PORT AUTHORITY’S REVISED PLAN
Ø Service would be reduced 15 percent beginning June 17.
Ø Some service would be retained on 95 of the 124 weekday bus and rail routes proposed for elimination. 22 weekday routes proposed for elimination would be retained intact: 1F, 13U, 21B, 25A, 26A, 26B, 36D, 43E, 55E, 58C, 58P, 61F, 67E, 69A, 94A, 500, AVN, BM, CO, G, OV, W.
Ø Of the remaining 184 weekday routes, 104 would have reduced service levels.
Ø The 29 weekday routes eliminated under the revised plan include: 1B, 1C, 5C, 11A, 11F, 13D, 25C, 25D, 28F, 28G, 31A, 36B, 41A, 50B, 65E, 73B, 79B, 83B, 88A, 91S, 501, CL, CV, DB, F, GR, JL, SW, U.
Ø Some service would be retained on 42 of the 59 Saturday bus routes proposed for elimination. Eight Saturday routes proposed for elimination would be retained intact: 11E, 21C, 24A, 26A, 36D, 38C, 41E, 56E.
Ø Of the remaining 83 Saturday routes, 52 would have reduced service levels.
Ø The 17 Saturday routes eliminated under the revised plan include: 5C, 6C, 15A, 25D, 31E, 36B, 41G, 46D, 46F, 50B, 60A, 60B, 60E, 60K, 67H, 79B, 91S.
Ø Some service would be retained on 32 of the 39 Sunday bus routes proposed for elimination. Eight Sunday routes proposed to be eliminated would be retained intact: 21C, 25A, 26A, 41D, 41E, 56C, 68D, 74A.
Ø Of the remaining 68 Sunday routes, 35 would have reduced service levels.
Ø The seven Sunday routes eliminated under the revised plan include: 5A, 6C, 31E, 41G, 60M, 60S, 75D.
Ø An additional 10 percent service reduction would take effect September 2 absent means to reduce the remaining $45 million deficit.
Ø Changes to fixed-route fare structure, to take effect in January 2008, have been deferred.
Ø No change to ACCESS service levels.
Ø ACCESS base fares would increase 50 cents on July 1. The original proposal included a $1 increase in the base fare.
Ø All 28X Airport Flyer service will be provided by regular 40-foot buses.
Ø Beginning September 2, upon completion of the Palm Garden Bridge reconstruction, the following operational changes would be made: 47S South Hills Village via Overbrook rail trips would be reduced; 42S South Hills Village via Beechview trips would include additional two-car trains; the 42M Mt. Lebanon Short rail route would be eliminated; two bus routes, 36A (some trips) and 37A (all trips), would become “feeder routes” to the T as the 41C is eliminated, with some of its service provided by 36A.
Ø Two new bus routes would be created and act as “feeder routes” with connections to other bus routes: 29E would operate seven days a week between Chartiers Valley Shopping Center and Cecil, replacing a portion of the 31E, which is losing off-peak service; and 60S would operate on Saturdays only and replace some service now provided by 60A, 60B and 60K, which would be eliminated under the revised plan.
Ø Other bus routes which would become “feeder routes” include 11C, 35A, 79A and LP on weekdays; 35A, 67F, 79A and LP on Saturdays; and 35A and LP on Sundays.
Please take a few moments to complete the survey and provide feedback about the impact of these imminent changes.
Family Leave
Lawmakers Introduce Paid Sick Leave Bill
|
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) March 15 introduced legislation that would guarantee seven paid sick days a year to workers employed by companies with at least 15 employees. Under the Health Families Act (bill number unavailable), workers could take the leave for their own medical condition, doctor appointments, or preventative or diagnostic treatment. They could also use the leave to care for a family member with comparable needs, a summary said.The bill would provide part-time employees working between 20 and 30 hours a week or between 1,000 and 1,500 hours a year with prorated leave and would allow employers to request certification from employees who request three or more consecutive days, the summary added.Employees or the secretary of labor could enforce the right to sick leave in federal or state court and the Government Accountability Office would be required to study how paid sick leave policies are implemented and what the benefits and costs are for both employers and employees, the summary said.
