Since we’re giving the Associated Builders and Contractors accolades today, we also note ABC’s excellent statement on OSHA’s plans to add reporting requirements for musculoskeletal definitions just posted online. From “ABC Urges OSHA to Abandon Proposed Musculoskeletal Reporting Rule“:

ABC March 30 objected to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed rule that would revise the OSHA Form 300 to include an additional reporting column for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The proposed rule would amend OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation, although OSHA claims it would not require employers to implement any new controls in the workplace.

In its comments, ABC expressed concern over the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) largely due to the vague and subjective definition of what would constitute an MSD. The NPRM defines MSDs as “disorders for the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs, except those caused by slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents, or other similar accidents.” ABC pointed out that the definition groups together a variety of disorders and symptoms that are not necessarily related. In addition, ABC noted that even the scientific community has been unable to settle on a reliable definition or cause of most MSDs, making OSHA’s definition seem even more arbitrary.

“In light of the inability to define, diagnose or determine the cause of MSDs with any degree of precision, the logical conclusion, mandated by the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Act criteria, is that OSHA must acknowledge the limitations it faces in drafting a workable MSD provision and ultimately abandon the NPRM,” ABC stated in its comments.

The Labor Policy Institute, an initiative of the National Association of Manufacturers, has a fact sheet on OSHA’s proposed MSD recordkeeping, which the NAM also sees as a precursor to a broad, new and troubling ergonomics standard.

The issue arose several times in an online chat that OSHA officials held Wednesday on the Department of Labor’s strategic plan. A transcript of the chat is here.

Blogospherical greetings and best of luck to the Free Enterprise Alliance, dedicated to defending free enterprise with special energy applied to “Halt the Assault” against small business. The group launched this week launched its Halt the Assault website, http://www.halttheassault.com, which looks to make its case aggressively.

From the “about us” message:

The Free Enterprise Alliance is leading the campaign to Halt the Assault on America’s free enterprise system. The Free Enterprise Alliance is the action arm for small businesses, entrepreneurs, and other advocates of limited government, open and fair (and intense) competition, and the economically sound principles upon which America was built.

At the heart of the Free Enterprise Alliance’s mission is the belief that while we need government for common sense regulations, the scales have tipped too far in favor of government intrusion and its advocates. The Free Enterprise Alliance believes small business and entrepreneurs grow jobs and our economy, not union bosses and federal bureaucrats.

The Free Enterprise Alliance was originally founded by the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. to advocate for the voice of small business as well as open and fair competition. Since its inception, it has fought for these goals through research, outreach, and national TV, radio, and billboard campaigns.

The builders and contractors, known around town as ABC, comprise a refreshingly no-nonsense group of men and women who are especially active on labor issues.

Good luck!

From The Wall Street Journal, an editorial, “Procuring the Union Agenda“:

In a novel variation on pay to play, the Obama Administration is planning to force companies to raise pay and benefits for workers if they want continued access to federal contracts. Waiting to cash in on the impending Executive Order are unions that would end up with a piece of the government’s $500 billion in annual contracts.

The government can’t steer contracts directly to the unions. But it can use its authority over how taxpayer money is spent to favor unions and their agenda. This is good news for Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union. But not so good for job creation.

The proposed Executive Order is being drawn up by Joe Biden’s Middle Class Task Force. It would oblige government procurement agencies to give contracts to “responsible contractors” who pay workers well and offer higher health, pension, sick leave and other benefits.

The Journal argues that this scheme, enforced by “labor commissars” at each federal agency, would especially disadvantage small businesses unable to offer the full range of benefits larger companies can achieve.

Associated Builders and Contractors, representing companies painfully familiar with Davis-Bacon and project labor agreements, issued a news release last week in response to reports about the “high road contracting policy.” In it, ABC’s Geoff Burr, vice president of federal affairs, said:

The provisions outlined in media reports – as well as in documents from the Center for American Progress, big labor and other special interest groups promoting this policy – fly in the face of free and open competition.

Large and small nonunion construction contractors and their skilled employees – which make up more than 85 percent of the U.S. construction workforce – are the backbone of America’s construction industry. These hardworking men and women have a decades-long track record of meeting and exceeding existing government-determined wage and benefit laws, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, and contracting standards in the best-value evaluation process unique to the federal government’s procurement of construction services.

The proposal is baffling given the Administration’s stated emphasis on jobs creation. As Burr notes, the U.S. construction industry already suffers from an unemployment rate of 24.7 percent. Why would you increase costs on this important sector of the economy?

From the Truth About PLAs blog, notice of a news conference held by Pennsylvania legislators and the Keystone chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors about new legislation prohibiting project labor agreements (PLAs) on public construction in Pennsylvania.

The follow-up blog post notes that local union workers were paid to disrupt the news conference. Included is a report from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Foundation:

[When] Rep. Bear got up to speak he was catcalled and booed by the mob of union members. His message was drowned out; in typical fashion organized labor used tactics of intimidation to silence the voice of opposition. What’s worse is that we overheard union members mentioning that they were being paid $26 an hour to protest. In contrast, most of Rep. Bear’s supporters were contractors who took time off of work to stand on principle. And yet the union members had the nerve to persistently ridicule supporters as clueless businessmen in suits bought off by special interests.

So organized labor, which pays members to disrupt public events, claims employees shouldn’t fear intimidation if the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates secret ballot elections?* Well, disruption speaks louder than words.

* Various “compromises” touted by Senate supporters of the Employee Free Choice Act have supposedly dropped the card check provisions. But at this point, all we hear are rumors of spin of Senator Specter portents.

NAM President John Engler, “NAM Says Introduction of Card Check Will Distract Congress from Focus on the Economy.”

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (to which the NAM belongs), “Anti-Worker Card Check Bill Finally Introduced with Wavering Support.”

Associated Builders and Contractors, “ABC Opposes So-Called Employee Free Choice Act”

National Retail Federation, “NRF Strongly Opposes Introduction of Anti-Worker Union ‘Card-Check’ Legislation”

UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): The Senate bill is S.560. The House bill is H.R. 1409.

The NAM is a member of the Human Resource Initiative for a Legal Workforce, which last week joined with the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. in filing an amicus brief in a legal effort to overturn an Oklahoma statute requiring employers to use the federal employment verification system known as “E-Verify.”

The HR Initiative filed its amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in support of a suit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. From the news release:

“A patchwork of state and local laws mandating participation in the flawed E-Verify system is not in the national interest, yet that is just what is happening today,” said Mike Aitken, Director of Governmental Affairs, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). “Ten states presently require the use of E-Verify for some or all employers, yet the requirements are not consistent, creating an increasingly difficult environment for multi-state employers.”

The amicus brief is available here. For more on E-Verify see the NAM’s toolkit here, and the contractors webpage here.