DIRECTIONS from I-405 (click here for a map):  SOUTHBOUND: Exit I-405 at NE 8th St. eastbound. Merge to the left lane and turn left (north) at the first stoplight onto 116th Ave. NE. Turn left into the hospital campus. NORTHBOUND: Exit I-405 at NE 4th St. Turn right on NE 4th St. and turn left on 116th Ave NE. Turn left into the hospital campus.

The Women's Committee of the Washington State Labor Council is sponsoring a two-day, two-track Spring Conference on "Domestic Violence: The Union Role and Responsibility" on Friday and Saturday, May 17-18 at the IAM District 751 Hall, 9125 15th Pl. in South Seattle. 

The featured presenter both days will be Cathy Collette, Director of Women’s and Community Affairs for AFSCME International Union. The conference will be from 1 to 4 p.m. on Friday and from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturday. The cost which includes materials is $15 for Friday and $25 for Saturday, which also includes lunch.

U.S. Sens. John Breaux (D-La.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation April 17 that would require the Bush administration to issue a protective ergonomics standard within two years. The legislation is a response to the Bush administration’s attacks on worker safety protections that began with the March 2001 killing of the ergonomics standard. The bill includes provisions that make clear the standard must be protective and based upon effective employer practices that reduce injuries and control hazards.

Every day, 5,000 workers in this country suffer work-related musculoskeletal injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome and back injuries, that could have been prevented.  Every year, tens of billions of dollars are wasted in sick leave, disability and health care costs because employers are not required by law to prevent these injuries. 

A proposal announced April 5 by the Bush administration would not improve the situation. The new “plan” does not outline an enforceable ergonomics standard—only a stated intention to eventually develop voluntary guidelines for selected industries. None of those industries have been identified. Its enforcement “component” also fails to identify industries targeted for inspection. Not even the highest-risk industries with known problems were identified. Instead of fixing dangerous workplace hazards, the plan relies on voluntary assistance and passive outreach tools, such as new websites, leaving workers unprotected from this job safety problem.

Exactly how the Labor Department would implement even its limited plan is a mystery. Bush has proposed cutting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s enforcement and training budget by more than $10 million and the job safety research funding by $20 million.

“The AFL-CIO and its unions have fought for more than a decade to protect workers from crippling injuries and we will continue that fight. We call on Congress to swiftly pass the Breaux-Specter bill so that American workers can finally have the protection that they deserve,” said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Also today, see "Workers in danger," the excellent editorial in today's Boston Globe.

Following is an example of the excellent journalism you can expect if you pay to subscribe to The Wall Street Journal Online!  Subscribe today and you'll get the low, low rate of $59 per year, plus THE FIRST TWO WEEKS ARE FREE!

By JOHN HARWOOD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Sept. 11 made the fight against international terrorism the defining mission of George W. Bush's presidency. But his domestic legacy may hinge on making Republicans face their fears about revamping Social Security.

Tuesday, House GOP leaders were briefed on new polls and focus groups designed to prepare them for election-year attacks on Social Security. Among the conclusions: The GOP majority can survive a Democratic offensive by shunning the word "privatization," promising not to raise the retirement age and pledging not to touch the benefits of current and soon-to-be retirees.

Yet many Republicans lawmakers remain shell-shocked from past combat. "They don't want to work it, they don't want to learn it," complains Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, one of the few congressional Republicans who is eager to do battle on the issue.

That "lack of discipline," adds GOP media consultant John Brabender, threatens the party's effort to craft a strong unified message in a midterm campaign that is likely to turn largely on older voters. More than that, Republican nervousness threatens a central domestic-policy goal of Mr. Bush's administration.

President Bush's willingness to let people use part of what they pay in Social Security taxes to establish personal accounts was a hallmark of his 2000 campaign, and a leading element of his indictment of failed Democratic leadership. After months in which the antiterror war has crowded out discussion of a Social Security overhaul, the president now faces an uphill fight to persuade his party to place it back at the center of the GOP agenda.

White House strategists initially sought to place Social Security front and center after passage of last year's tax cut and the conclusions of a commission the president charged with developing a plan. Under that original timetable, Congress was to spend the 2002 election year debating the issue.

But to the relief of congressional Republicans, the panel decided after Sept. 11 to eschew recommending a single plan for discussion on Capitol Hill. As a result, the White House acknowledges that action will have to wait at least until after the 2002 elections -- and perhaps even until Mr. Bush takes the issue to voters again in his 2004 re-election campaign.

