US were either overweight or obese). One third of children are overweight or obese. Will Bloomberg’s proposal work? I don’t know, but it sure has gotten people talking: about nutrition, empty calories, obesity and the role of government. And I think that’s a good thing.

For example, people have learned a little more about sugary sodas. That they have no nutritional value and pack a lot of calories; that they are easily consumed in large quantities. A 12 ounce can of Coca Cola, for instance, has 140 calories. I admit it – I like the taste of real Coca Cola; I even crave it sometimes. But with a large cup, that 140 calorie drink can easily turn into 20 ounces or 233 calories. Also, many consumers have no idea how many calories they are consuming when they buy these oversized drinks or even how many calories they should be consuming in one day. (2,000 calories a day is the recommended intake for the average person.) To make matters worse, fast food joints make it cost-effective to buy the largest sizes; they are often only pennies more than the smallest drinks. Hey, more for less!

Why pick on soft drinks? New York Health Commissioner Tom Farley spoke to this issue. “We know that portion sizes have risen dramatically. And we know that sugary drinks have this uniquely strong connection with weight gain.”

The costs to the health care system of this excess avoirdupois are estimated to be $192 billion a year and unfortunately taxpayers underwrite a lot of those costs. Federal Medicaid and Medicare programs provide health care for millions of patients and thus treat the diseases caused or exacerbated by obesity: diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer. And talk about cross purposes! I just learned that food stamps can be used to buy soft drinks. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, $4 billion worth of food stamp money is spent that way. (That shouldn’t be! Soda calories are utterly bereft of any nutritional value. Poor people in America suffer from obesity in far greater numbers and the food stamp program is intended to get people nutritious foods, especially children.)

The soft drink industry is fighting back with every arrow in their PR quiver, as always. PepsiCo threatened to move out of New York a few years ago when there was a threat of an 18 percent tax on soda (to be used to reduce consumption and pay for health care.) This time around, the sugary beverage boosters ran a very funny ad in the New York Times! A sense of humor always helps.

“…soda is not driving the obesity rate,” says Chris Gindlesperger, with the American Beverage Association. “New York City health department has an unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks.” Well, maybe. But there’s a method to their madness.

Meanwhile, unlike the proposed sugar tax, which was crushed by the beverage industry, Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is virtually assured to pass. Only the city’s health board needs to sign off on it and all are mayoral appointees. One piece of good news is that consumption of sugary drinks is down from 1998 by about 24 percent. Let’s keep that trend going.

One of the biggest obstacles is that efforts to combat consumption of high calorie drinks are drowned out by the advertising of beverages – all kinds of beverages from sweetened sodas, to sports drinks, to power drinks to caffeinated drinks, the list is endless. Most have hidden calories, and little if any nutritional value.

And the ubiquity of these beverages is mind-boggling. Walk into any drug or convenience store and there’s invariably a long wall of refrigerated drinks, most of them not the low-calorie version. I can’t find sugar-free or “diet” ice tea versions in any CVS in my neighborhood.

So I support what Mayor Bloomberg and New York City are trying to do – open up the discussion, say no to the purveyors of oversized, calorie laden and nutritionally empty drinks and in the process lets all learn more about what we’re eating and drinking, whether it has any nutritional value and hopefully keep a check on the explosion in obesity and the related costs associated with this American health epidemic.

Teens: summer jobs to avoid

Every 11 days, a child worker dies. Stories of on-the-job deaths and injuries are heart wrenching, and are more common amongst children and adolescents than their adult co-workers, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A ten-year-old boy in Florida accidentally ran over his younger brother while driving a pickup truck in an orange grove. A teenager, Danilo Riccardi Jr., fell into a hole while trying to mix concrete. It took three hours for rescuers to get his body. A member of a traveling sales crew, Tracie Anaya Jones, was found dead of stab wounds in 2007. Her body was found 150 miles away from where she was last seen and the case has not still been solved.

In order to prevent more tragedies from happening, the National Consumers League released its list of the Five Most Dangerous Teen Jobs in time for the start of summer, when many teenagers are looking for jobs to develop skills and earn much-needed money. This year’s most dangerous jobs are

• Agriculture (Harvesting Crops and Using Machinery)
• Construction and Height Work
• Traveling Youth Sales Crews
• Outside Helper (Landscaping, Groundskeeping and Lawn Service)
• Driver/Operator (Forklifts, Tractors and ATVs). This list is unranked.

