The bureau announced these figures as American labor unions came under increasing political attack. Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures in Wisconsin and elsewhere have moved to diminish public employees’ rights to collective bargaining. More recently, Indiana is moving to become the first state in over a decade to implement a “right to work” law, which bars employers and unions from entering into contracts that require workers to pay fees for union representation.

According to the BLS, unions currently represent 16.3 million workers, some 1.5 million more than the total membership, suggesting that many workers choose to refrain from joining the unions that represent them in their place of work.

The percentage of public sector workers in unions stood at 37% last year, more than five times higher than the 6.9% membership rate for private sector employees. By comparison, more than 35% of private sector workers belonged to unions in the 1950s.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that the total number of private sector employees in unions rose by 110,000 to 7.2 million, aided by a partial recovery in manufacturing and construction sectors. Yet as an increasing number of states, cities and school districts lay off workers, the number of public sector employees in unions fell 61,000, to 7.56 million.

The Labor Department reported that the highest union rates were in New York State, where 24.1% of workers are members; this is followed by Alaska (22.1%) and Hawaii (21.5%). North Carolina currently has the lowest rate at a mere 2.9%, followed by South Carolina (3.4%) and Georgia (3.9%).

If you are in need of a Washington Employment Attorney, Workers Compensation Lawyer, or need experienced counsel for any part of your L&I Claim, contact Emery Reddy for help with your case.  Our team can also provide confidential legal advice and representation to workers who have been ordered to complete an independent medical examination for a workplace injury.

In response to these workplace injuries – along with other health and safety hazards common among workers in the primary metals industry –the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) has joined in a national campaign headed by OSHA to reduce serious injuries and enhance workplace safety across the industry. L&I officials estimate that approximately seventy businesses in Washington are in the primary metals industry.

In a statement released by the head of L&I’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), L&I Assistant Director Michael Silverstein offered the following remarks:

“Men and women working in foundries and other jobs where metal is cast or refined face several significant hazards, including exposure to lead and dangerous chemicals, extreme noise and heat, as well as injuries from the machinery and materials being used. With this special emphasis, L&I hopes to reduce the risks these workers face.”

As part of this new worker safety initiative, L&I has created a web page specifically devoted to reducing workplace hazards in the metals industry; the page also provides training materials and other relevant resources. Washington workers and employers are encouraged to visit the site here: www.PrimaryMetals.Lni.wa.gov.

The new workplace safety campaign also includes a mailing of informational literature to nearly seventy businesses in Washington that fall within the primary metals category. For those interested in seeing images of two serious workplace injuries caused by to molten metal, L&I has also put together a slideshow (viewer discretion advised). Finally, Washington L&I plans to expand enforcement inspections throughout the state.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched a nationwide program to protect metal workers last year. Officials stated that due to the hazards of this workplace, workers in the metal industry have an injury and fatality rate exceeding many other industrial jobs. This trend, unfortunately, holds true in Washington State as well.

Employers and managers who oversee worker safety are encouraged to request individualized help in addressing workplace hazards by contacting an L&I Safety and Health consultant, or by calling a local L&I office.

If you have suffered a workplace injury or have an occupational illness, contact a Seattle L&I Lawyer at Emery Reddy today for help with your L&I claim.

Broadcast version of L&I’s news release:

“The Department of Labor & Industries has joined a national effort to improve safety at smelters, foundries and other metal processing facilities that make up the state’s primary metals industry. The effort involves increased inspections, more safety and health outreach into the industry, including the development of a new L&I web page, with training materials and other information. Businesses in this industry should expect to receive a postcard in the mail announcing the effort.”

2010’s rate is the lowest recorded in Washington since 2003, when the injury rate stood at 6.9. 2003 was the year when L&I adopted the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Within private industries themselves, Washington’s injury and illness rate is still above the average national rate. Injuries among Washington workers stood at 4.8 per 100 full-time employees in 2010, while the national rate was 3.5.

Nearly every major industry in Washington showed better numbers in 2010. Injury and illness rates among construction workers, for instance, fell from 8.2 per 100 in 2009 to 7.2 in 2010. Nursing and Residential Care Facilities experienced a decline of 11.4 injuries per 100 workers in 2009 to 9.4 injuries last year.

Another significant change in this latest survey was the occurrence of “serious injuries” – injuries severe enough to prevent a worker from performing their usual job duties. In 2010, half of workers who were injured or became ill were in need of time off or modified work duties during recovery. That rate represented a drop of a few percentage points from the 2009 rate.