Discrimination
House Panel Members Voice Support
For Bill Targeting Genetic Discrimination
|
Members of a House panel March 14 voiced support for legislation (H.R. 493) that would prevent employers or health insurers from discriminating against individuals based on genetic information, but some urged careful attention to detail to prevent unintended consequences from language in the bill."The task before us is to ensure that patients and workers are protected against discrimination so that they can realize the benefits of genetic testing," House Ways and Means Committee Health Subcommittee Chairman Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) said in an opening statement at the hearing on the proposed Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. However, some panel members questioned witnesses on how various bill provisions would apply to health care providers or employers in practice. Specifically, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) questioned how the bill would apply to insurers and employers that in the course of business obtain information about insurance claims or tests involving genetic information for patients or employees. Francis Collins, director of the National Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health, said the bill makes it clear that employers that obtain information routinely through their responsibility of providing health care benefits to employees would not be in violation of bill provisions. Instead, they would violate its terms if they were to require an employee to provide such genetic information or to take a genetic test, Collins said. In his testimony, Collins told the panel about cases in which individuals have declined to participate in genetic research or testing for fear of discrimination by employers or insurers. "Unless Americans are convinced that their genetic information will not be used against them, the era of personalized medicine may never come to pass," Collins said.
Former Worker Testifies for Bill
In other testimony at the hearing, David Escher, a former worker with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, told the panel that he was required by managers to provide blood samples to a doctor after he received a diagnosis of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Escher said he did not realize that he had taken a genetic test until he learned the purpose of the test from a co-worker. Escher added that he could not believe that he had been used as a "laboratory rat" so his employer could try to prove that his condition was a genetic disorder, instead of a work-related condition, to relieve itself of financial obligations. He told the panel that he feared the information could be used to discriminate against his family as well. Escher said he has been denied health insurance and has not been told what happened to the vials of blood taken from him. He urged the panel to approve the legislation.
Health Insurer Concerns
William Corwin, medical director, clinical policy, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, told the panel that the association known as America's Health Insurance Plans supports the idea that health care consumers should not be discriminated against based on their genetic information and that genetic information should not be inappropriately disclosed. However, he added that the current version of the legislation can be improved upon and the committee needs to fully consider its possible implications, which could include restricting the use of information in health care decisionmaking. Corwin said the bill should encourage "medically-indicated" testing to help patients get access to coverage or treatment and that health plans should be allowed to "request" genetic tests in order to "promote preventive screening and disease management." The panel should work to ensure that the bill contains a more clear definition of "genetic information," Corwin said, so that it does not apply too broadly to nongenetic conditions or tests. He also warned that the bill could discourage employers from offering employee health benefits because of the threat of litigation, unless bill language is clarified. Corwin testified on the behalf of AHIP, a national association that represents 1,300 health insurance plans, according to his testimony.
Stark Addresses Impact on Health Care Delivery
In response to a suggestion that the bill could have an adverse or overly broad impact on the delivery of health care, Stark replied, "I assure you we will do our best to see that we don't get in the way of preventing physicians from giving the best type of care they know how." Stark added that if there are specific issues, the association's legal counsel would have to sit down with the panel's legislative counsel and "try to come to some kind of agreement." The Ways and Means Committee exercised jurisdiction over the bill because its provisions would impact Medigap insurance, which is sold by private insurance companies to supplement Medicare coverage, a committee spokesman told BNA March 14. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee approved the legislation late March 13, a committee spokeswoman told BNA March 14. After full committee markups in both the Ways and Means and House Energy and Commerce committees, the bill is expected to reach the House floor, possibly by the end of March.