According to the Associated Press, “fewer than three in 10 American teenagers now hold jobs from June to August.” The article also noted that 44 percent of teens who want summer jobs either don’t end up getting them or work fewer hours than they would like to. Department of Labor research notes that the numbers are even lower amongst people of color: “only 34.6 percent of African-American youth and 42.9 percent of Hispanic youth had a job this past July.” This means that teens are more willing to take any job they can get, which advocates fear makes it more likely that they do not consider possible safety hazards or take the time to ask questions about comprehensive training and potential risks. In order to present teens with job options, the Department of Labor created the Summer Jobs+ program, which encourages non-profits and companies to hire teenagers and connects teens to those opportunities. No matter how teens find that perfect summer job, they should always be knowledgeable about potential dangers. Even a seemingly safe job can go badly.

“If your instincts are screaming ’Get out of here!’ then you should listen. If you’re being harassed at work, if you feel unsafe or if the working conditions are affecting your health, you should talk to your boss about making a change – or just quit,” – good advice from Snag a Job, an employment tips Web site.

While there are labor laws and age limitations in place to protect teens and children from work-related injuries and fatalities, those laws are not often followed or may contain certain loopholes. For example, age restrictions for working with equipment such as tractors are lower for agriculture jobs, even though agriculture has been shown to be one of the most dangerous industries for teens; for workers 15 to 17, the risk of fatal injury is four times the risk for young workers in other workplaces, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More teens and adults should be aware of how the law does and does not protect them in the workplace – and encourage their legislative representatives to fix these laws to save and protect young workers.

There are basic steps employers and employees can take to prevent most accidents and assaults. Teens should not be asked by their employer to drive a vehicle or to work alone at night, and if they are asked, they should be willing to say “no, I won’t do that.” Being safe and healthy is more important than potentially losing a job. When first working with new equipment, any employee, regardless of age, should ask for detailed instructions on how to carefully use the equipment. Many accidents occur because employees were not properly trained. Even if training does occur, employees should be careful when using risky equipment. Too many accidents happen because an employee is not paying attention or playing around.

NCL recommends that parents become involved in their teen’s job search. This may seem counterproductive for teens using their job experience to develop independence, but parents must be aware of the safety conditions and hours of their teen’s (potential) job before and after their teenager is hired.

For more information about labor laws, age restrictions and other information on teen employment, visit the Department of Labor’s Web site, Youth Rules. You can read the full report here.

Continued fallout from ‘pink slime’ hysteria

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Several weeks ago I blogged on the fate of the makers of so-called “pink slime”(its real name is Lean Finely Textured Beef or “LFTB” ) after reading a May 12, 2012 New York Times article by editorial page writer Phillip Boffey entitled “What If It Weren’t Called Pink Slime.” Boffey took a dispassionate look at the product and concluded, as the title of his article indicates, that “The first casualties of the hamburger ingredient contemptuously dubbed ‘pink slime’ will likely not be anyone who eats it but rather the workers who make it.”

At the time of the original media hype, NCL and Consumer Federation of America issued statements in an effort to quell the negative buzz and consumer fear about LFTB, but the horse had left the barn by then and, in the ensuing weeks, the makers of LFTB were forced to drastically cut production.

Boffey bemoaned the loss of 650 jobs at the plants that produce LFTB resulting from media-generated hysteria over what is actually a good product. He said it well: “The irony and the absurdity are that consumer experts say L.F.T.B. is safe, nutritious and relatively inexpensive.”

So two months later, what is the fallout for consumers now that the supply of LFTB is greatly reduced? Well, we looked through data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and ran some calculations. The marketing division at USDA publishes figures on what people are buying and sure enough, because of vastly reduced supply, consumers are now forced to pay more for lean beef, while the fattiest ground beef is available for less. As a result, consumers are opting to buy the cheaper, fattier product. A year ago, fattier ground beef (73 percent lean) made up 37 percent of ground beef sold; it now comprises 48 percent of the ground beef sold. Conversely, there is now 23.3 percent less of the leanest ground beef (93 percent lean) available on the market. Lean ground beef is also 50 cents more expensive per pound at wholesale, meaning the price at the grocery store has jumped by close to 75 cents. This is a marked price increase and one that will hurt consumers.

None of this should have happened. Indeed, it’s a truly unfortunate result at a time when obesity is on the rise in America and every health expert is telling us to reduce, not increase, our fat intake. What I said in my first blog still applies: What a shame.

SLAP! Did you feel it?

By Michell K. McIntyre, Director of NCL’s Special Project on Wage Theft

If you are one of the millions of American working women, did you feel a slap in the face earlier this week? The Senate voted yesterday to defeat the pay equity bill designed to fix the wage gap faced by most women who still make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, and the outcome of the vote wasn’t pretty.

