Proposed Safeguards Against TB Dropped
OSHA Says Disease Is Under Control

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 29, 2003; Page A03

The Bush administration has dropped a plan to require hospitals and other facilities to protect their workers against tuberculosis, saying the measure is no longer necessary because the disease is under control.

The move drew harsh criticism yesterday from supporters of the regulations, who said the measure would have ensured that TB remains under control while also helping protect against other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had proposed a number of requirements aimed at protecting workers in hospitals, prisons and other high-risk facilities from TB, such as setting standards for protective respirators, training and specially ventilated rooms for isolating infectious patients.

But OSHA on Tuesday announced in the Federal Register that the proposal will be dropped from the agency's agenda in the fall.

An OSHA spokeswoman said yesterday that the agency decided to drop the proposal because the resurgence of TB that had prompted it has subsided. In addition, the spokeswoman said, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has guidelines in place that are sufficient.

"The need for a specific OSHA standard has significantly diminished," the spokeswoman said. "The agency doesn't think a standard is the answer today as it might have been when it was proposed 10 years ago."

The American Hospital Association, which has long opposed the measure as unnecessary and costly, agreed. "There are many other regulations and initiatives that are in place that are quite effective. We just felt like it wasn't necessary," said Judene Bartley, a consulting epidemiologist for the association.

But critics said that the CDC guidelines are not mandatory and that there is a history in the United States of becoming lax about infectious diseases once an immediate threat appears to have diminished.

"I think it's a poor decision," said Rosemary Sokas, who chairs the American Public Health Association's occupational health section. "The CDC guidelines are voluntary. They are not regulations. The high-performing organizations follow them. But not everybody does because they are not required."

Many hospitals are under increasing pressure to cut costs, and infection control could easily suffer, Sokas said.

"It's really very clear that people don't automatically do the right thing. The good ones do. But that's not universally true across all hospitals," said Sokas, director of the division of environmental and occupational health sciences at the School of Public Health of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The precautions that would have been required by the regulations would also have prevented the transmission of SARS, Sokas said.

"The United States has done extremely well so far. But some of that may be luck. I don't think it's a reason to sit back and put our feet up," she said.

The move was also criticized by labor unions, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and by the American Nurses Association.

"This is a tremendous hit to workers all around the health care industry," said Butch de Castro, senior staff specialist for the association. "The CDC guidelines are not enforceable. There's a potential for decreased vigilance, which is what we've seen historically. A standard would ensure vigilance and compliance."

De Castro noted that many of the victims of SARS have been health care workers.

"I think considering the potential for droplet airborne transmission of an infectious agent like SARS, if we had a TB standard out there, that might help considerably in protectin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A50884-2003May28¬Found=trueg health care workers," he said.

Here is maybe one reason why the IAFF has good reason not to endorse Bush.


"President Bush said Aug. 13 he will not release the $5.1 billion Congress approved for supplemental homeland security programs. Those funds include $90 million to monitor the health of workers who cleaned up the rubble at Ground Zero, as well as $150 million for equipment and training grants requested by some of the nation?s 18,000 fire departments and $100 million to improve the communications systems for firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel.

Bush?s action prompted the Fire Fighters to launch a campaign to lobby Congress to include the money in the spending bills for the federal fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. IAFF President Harold Schaitberger also said he planned to write a letter of protest to Bush. Despite some reports, Schaitberger said the Fire Fighters will not boycott an Oct. 6 ceremony in Washington, D.C., where 343 firefighters who died responding to the Sept. 11 attacks will be honored along with 100 other firefighters who also died in the past year.

Included in the $5.1 billion homeland security spending measure is money to improve the communications systems of firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel. The Sept. 11 rescue efforts were hindered by communications problems when the various agencies? radios and other devices could not communicate with one another. Other items that Bush?s veto will kill include funds to increase and improve inspections of cargo containers at the nation?s ports, enhance the FBI?s counterterrorism technology and strengthen security around the nation's food and water supply."

The problem with that letter against Bush concerning the Iraq war, was that this wasn't a clear-cut labor issue. I was also dismayed at the letter, and voiced my reasons. When the public is split in their opinion, of course you would have that in your own labor group too. This was a very emotional time, centered around patriotism due to the grave attack on our soil.

250's answer to this was the lack of sufficient proof to initiate a war, and the enormous amount of money that would be spent when our own country has so many crisis. Also, of course, the loss of life that would occur in what was seen as another Vietnam war on the horizon. I've never been able to form a strong opinion on this, seeing both sides, and certainly not privy to info other than the media. In any event, I still think the letter caused a lot of fall-out, and was part of what led eventually to the de-cert.