If you have been injured at work or have developed a work-related illness and need help with your L&I Claim, contact a Washington Workers Compensation Lawyer for assistance with your case. Our attorneys also provide confidential legal advice and professional observers to accompany workers during the independent medical examination process.

The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor just issued its final ruling to implement an exclusion for recreational vessel workers under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The rule sets guidelines for what constitutes a “recreational vessel” under the exclusion.

The LHWCA provides compensation to workers (or surviving family members, in cases of death) for on-the-job injuries that occur during maritime employment on U.S. navigable waters. Before 2009, employees who performed repair or dismantling work on recreational vessels less than 65 feet long were not eligible for benefits through LHWCA if they were already covered by a state workers’ compensation program. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act extended this exclusion by removing the 65-foot restriction; following the amendment, workers who repair recreational vessels of any length, or who dismantle vessels for repair, are excluded from LHWCA coverage if they have coverage under a state workers’ compensation system.

This rule follows a number of recommendations put forward by the public during open comment sessions on the proposed rule from Aug. 17, 2010. The final rule adopts standards set by the U.S. Coast Guard to define a recreational vessel. The Labor Department has also tacked on two additional provisions to simplify the process of applying these standards in the LHWCA context:

1. A manufacturer or builder can make determinations about whether vessels are recreational under the meaning of the regulation based on that vessel’s design, rather than on its ultimate use.
2. Noncommercial vessels with a recreational “design” that are owned or chartered by federal or state governments will be defined as recreational vessels.

The rule is described in detail at the Federal Register’s website: http://federalregister.gov/a/2011-32880. Additional information is available on OWCP’s website at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lsnewregulation.htm.

The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs administers several disability benefit programs that cover longshore and harbor workers, federal government civilian contractors who work overseas, coal miners, federal employees and nuclear weapons workers. These programs provide a variety of benefits, including income replacement, medical benefits, vocational rehabilitation and survivor benefits. For more information about these programs, visit http://www.dol.gov/owcp.

If you have sustained an injury at work, we encourage you to contact a Washington Workers Compensation Attorney for help with your claim.

 What is an Independent Medical Exam?

 If you become injured or disabled at work and have an open L&I claim, the Department of Labor and Industries may require you to submit to an Independent Medical Exam. Many workers believe that the exam is impartial owing to the word “independent” in the name of this procedure. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In fact, some workers’ advocates claim that “it would be a lot more accurate to call the exam an Insurance Medical Exam because it is done by, for, and to benefit the insurance company. Unfortunately, insurance carriers are not looking for an independent evaluation.”

This is not exactly correct in all cases, but there is a certain kernel of truth to the charge. Most “Independent” Medical Exams are performed by doctors (or other medical professionals) who depend on the IME for a substantial part of their income. IME physicians understand that the Department of Labor and Industries has no overwhelming incentive to find you injured or disabled.

In any case, the general sentiment that Independent Medical Exam physicians are biased in favor of L&I is prevalent enough that many IME groups address the stereotype head-on.  One Independent Medical Exam website offers the following disclaimer that “While we can’t answer for physicians elsewhere, our physicians are all board-certified, in private practice with injured patients of their own to care for. They are not ‘paid by the State’ (or anyone else), but by us. We allow no pressure of any kind to be brought to bear on our specialists, either by referral sources, or, for that matter, by anyone else. Our physicians have no incentive to offer a biased opinion; financial or otherwise, nor will we permit any attempt to influence their best medical judgment. Their financial relationship is with us, not the referral source; they have no reason to “please” the referral as they have no financial contact with the referral source. We see our primary task as providing an influence-free environment for every evaluation.”

Furthermore the IME source claims that “Our physicians will be responding to questions provided by the referral source; however, this does not mean that the interests of the referral source will prevail or drive their conclusions in any manner. The sole purpose is to provide a current, thorough, medical evaluation of your injury or condition, without influence of any kind.”  Such defenses are commonly heard when concerns are raised about the impartiality of the Independent Medical Exam process, although such claims themselves are not usually supported with evidence that convinces critics of the IME system.

An L&I Washington Law Firm raises the following doubts about such statements of defense: “Most medical professionals who perform IME’s for insurance carriers usually do so on a regular basis either in a direct relationship with the carrier or with a third-party IME service, and this gives them a vested interest in finding disabled claimants healthy and able-bodied – they consider it job security. These medical professionals seek to tell the insurance carriers (their customers) what the insurance carriers want to hear, i.e., that the patient is medically fine and not entitled to disability benefits. They know that if they perform an independent examination and find the claimant to be disabled, it will lead to less repeat business from the insurance carrier, or carriers. In the end, the IME doctor most often chooses to keep his or her customer happy by giving them what they want – a medical report which supports denying the claim.”