By Karen L. Werner
Family Leave
Kennedy, DeLauro to Introduce
Paid Sick Leave Bill Following Rally
|
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) March 13 hosted a rally on Capitol Hill in support of paid sick leave legislation to be introduced later in the week. The Healthy Families Act, scheduled to be introduced in both houses on March 15, would guarantee seven paid sick days a year to workers to care for their own or a family member's medical condition. The act would apply to companies with at least 15 employees. Under the proposed legislation, paid sick leave also could be used for doctor's appointments or preventive diagnostic treatment. "Fifty-seven million Americans--nearly fifty percent of all private-sector workers in the United States--don't have paid sick days," Kennedy said. Many parents can't leave work to care for a sick child, and "if we truly care about families ... we need workplace laws to enable working men and women to be the responsible parents they want to be," he said. "We have all experienced the strain of trying to balance family and work and the Healthy Families Act will give millions of people, middle class families, who are working hard to make ends meet a small modicum of relief," DeLauro said. The rally included speeches in favor of the legislation by Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership of Women and Families, and Carolyn Duff, a school nurse from South Carolina and a member of the executive committee of the National Association of School Nurses. The legislation would impact 66 million Americans, with 46 million gaining access to paid sick days, 19 million gaining sick days for doctors' visits and family care, and 1 million Americans gaining additional paid sick days, according to a statement by DeLauro
Employee Free Choice Act Marches Through the House and Heads for the Senate
On March 1, 2007, the United States House of Representatives voted by a comfortable 241–185 majority in favor of amending the National Labor Relations Act (the NLRA) through the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800). This legislation, which was introduced in the House on February 5, 2007 by Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), would dramatically change the process through which unions become certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees and through which parties would negotiate initial collective bargaining agreements. The bill quickly moved through the House with surprisingly little publicity outside the labor community. Only now is the legislation beginning to capture the attention of many employers and employer associations, who now are faced with the very real possibility of a shifting paradigm in the areas of union organizing and collective bargaining. The legislation would amend the NLRA in the following major respects:
- NLRB Certification Required Upon a Showing of Card Majority
The legislation would require the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) to certify a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees if the union files a petition with the Board and the Board finds that a majority of employees have signed valid authorization cards. The legislation specifically provides that the Board shall not direct a secret-ballot election upon a showing of card majority. This eliminates the secret ballot protections that have existed since 1935.
- Timeline for Initial Contract Negotiations and Mandatory Interest Arbitration
The legislation provides specific timelines for parties engaged in initial contract negotiations, whether those negotiations result from recognition or certification after election. An employer must meet with the union and commence bargaining no more than 10 days after having received a written request to bargain. If the parties are unable to reach agreement within 90 days of the commencement of bargaining, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (the FMCS) and request mediation. The FMCS then must refer the dispute to an arbitration panel if the parties are unable
to reach agreement within 30 days of the request for mediation. The arbitration panel’s decision (i.e., collective bargaining agreement) is binding on the parties as a contract for a period of two years, unless the parties agree otherwise. There is no oversight or limit on the terms that the arbitration panel could impose.
- Punitive Damages for Antiunion Conduct During Organizing and Initial Contract Negotiations
In an effort to discourage antiunion conduct during union organizing campaigns and initial contract negotiations, the legislation strengthens the remedies for Section 8(a)(3) violations during these periods. If the Board finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) during the campaign or initial contract negotiations, the Board will award the employee back pay and
twice that amount as liquidated damages. If willful or repeated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations occur during these time periods, the employer also will be subject to a civil penalty of up to $20,000 for each violation.
In the coming weeks, it is expected that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) will introduce identical legislation in the Senate. The focus of supporters likely will shift to attempting to gain the 67 votes necessary to override an anticipated veto from President Bush. In a statement released on the eve of the House vote, the Bush administration explained that:
H.R. 800 would strip workers of the fundamental democratic right to a supervised private ballot election, interfere with the ability of workers and employers to bargain freely and come to agreement over working termsand conditions, and impose penalties for unfair labor practices only on employers—and not on union organizers—who intimidate workers. Employers should monitor this legislation carefully and the potentially detrimental effects it could have on both employees and employers.
