Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes

[unhappycamper]

Bush Aides Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: November 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.

The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health.

Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

With the economy tumbling and American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush has promised to cooperate with Mr. Obama to make the transition “as smooth as possible.” But that has not stopped his administration from trying, in its final days, to cement in place a diverse array of new regulations.

The Labor Department proposal is one of about 20 highly contentious rules the Bush administration is planning to issue in its final weeks. The rules deal with issues as diverse as abortion, auto safety and the environment.


Rest of article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30labor.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[annabanana]

1. This is where a responsible, non partisan civil service can

help. Implementation of this stuff can be, you know, in the "in-box" until there are second thoughts from farther up the chain..

[ixion]

2. deregulation of toxic substances is NOT a "safety rule"

it is, in fact, the opposite.

The headline of this story is midleading, IMO.

[tom_paine]

4. ON EDIT: Unhappycamper added the word "safety" to the headline.

We foolishly fell for it.

Click on the link and read the headline for yourself.

Unless the NYT changed it (which is possible, certainly, though not probable), unhappycamper is the one who is doing the misleading here.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. SAVE THE TOXINS!

Yeah, I'd like to see THAT on a bumper sticker ...

--p!