What happens at an Independent Medical Evaluation?

The IME usually begins with a record review. Before patients even meet the IME doctor, Labor & Industries staff who are reviewing your L&I claim have already scrutinized your medical records, and may provide only selective records to the IME doctor for review. Records that have been taken out of context can create the appearance that your medical condition isn’t as serious as it might be, or that medical evidence is contradictory or ambiguous.  As a result, even if an IME doctor would otherwise be inclined towards impartiality, he or she is only provided with pre-screened information.

Another fairly common practice among some IME doctors is to look for “holes” in your medical record. Something as simple as an accidental omission on the part of your treating physician can result in an IME doctor deciding that your medical report does not support your disability claim.

Many patients report that even when the exam finally occurs, it can seem rather superficial. IMEs often last only a few minutes – which many find surprising given the extensiveness of an IME doctor’s report and the long list of clinical testing the doctor supposedly performed.  If you have been scheduled for an Independent Medical Exam, don’t expect a thorough exam.

Other Problems with the IME

Another problem with the system is that many IME professionals have preconceptions about certain medical conditions common among workers with disabilities and injuries. Some IME doctors entirely dismiss debilitating conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia because these illnesses are difficult to detect through CT-scans, MRIs and other diagnostic procedures. This is unsurprising when you consider that most IME doctors spend much of their time performing IMEs. Unlike primary physicians (your own doctor), who generally examine and treat patients over extended lengths of time, doctors specializing in Independent Medical Exams basically see a mere snapshot of the patient’s medical condition. This means an IME doctor can only assess the claimant’s condition for that single medical visit required by the Department of Labor and Industries.

The fact is that many occupational illnesses or medical conditions can only be diagnosed over long periods of time involving many clinical visits that track developments in a patient’s symptoms and test results. Given their highly restricted interaction with the patient (along with their general bias), it is expectable that so many IME doctors doubt the injured worker’s condition and disregard reported symptoms like headaches, dizziness, pain or numbness.

Is the Independent Medical Exam Required?
Employees with an L&I claim cannot refuse an Independent Medical Exam. If they do, it is likely that the Department of Labor and Industries will automatically reject your L&I claim or terminate your benefits. However, workers can minimize negative consequences from this procedure with the help of a knowledgeable L&I attorney. Emery Reddy counsels clients in advance of the Independent Medical Exam.  We can also send a trained professional to accompany you to your medical examination. This sends a clear message to the independent medical professional that a law firm is paying attention to their assessment.  In observing everything that happens during the IME, the professional will also report to an Emery Reddy attorney, and determine whether the IME doctor completed the clinical tests he or she claims to have performed.

When applying for benefits in an L&I claim, Independent Medical Exams can be an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. But this doesn’t mean you must become a victim. Contact Emery Reddy for a free case evaluation and assistance with your L&I claim.

This incident sheds light on what happens when mandated safety procedures are ignored and the citations reveal a larger government interest in protecting worker safety.

According to media sources, a worker was changing the blades on a saw was killed when another worker, who had disregarded government established procedure, started the saw without warning.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires a “lockout/tagout” procedure whereby workers alert each other that machines have been shut down and power sources have been locked out before maintenance can begin.

The police identified the worker as Thomas O. Pelton.

Not surprisingly, OSHA discovered many other hazardous conditions at the mill.  These violations included hazardous conditions relating to machine guarding, electrical, ladder use, and protective use hazards.  Such common overlooked hazards could lead to a number of injuries including, but not limited to, electrocution, amputation, lacerations, and even being caught in parts of a moving machine. B&B Lumber faces a total of $152,100 in proposed fines for these conditions.

B&B Lumber faces fines totaling over $150,000 due to these conditions.

Key to this incident is the Occupational and Safety and Health Act of 1970, which holds that employers are responsible for providing safe work conditions for their employees.  Workers should look to OSHA to safeguard their welfare if they feel they are laboring in an environment that disregards basic work safety procedures.

If you are a Washington or Seattle worker who suspects that they are working in an unsafe work situation, they should contact OSHA immediately with their concerns.