Contributed by:
Christopher K. Ramsey
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
House Passes Card-Check Organizing Bill,
Setting Stage for Showdown in Senate
|
By a vote of 241-185, the House March 1 passed the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), setting the stage for a showdown in the Senate and with the president over the legislation that would streamline the process for union organizing through a card-check process.House passage came on a roll-call vote after representatives rejected three Republican-backed amendments, including one designed to require the use of secret ballot elections, and rejected a motion to recommit the bill.Following passage of the bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters that the bill is "the most important piece of labor reform in a generation."''Every 23 minutes a worker is illegally fired or discriminated against for supporting a union,'' Pelosi said March 1. ''It's illegal, and it's wrong, but it's also common. When workers want to form a union, they often find that the deck is stacked against them.''"This legislation is about majority rule, about stopping the harassment of workers in the workplace, about strengthening the middle class, and it's about making our democracy stronger," Pelosi said. "This bill is about increasing the ability of people who want to belong to a union to belong to a union."
House GOP Called Bill Undemocratic
House Republicans had argued that the bill was undemocratic and was a gift to organized labor, which strongly backed Democrats in the 2006 elections, allowing the party to take control of Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also said the bill, in making workers' votes public, leaves them "vulnerable to intimidation from both sides. This is not acceptable to me, and it is not acceptable to the American people." Under the bill--which would amend the National Labor Relations Act--if a majority of employees signs valid union authorization cards, the union would be certified by the National Labor Relations Board to represent the workers. The legislation also would allow unions to continue to petition for NLRB-supervised secret-ballot election if they choose. In addition, the legislation would give employers or a union the right to refer a dispute about a first contract that is not resolved through negotiations within 90 days to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation. If an agreement is not reached within 30 days through mediation, the contract dispute then would be referred to binding arbitration. The bill had 234 co-sponsors including House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.)
Administration Opposes Bill
The Bush administration March 1 reacted strongly against the legislation. In reaction to the bill's passage, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said "[i]t is a sad day for our country when the U.S. House of Representatives votes to deprive workers of their basic right to a private ballot election." The White House, which earlier had signaled a likely veto for the bill, Feb. 28 issued a statement of administration policy stating that the bill would strip workers of their right to a "supervised private ballot election," interfere with the ability of workers and employers to bargain freely and come to agreement over working terms and conditions, and impose penalties for unfair labor practices "only on employers--and not on union organizers--who intimidate workers" (40 DLR A-11, 3/1/07 ). Miller late Feb. 28 said he would strongly urge the president to reconsider his position, because the bill's "enactment is critical to ensuring that the American economy benefits everyone."
Amendment to Require Secret Ballot Vote Defeated
In floor action prior to the vote on final passage, the House rejected by a vote of 256-173 an amendment in the form of a substitute that was offered by House Education and Labor Committee Ranking Republican Member Howard McKeon (R-Calif.). The McKeon amendment would have struck the underlying text of the bill and replaced it with the text of H.R. 866, the proposed Secret Ballot Protection Act. That bill, sponsored by the late Rep. Charles Norwood (R-Ga.), would have prohibited the recognition of unions via card check and would have provided that a union only can be recognized and certified after a secret ballot election conducted by NLRB.The House also rejected a second amendment, offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), by a roll call vote of 164-264. The King amendment would have added a section to the bill amending the NLRA to discourage the practice of "salting," an organizing technique in which union supporters seek employment with nonunion companies with the intent of stimulating their co-workers' interest in joining a union. The amendment also would have changed the NLRA to ensure that an employer's workers be employed for the sole benefit of that company. In other action, the House rejected a third amendment, offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) that would have required the National Labor Relations Board to promulgate standards and a model notice to allow employees to place themselves on a "do not call or contact" list to avoid solicitation by unions. The Foxx amendment was rejected by a vote of 256-173. On the floor, Republicans argued against the bill, saying it would eliminate workers' right to secret ballot elections in certifying a union, while Democrats claimed the card-check process would renew workers' ability to form unions, which has been eviscerated through employer intimidation. In arguing for the secret ballot amendment, House Education and Labor Ranking Member Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) said under the bill, workers would sign a card and their vote would be "exposed." "That's not a free choice, not in this country anyway," McKeon said.