In an average year, the wage gap means a $10,784 loss for women, and the numbers for minority women are worse. But yesterday, the Senate had the chance to change that when they voted on the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Act went before the entire Senate, and the vote went straight along party lines – 52 in favor of the Act and 47 against the Act. Fifty Democrats, plus the two Independents, voted in favor of the Act, while 47 Republicans voted against the Act with one Republican choosing to abstain from the vote (Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois)

Almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act became law (1963) and made discrimination in the workplace illegal, why stop legislation designed to protect half of America’s workforce? Senate Republicans argued that the Act could adversely affect businesses if employees attempt to file pay-related lawsuits.

What about these women’s families? According to a Congressional report published and prepared by the Majority Staff of the Joint Economic Committee, in 2009, 25 percent of all U.S. families with children – 9.8 million families – are female-headed households. And according to the same report, by 2008, married working women’s income make up about 36 percent of the total family income. All of these millions of families are affected by the pay gap.

An extra $10,784 a year is not just a matter of injustice and inequality but also a matter of economic stability. According to the National Women’s Law Center, an additional $10,784 per year is enough to:

• Pay the median cost of rent and utilities for a year with over $1,000 to spare or the median mortgage payment and utilities for over ten months
• Feed a household of four for a year and five months with more than $300 to spare
• Pay a year and a half of childcare cost for a four-year-old with over $100 to spare
• Pay for two and a half years of family health insurance premiums in an employer-sponsored health insurance program with over $1,400 to spare

What could you have done with an extra $10,784 a year?

America the outlier

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I recently spoke – alongside other national consumer organizations – to the consumer specialists in the state attorneys general offices. These are the folks who are hugely important in representing the interests of consumers in the 50 states, fighting scams and going after consumer fraud.

At this session, I listed the consumer victories we’ve won during the Obama administration and before that under President Bush (top-to-bottom reforms of the Consumer Product Safety Act and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). But for me, the most incredible consumer victory is the landmark passage of a national healthcare bill for American citizens, the law known as the Affordable Care Act. All the while I was aware that a number of state Attorneys General office represented in that room, in spite of their advocacy on behalf of consumers, are behind lawsuits to overturn the ACA. Why would state AG’s want to fight against the first bill ever to guarantee healthcare coverage to most consumers? This seems contrary to their role as defenders and advocates for consumers. In addition, surely the richest country in the world can afford to provide healthcare to our citizens.

Which put me in mind of an article I read recently. Fifteen percent of Americans have no healthcare coverage. But many far less affluent countries are moving to provide medical insurance coverage for all. China, for example, is on track to provide healthcare to 90 percent of its residents and its population dwarfs ours by almost 4 to 1. (According to the World Bank, China has 1 billion 300 million people.) Mexico has just completed an 8-year drive for universal coverage that has dramatically expanded Mexicans’ access to life saving treatments for diseases like leukemia and breast cancer.

Thailand’s GNP is 1/5 of the US, and 99 percent of Thais have health insurance. Rwanda and Ghana – two of the world’s poorest nations – are working to create insurance networks to cover their citizens. Countries are coming to the conclusion that for their long-term economic viability, universal healthcare is critical. They believe that remaining competitive globally and sustaining economic growth will depend on universal healthcare for citizens.

How does that work? Well, for example, the Chinese government found that citizens were saving excessively to cover healthcare costs and weren’t spending much-needed money to stimulate the economy. In Mexico, poor families who had to pull a child from school because of health would have to spend scarce assets – livestock or equipment — to cover healthcare costs. That reduced the viability of their operations. Mexico also found its citizens were being driven into bankruptcy because of healthcare costs. The same is true for the United States! at one point half those facing bankruptcy from credit card debt incurred that debt paying for unexpected healthcare costs. According to the experts, providing universal healthcare coverage is preventing millions of people worldwide from financial ruin.

So it really does makes you wonder why state AGs are fighting this basic protection and why the U.S. population is deadlocked over the issue. In March, a Kaiser poll showed that 41 percent of Americans support the ACA, while 40 percent oppose. A former World Bank Vice President, David de Ferranti, said about the United States: “We are really an outlier.” When you factor in what other far less affluent nations are providing near universal healthcare for their citizens, de Ferranti’s comments seem like an understatement. We can only hope that the ACA survives the challenge in the Supreme Court. If it does not, and the individual mandate is struck, we should go back to the drawing table and provide single payer insurance system for all citizens.