If you are an injured worker, you should immediately seek out medical assistance.  If you require compensation, you should contact an experienced Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer to fight for your rights.  The Washington Workers Compensation Attorneys at Emery Reddy are prepared to advise you.

Governor Rick Snyder pressed ahead in late May with his effort to trim State costs.  Among the many moves to downsize State bureaucracies and streamline government services and efficiency was the creation of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission.

According to Compnewsnetwork, “Gov. Snyder issued Executive Order 2011-6, which transfers the authorities and responsibilities of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission and the Employment Security Board of Review to the new Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission.”

“With this reorganization, Michigan becomes a model of efficiency for appellate decisions in these two case areas,” Snyder said. “It provides greater flexibility in addressing fluctuating caseload levels and variations.”

The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission will now consider appeals of decisions issued by magistrates and administrative law examiners, specifically in the realm of unemployment and workers’ compensation claims.

The most important, and perhaps most troubling, part of the creation of this new Commission, is that it takes on the workload that was previously performed by two separate Commissions: The Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission and the Employment Security Board of Review. Although our economy is slowly recovering, what is striking about this consolidation of Commissions is that it does not seem to acknowledge the massive increase in unemployment and workers’ compensation claims the recession has engendered.

Further, while the Executive Order issued by the Governor requires that the new appellate commissioners be evaluated under defined standards to ensure that appeals are handled in a timely, knowledgeable and appropriate manner, the Order also requires that the commissioners adhere to productivity and timeliness standards.  In short, the effort here is to move claims and reviews through the Commission quickly, and as such, the important scrutiny that each individual injured worker’s claim should receive might be compromised.

Every experienced Washington workers compensation attorney is watching these developments across the country to ensure that injured workers in this state will continue to receive all the protections afforded to them by constantly evolving Labor & Industries law. Injured workers should first seek medical attention, then seek out the advice of an experienced L & I attorney at Emery Reddy as they pursue their claim.

The recent forced closure of a North Carolina bus company with an extensive history of safety violations has brought greater scrutiny to how professional drivers are treated by the agencies that employ them.  Although the driver involved in the latest deadly accident was cited for reckless driving, there is some evidence that Sky Express, the company that employed the driver, had a history forcing possibly fatigued drivers to work multiple shifts with inadequate rest.

What this incident highlights is that bus, taxi, and limousine drivers as well as other “for-hire” vehicle drivers are not merely unskilled workers, but professionals who literally hold the lives of their passengers in their hands, and that their ability to do so is directly linked to the kinds of workplace protections they may receive.  As such, there have been recent pushes by Labor advocates and Labor & Industries experts to expand access to health care and workers’ compensation benefits for these workers.

In February, Seattlepi.com reported that a Senate Bill requiring drivers to be covered by workers’ compensation benefits stalled in the legislature.  Scott Gutierrez reports, “Senate Bill 5785, one of two bills on the topic, would define taxis, limousines and other for-hire vehicles as ‘urban transportation businesses’ and require their owners to pay industrial insurance premiums.  The goal is to ensure that drivers are covered for work-related injuries beyond what’s covered by auto insurance, which is mandatory in the taxi business.”

The Bill’s sponsor, Senator Adam Kline, D-Seattle, is quoted as arguing “They get robbed and beat up, and because they spend so much time on the road, they’re exposed to more collisions.  That’s an occupational hazard.”

There has also been confusion over who is liable when a taxi or town car driver is injured in the workplace.  Gutierrez notes, “In the past, health care providers mistakenly filed medical claims with L&I involving cab drivers who said they were injured on the job, even though no one was paying into the system for them.  Then, L&I had to sort out whether the driver was an employee and who was responsible for the premiums.”  In fact, there was even a “recent lawsuit in Tacoma between L&I and a taxi association over a $400,000 medical claim involving a driver who was shot during a robbery.”

The Tacoma driver is only one of many Washington State drivers who have been the victim of violence in recent years.  Drivers are put in very vulnerable positions in relation to their passengers and often have little recourse when they are attacked, robbed, or even killed.  These statistics reveal that creating access to benefits could increase safety for passengers and drivers alike

The Department of Labor and Industries is well aware of these dangers and now seems prepared to help the legislature close this important gap in coverage for this very vulnerable class of workers.  The Preproposal Statement of Inquiry filed by L&I this week will seek advice from both employers and individuals from the for-hire vehicle industry as they move this initiative forward.

Workers injured on the job should first seek medical help, but then consult with an expert Washington workers compensation lawyer about their claim.  The expert workers’ compensation attorneys at Emery Reddy are standing by to assist injured workers with their claims.