However, in a March 1 press briefing after the vote, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller said the bill would end the intimidation of hard-working Americans who want representation in the workplace and believe they have a right to it under the law. Similarly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill would eliminate the problem of delays in elections to certify unions, that have, in practice, kept workers from organizing. "Today we say no to that kind of delay," Hoyer said.
Kennedy Bill Expected Soon
Meanwhile, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) March 1 said he plans to introduce the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate soon and will work for quick action on the legislation. In a March 1 statement, Kennedy applauded Pelosi and Miller for bringing the legislation to the House floor. "Strengthening the freedom to choose a union is key to strengthening the American middle class, and fixing our broken system should be a top priority of this Congress," Kennedy said. However, on March 1, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) condemned House passage of the bill and pledged to work aggressively to defeat the legislation in the Senate. The legislation "would compromise a worker's right to cast a private ballot when deciding whether to join a union," Enzi said. This right "is one of the cornerstones of our democracy." The so-called Employee Free Choice Act would not only require the imposition of a workplace union, based solely on signed authorization cards, it would radically alter the longstanding process of collective-bargaining and set aside traditional methods used to resolve differences between workers and employers," Enzi said. At the March 1 briefing, Miller held out hope that the bill would reach the Senate floor and pass, despite the presidential veto threat.
Unions Pleased With House Action
Following House passage, labor unions applauded the legislation, which they said would increase workers' ability to choose and to be able to freely organize unions. In reaction to the bill's passage, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney at a March 1 press briefing said "this is a real turning point for workers and an opportunity for fairness in the workplace." Greg Tarpinian, executive director of the Change to Win labor federation, said "[w]orkers sent a message in the past election that they want their issues to be front and center. "They want Congress to help make work pay again, and the Employee Free Choice Act is a central part of that effort," he said. The bill will help bring fairness and a new process that will ensure workers have the freedom to unite at work, Tarpinian said.
Business Groups Vow to Fight Bill in Senate
By contrast, business groups expressed disappointment at the House's action. Dan Danner, executive vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the bill "eliminates the democratic process of a secret ballot, which protects both small-business owners and their employees from intimidation, misinformation and exclusion from the very discussions that would affect their business." "We find it disheartening that small businesses are being unfairly targeted by unions in a last-ditch effort to reverse the trends of their decreasing membership," he said. Danner said one of the "most troubling" parts of the bill mandates compulsory, binding arbitration, which would have a "devastating impact on small businesses." Similarly, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler said the bill "infringes upon America's democratic principles, and we vow to fight this legislation in the Senate." Additionally, Engler said the proposed Employee Free Choice Act "would leave all employees vulnerable to coercion and intimidation during union organizing drives and, for those employees not asked to sign a card, gives them no option to choose."
By Karen L. Werner
Employee Free Choice Act
Last week, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (H.R. 800 or EFCA) with 231 co-sponsors. This legislation would eliminate over 70 years of precedent established under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935, taking away employees' freedom to choose under a federally supervised, secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union.
It would replace the private, secret ballot election with a system called "card check" which allows a union to organize if a majority of employees simply sign an authorization card. Under this system, the employees' signatures are made public to the employer, the union organizers and co-workers. Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) is expected to introduce his version of this legislation in the coming weeks.