It isn't hard to understand why GOP politicians remain gun-shy. Twenty years ago, House Republicans were hammered with the loss of 26 seats -- partly because of an economic recession, but also because of Democratic attacks over a short-lived Reagan administration proposal on curbing Social Security benefits.

In the 1986 midterm elections, Senate Republicans lost their majority after pushing through a plan to limit Social Security cost-of-living increases. One of Bill Clinton's principal weapons in beating back the Republican Revolution and winning a second term in 1996 was attacking GOP proposals to curb spending on Medicare.

But President Bush's political team insists that the 2000 campaign paved the way for Republicans to seize the high ground on the issue. As the GOP presidential nominee, Mr. Bush capitalized on the spreading popularity of stock-market investments by embracing a transition to private Social Security accounts financed with part of the existing payroll tax. He refused to offer specifics in order to limit potential attacks from Democratic rival Al Gore.

Mr. Gore and fellow Democrats attacked him anyway, claiming he was threatening the benefits of the Depression-era program. But Mr. Bush nonetheless was able to carry retiree-laden Florida and running just four percentage points behind Mr. Gore among voters age 60 and older nationally.

Implementing an overhaul would be hard to pull off under any circumstances. Analysts of all stripes agree that financing a transition to private accounts would require either benefit cuts or the commitment of substantial resources to make up initial revenue shortfalls. That is the basis of Democratic claims that beneficiaries or taxpayers -- or both -- would suffer.

Advocates of private Social Security accounts since have suffered several potential setbacks. One is the end of the 1990s economic boom and an accompanying decline in stock-market returns, damaging public confidence about relying on investments rather than government benefits to provide retirement security. Another is the continuing scandal at Enron Corp., many of whose employees saw their 401(k) plans decimated by the decline in the company's share price. A third is the disappearance of the federal budget surplus, opening the door to Democrats' charges that Republicans are spending Social Security funds on other programs.

The House Democrats' campaign committee says its recent survey of battleground congressional districts shows that voters age 65 or older favor Democratic candidates by 10 percentage points, largely on the strength of the Social Security issue.

Nonetheless, a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows the narrowest Democratic advantage on the issue in four years. Just 30% of Americans believe Democrats would handle the issue better, while 21% prefer Republicans and 31% say both parties would be about the same on the issue. Given the rising interest among younger voters in private accounts, White House strategist Karl Rove says Social Security can be a "net winner" for Republicans in 2002.

"That issue is changing in a profound and momentous way," adds Bush pollster Fred Steeper. He acknowledges that Republican candidates still have "challenging questions" about how to cope with the issue, "but they all have good answers."

Finding those answers was the purpose behind what House Republicans bill as the most ambitious political-research project the GOP has ever undertaken on Social Security. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars," one senior House strategist said, on polls and focus groups conducted by Mr. Steeper and another pollster to test public sentiment on Social Security and potential responses to Democrats' attacks. White House strategists believe these findings are calming the jitters of House GOP campaign chief Tom Davis, who for months has cited Republicans' bitter experience in being "chopped to pieces" on Social Security.

That doesn't mean GOP lawmakers are enthusiastic about addressing the issue. For one thing, it is much easier for Republican candidates to debate it during a presidential election year, when senior citizens make up a smaller proportion of the electorate. While voters age 60 or older represented 22% of the 2000 turnout, that proportion could swell to 30% or more this November, since older people tend to be the most dedicated voters.

"The Republicans in the House are running away from this as fast as they can," grouses House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. Looking for a weapon that he hopes will help his party recapture the House, the Missouri Democrat is backing a so-called discharge petition that would force a partial-privatization plan onto the House floor for debate. But he says House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois vowed to resist consideration of the matter during a meeting between President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties last week.

"I don't think there's a consensus on how to deal with this issue," says Mr. Brabender, the GOP ad maker.

Mr. Santorum, a longtime proponent of Social Security overhaul, survived attacks on the issue during both his 1994 and 2000 Senate races. He says Congress needs to enact an overhaul plan by the summer of 2003 or risk losing the chance to achieve "the most important" single piece of Mr. Bush's domestic agenda.

"It won't happen unless the president ... says, 'Here I go, I'm charging,' " Sen. Santorum says. As for the hesitance of fellow Republicans, he adds, "The decision will be made for them. That's the beauty of leadership."