After all the debate and maneuvering on reform over the last months, the issue has boiled down to one very contentious proposal: giving workers the option of settling their workers’ compensation claims with a lump-sum payment rather than negotiating a lifetime disability pension.

Like many other states dealing with massive budget shortfalls as the economy slowly recovers, Washington State lawmakers are focused on slashing programs and reforming services that are seen as bleeding money.  As we have reported here, Workers’ Compensation emerged as a flash point in the budget debate when it was reported by several media sources and government agencies that about 85 percent of all workers’ comp costs came from just 8 percent of all claims.  These claims involved injured workers who received long term benefits or were awarded lifetime pensions.  While these sorts of settlements are often necessary to meet the long term needs of injured workers, the oft quoted “85 percent” figure has become the clarion call for groups aligned with big business against labor rights.  Speaker Frank Chopp is the most vocal opponent to the lump sum settlement option.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board has come out strongly against efforts by Chopp to stall the budget in order to protect labor rights.  They cast the fact that Washington has no settlement option for workers as limiting to all parties involved: injured workers, employers, attorneys, and the Labor & Industries system.  They argue, “Now the workers’ comp system gives them a pension and tells them they are done working for life.  The new idea is to allow them to take a lump sum and find different work.”  They note further, “Now the system pensions them.  It has been handing out more than 1,000 new lifetime pensions a year, a practice that has been become expensive…for labor, too, because a payroll tax is a tax on the creation of jobs.”

This formulation of the workers’ comp fix directly echoes arguments made by Republicans and the Association of Washington Business that offering lump sum settlements is an obvious, simple fix for the Labor & Industries system.

However, Labor Rights activists note that the devil is very much in the details.  As we have noted here in this blog, “Buried in the back of the bill is a section that may limit the ability for workers to be compensated for separate and totally unrelated injuries, merely because they were unfortunate enough to have been injured multiple times.”  Further, many groups aligned with Labor point out that the temptation to accept a lump sum can be overwhelming a worker who is injured and anxious about his or her future. The Seattle Times quotes David Groves of the Washington State Labor Council when he points out “People who are in desperate circumstances are going to be pressured to take buyouts that re against their best interests.”

In a letter posted to the Times on May 11, Kelly McQuade makes perhaps the most telling point about the lump sum option for injured workers.  She notes, “Where is that person going to turn when the lump sum is gone?  Other state-funded services (if they even exist in the future) will pick up the slack.  This is a Band-Aide that will hurt Washington labor for years to come and cost more in the long run.”

Governor Chris Gregoire has indicated that forcing the Legislature into special session over this matter would be unacceptable.  As she works behind the scenes to come to a compromise, we will keep you updated on how this crucial issue plays out.  As this crisis makes clear, injured workers should seek the advice of a Seattle Labor & Industries Attorney who is an expert at navigating the rapidly shifting landscape of Washington Labor & Industries Law.  Visit us soon here for major updates…

In an October 21 press release, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an encouraging decline in workplace injuries and illnesses. Across much of the U.S., workers compensation claims are down in many industries, particularly construction. Among private employers, nonfatal accidents declined to a rate of 3.6 cases for every 100 full-time workers in 2009, down from 3.9 per 100 in 2008. BLS also announced a drop in the total number of cases in the U.S., which declined from 3.7 million in 2008 to 3.3 million in 2009.

“While the reported decline in workplace injuries and illnesses is encouraging, 3.3 million workplace injuries and illnesses are 3.3 million too many,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “No worker should fear being injured or made sick for a paycheck.”

Solis emphasized the importance of thorough and accurate reporting in the case of workplace injuries. Solid record-keeping for workers compensation claims, she stated, can “serve as the basis for employer programs to investigate injuries and prevent future occurrences.” The Labor Secretary indicated that most employers recognize this obligation and do their best to correct conditions in which worker injuries occur, but pointed out that too many still do not. “That is why my department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is aggressively working to ensure the completeness and accuracy of injury data compiled by the nation’s employers. We are concerned about the widespread existence of programs that discourage workers from reporting injuries, and we will continue to issue citations and penalties to employers that intentionally under-report workplace injuries.”

Solis concluded the press release by reiterating the importance of adherence to workers’ compensation guidelines and regulations that prevent workplace injury. “Too many Americans suffer each year from preventable injuries or illnesses they received while on the job. Even in these difficult economic times, we must keep in mind that no job is a good job unless it’s a safe job.”