Minimum Wage
Senate Set to Vote on Minimum Wage
Following Rejection of Kyl Tax Amendments
|
By a vote of 88-8, the Senate Jan. 31 approved a motion to limit debate on legislation to increase the minimum wage (H.R. 2), moving the bill closer to an expected final vote on Feb. 1.The motion to invoke cloture, offered by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), has the effect of limiting debate on the bill to as much as 30 additional hours, but senators indicated a final vote would occur Feb. 1. Voting against the cloture motion were Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), John Ensign (R-Nev.), John Kyl (R-Ariz.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), and David Vitter (R-La.).The cloture vote came after senators rejected two tax amendments along party-line votes. The tax amendments, offered by Kyl, were the final hurdles before the full Senate votes on the bill that would raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over two years.The Senate version also includes a series of tax incentives for small business. The tax incentives were part of an earlier amendment by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that was approved by a voice vote.The final bill is not the "clean bill" many Democrats hoped for, but passage is still likely because the tax incentives were added to the bill in order to attract Republican votes.
Kennedy, the bill's sponsor, encouraged his colleagues to reject the Kyl amendments and consider approving the final bill without more debate while reluctantly supporting the Baucus amendment. "We have now reached Day 8 of the minimum wage debate," Kennedy said in insisting on a final vote. "In the countless hours that we have spent debating this bill on the Senate floor, minimum wage workers across the country have served thousands of meals, cleaned thousands of hotel rooms, and changed thousands of diapers. Unfortunately, we have not been nearly as productive."
Kyl Amendments Failed
The Baucus substitute bill extends and expands several existing business tax provisions. These include the work opportunity tax credit (WOTC), faster depreciation for building improvements, and the deduction of business expenses for equipment under Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code. The committee estimated its small business provisions would cost $8 billion over 10 years.
The substitute bill is the product of a Jan. 17 Finance Committee package (11 DLR A-1, 1/18/07) that ultimately became an amendment to the Senate version of the House-passed bill. Hopes for a clean bill ended Jan. 24 when Senators failed to end debate on the clean bill and seek a vote (16 DLR AA-1, 1/25/07).The two Kyl amendments rejected by the Senate would have taken the tax incentives in the final bill and extended them for one or two more years. By party-line votes, the amendments were tabled over criticism that the proposals were not funded. Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who ushered the final bill's tax incentives through the committee and onto the floor, criticized the Kyl amendments as being "unbalanced" and "not paid for" and suggested the proposals were ill-timed. "I admire the senator's persistence," Baucus said, speaking of Kyl, "but this is not the time and this is not the place" for the tax cuts that would add to the deficit. Kyl had proposed similar amendments in the Finance Committee, but they also were rejected there. While defending his amendments, Kyl insisted his proposals have "never been a partisan issue" and that the proposals were meant to help small businesses and not large corporations.
Rangel Signals Possible Compromise
With Senate approval of a bill that includes tax incentives likely, attention has now turned to the House, where the minimum wage bill was passed without small business tax incentives. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) Jan. 30 signaled some willingness to negotiate a smaller business tax package than the $8 billion worth of breaks being considered in the Senate. Rangel said the $8 billion plan is too expensive and spends too many valuable revenue offsets. Rangel told BNA following a meeting with Baucus that the different perspectives between the chambers on whether to move tax breaks with a minimum wage increase "came up [in the meeting] all right, but I don't think we came up with how we would resolve the differences. "Rangel said he expects the Senate will hold its minimum wage bill at the desk for awhile. Baucus has said the Senate may hold the bill until a revenue measure is sent from the House to which it could be attached. "I wouldn't mind doing that, if they didn't think $8 billion was on the level," Rangel said.