If it was just a matter of OT pay and workers v/s owners rights then our vote would be easy.  Unfortunatly our elected president represents our views on a huge number of issues both domestically and in regards to foreign policy.  I like the views shared by Micp879.  On a side note you say you are independant, are you a civil liberatarian?  I dont mean that is a derrogatory way, Im just trying to understand where you are coming from here.  Micp879 understands why a union would support a candidate based on the few issues that concern it.  They also understand that they are free to choose whichever candidate represents them the most completely as a person.  Neither candidate represents me on a majority of social and political issues and yet I am restricted to voting for one of them.  Its a very sad and strange system we have had set up for us.  I hope more people will post their thoughts and ideas on this thread.  The free sharing of ideas will only help people to make an informed decision and Im glad that so far there has not been any insulting on this thread.  If any other Bush supporters would like to share their views here feel free.  And if Micp879 wouldnt mind sharing some of the reasons they support Bush over Kerry I would like to here them.  There are many free thinking and intelligent people on this forum and I think we should be able to share differing view points without resorting to childish name calling.  The next 4 weeks will shape our future for at least the next 4 years.  So lets talk about the issues that affect us.

I never said I was voting for Bush.  Actually if you take the time to read ALL of the posts you would see that I am voting for Kerry.  The only problem is that he doesnt understand or support us working people either.  He may be behind us getting OT pay and I admit that is better for working people than not having Ot pay but I dont see him going out of his way to share his fortune equally with these working class folks he supposedly supports.  He supports our effort to work hard and make a living while also making him millions.  The intent of my post was to show that there are more issues that go into voting for a president than your paycheck.  Although being a worker my paycheck is a very large issue for me.  If you cant pay for a roof and some food its hard to really care about any other issues.  Our financial success allows us the luxury to care about other issues.  And I will repeat.  It doesnt matter which candidate wins,  we still lose.

I guess I shouldnt say "I would vote Bush" as much as I should say "I would vote conservative."  I guess the two biggest reasons I would vote this way are a) family values and b) being aggressive with the war on terror. 

     I will  be honest with you all; I feel this world is going to h*ll in handbasket.  The morals for many people in this country are in the toilet.  With all the real issues facing our country today, we have some liberals who choose to screw up the court system with frivolous cases trying to get "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance, and "the Ten Commandments" off of walls of public places. I like having a God-fearing president in office that isnt afraid to state views that buck the trend of the liberal world around us.

     Im also concerned what the war on terror would be like with Kerry in office.  Im afraid he would more so take a "wait and see" approach and play the diplomatic game.  I think alliances with our allies is a good thing, but I think sitting on our hands and asking permission from them on everything has the potential to have deadly consequences.  We are enemy number one to the terrorists, not our allies.  I think if Clinton wouldve been more aggressive going after Bin Laden when he was first rearing his ugly head with the tamer terrorist attacks, I think 9/11 couldve been avoided or at least lessened a little bit.  I dont think Bush is perfect either in regards to how some things have been handled, but at least he is being proactive in going after people and getting things done.  I, like many others, have some questions about Iraq.  But to think that Saddam was innocent of these accusations is foolish.  A man who gasses some of his people doesnt suddenly gain a conscience and get rid of his supplies.  I think the world is a better place with him behind bars.  That being said, I wouldnt have minded seeing these resources instead being sent to Afghanistan (sp?) to put the pressure on finding Bin Laden. 

     I have some serious concerns about some of Bush's policies such as this whole OT thing, as well as that stupid idea to convert airport security back to the private sector.  I think both of those are moronic and dont represent what is truly best for our country.  It has "big business" written all over it.  And that is one of the reasons I refuse to classify myself as a Republican.  If there was a 3rd candidate with a legitimate chance at winning that held the conservative views and morals, yet didnt let businesses dictate some of his decisions, I would probably vote in that direction.  But when it comes to Bush Vs Kerry, Id rather take my chances with the person big on family values and that has an aggressive view of the war on terror.  Thats my personal opinion, and I hope I dont get ridiculed for that. I may not have "politically correct views" but this is how I feel.

Public Opinion will never fix morality.  Morality has been on a downward slide for several years, and the publics increasing tolerance for the garbage out there has done nothing but contribute to this countrys problems.  Unfortunately the country's (and worlds) ethics arent going to get better, only worse.  I just like a President who has conservative ethical views that may at least give me hope that this country's tailspin may at least slow down while he is in office.  "Feeding" the likes of Saddam and Bin Laden wont accomplish anything.  Im more that willing to take my chances "financially" if that is the trade off I must take to keep a conservative in office.

-- Edited by micp879 at 22:58, 2004-10-12