By Michael R. Triplett
Discrimination
Bipartisan Genetic Bias Bill Could See Action This Year in Democratic-Controlled Congress
Legislation that would make it illegal for companies to discriminate against employees based on genetic defects or family history is likely to see quick action in Congress this year, after stalling in previous years under a Republican controlled Congress. Committee action is scheduled in the Senate Jan. 24, a House panel is expected to act on the bill in the early part of the year, and President Bush has indicated he would back legislation to bar genetic bias. The House always has been a stumbling block for the legislation, but the Senate has overwhelmingly passed genetic bias bills twice before, by a vote of 98-0 in 2005 (S. 306) (33 DLR AA-1, 2/18/05 ) and by 95-0 in 2003 (S. 1053) 199 DLR AA-1, 10/15/03 . Now that Democrats are in charge of key House committees with jurisdiction over the bill, the legislation appears to have a better chance of clearing that chamber, supporters say. President Bush also has signaled his support for a genetic anti-discrimination bill, fueling hopes that the legislation, if passed, ultimately could be signed into law. A House bill (H.R. 493), introduced Jan. 16 by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), has bipartisan support, with 151 co-sponsors--including the chairmen of the three committees that would need to act on the bill: House Education and Labor, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. The committee that will take the lead on the bill, Education and Labor, is still setting its schedule, but the Slaughter bill is likely to be considered by the panel early in the year, an aide said. "It would be early in the batting order," he said.
Senate Version Set for Markup
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is scheduled to mark up the Senate version of the legislation (S. 358) Jan. 24. "We are closer than ever to enactment. ...I think we will finally see it become law," HELP Committee Chairman Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in a floor speech Jan. 22. Kennedy is a co-sponsor of the Senate genetic nondiscrimination bill that recently was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). She said she learned of genetic discrimination in 1997 from a constituent who was fearful of having a breast cancer test because she thought the results could prevent her daughter from obtaining insurance. Slaughter spokesman John Santore told BNA Jan. 22 that the House bill has a great deal of support from Republicans, but he said "the previous Republican leadership stood in the way" of bringing the legislation to the House floor. "A new political climate, more importantly new political leadership, has given Rep. Slaughter more confidence that this time around the bill finally will pass," he said. When Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was chairman of the then-House Education and the Workforce Committee, he disapproved of the potential liabilities for employers under a version of the bill introduced in 2005 by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.). Biggert is now a co-sponsor of the Slaughter bill. Although the business community has objected to various aspects of genetic bias bills in the past, "We've never said 'no way,' in terms of legislation in this area," Michael Eastman, executive director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He said the chamber could support legislation that prohibits actual discriminatory conduct, bars genetic tests of employees, and does not allow for excessive legal damages and burdensome recordkeeping.Now that Democrats are in control, "it looks like the sun is rising" in terms of the bill's chances of final House passage, Sharon Terry, chair of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, told BNA. She said the bill is necessary to prevent employees from being fired or being denied health coverage based on a family history of illness. The coalition, which represents patient groups, said some patients have refused to participate in clinical trials out of fear that their employer could learn of the results and use it against them in the workplace.
Bush Endorses the Legislation
President Bush, in a speech at the National Institutes of Health Jan. 17, addressed the issue of medical research and discrimination. "I want to make it clear to the Congress that I hope they pass legislation that makes genetic discrimination illegal," he told NIH, according to a transcript of the speech. The president added that the administration wants "medical research to go forward without an individual fearing of personal discrimination." The White House last year issued an official policy statement in support of the Senate-passed bill (S. 306) prohibiting genetic discrimination. Under the Slaughter bill, employers would be barred from using an individual's genetic information to make hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. The bill also would apply to group health plans and health insurers, making it illegal for them to deny coverage to a healthy individual or charge higher premiums based solely on genetic predisposition to a certain disease. Workers could seek damages as provided under the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In 2001, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought charges against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co., claiming that the company violated the ADA by subjecting certain employees to genetic tests. Without admitting wrongdoing, Burlington Northern agreed to a $2.2 million settlement a year later (90 DLR A-1, 5/9/02 ). According to the bill's sponsors, African Americans also have been the target of genetic discrimination. In the 1970s, many blacks were denied jobs, educational opportunities, and insurance based on whether they were carriers for sickle cell anemia.
By Catherine Hollingsworth
