Less Spocky, more Rocky?

That's New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's prescription for rehabilitating the Obama presidency. Dowd writes that it's time for more Stallone and less of the Vulcan treatment. Vulcans, like Mr. Spock, are cool and show no emotion. Stallone's Rocky is a passionate fighter, of course.

For months I've been writing critical pieces about the administration's handling of the healthcare debate. I've never understood the hands-off strategy chosen by Obama on the stimulus package and healthcare, essentially turning over the reins of leadership to Congress to come up with spending and policy packages.

It's been more than disappointing to see the administration's popularity in free fall. I still find that a lot of California coastal liberals are in major denial about what has occurred. Many were still basking in the afterglow of the November 09 election, humming kumbaya and sneering at the antics of the Palin and the talk radio crowd.

Get over it, folks. The electorate is not happy about how things are being handled. The tea party folks (by the way, I got a robo-call yesterday from one of the tea party groups) and the gun toters at rallies may be crazies, but independents have turned hard on this administration. Immigration reform and cap and trade are pretty much DOA if healthcare reform stalls altogether.

The folks at HuffPo and Firedoglake may be unhappy, but a convincing sales case has not been made for the "public option". Indeed, Obama never really even tried that hard to sell the public option. Giving a fiery speech to unionists at a Cincinnati rally won't do the trick.

Wednesday night's presidential address will be critical to the healthcare debate, and to the political direction of the country. So will the President be "more Spocky", or "more Rocky"?

I'll be looking to see whether he really makes the case, and how he bridges the policy divide that separates his own constituency.

Here are some of the better articles I've seen recently on the healthcare debate:
Ezra Klein's Washington Post piece on wny seniors oppose reform:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Michael Gerson's Washington Post piece on Obama's dilemma (note:
this isn't my Boxer & Gerson partner Michael Gerson, but rather the Washington, D.C based political consultant):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 98217.html

David Goldhill's piece in The Atlantic, "How American Health Care Killed My Father":
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Despite Fears, Healthcare Overhaul is Moving Ahead":
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/healt ... ss.html?hp

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

A bill to extend the right to predesignate a physician is headed to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk.

The bill SB 186, carried by State Senator Mark DeSaulnier, would extend the right to predesignate, which otherwise sunsets at the end of 2009.
A copy of the bill can be seen here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... rolled.pdf

Among the many losses incurred by working people in the 2004 California workers' comp reforms was the eventual loss of the right to predesignate.

Predesignation has been very popular with many union members.

Workers whose employer adopted an MPN (medical provider network) no longer have "free choice" to pick their own doctor. The MPN regulations do contain many specific requirements which, if not observed, may allow workers to circumvent the MPN.

But workers who have a valid predesignation on file are not subject to the MPNs in the event of an injury.

Unless there is a compromise that trades signature on this bill for something else Schwarzenegger wants, it's unlikely that this bill will be signed.

Workers who meet the criteria (i.e. the employer must offer group health coverage) still have several months to predesignate.
A predesignation form can be found here:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/forms/dwcform_9783.pdf

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

It's Labor Day weekend, a time for honoring workers.

What better way for Gov. Schwarzenegger to honor workers this Labor Day than by signing "Taneka's Law", AB 1093?

Taneka Talley was a 26 year old mom of an 8 year old boy when she was stabbed to death in 2006 at her workplace, the Dollar Tree store in Fairfield.

Dollar Tree's insurer denied the claim, taking the position that because the assailant intended to kill a black person that day, there was a personal connection between Ms. Talley and the aggressor. The case, handled by my colleague Moira Stagliano of Boxer & Gerson, eventually settled. But the denial of the claim had received widespread attention and generated national public outrage.

AB 1093, sponsored by Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada of Davis, clarifies that a workers' comp claim cannot be denied to an employee-victim based solely on a personal characteristic of the victim and a third party's hatred of that characteristic, such as race, religion or gender.

AB 1093 passed the Assembly on a unanimous 77-0 vote. In the California Senate, the vote was 29-4, with only senators Aanestad, Ashburn, Dutton and Hollingsworth voting against Taneka's Law.

The Governor has until early October to act on AB 1093. But it would be refreshing to see him sign the bill soon, taking a stand against discrimination at the workplace.

There appears to be little significant opposition to the bill. A veto by the Governor would send a lousy message to an emerging California public which seeks to be free of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, national origin and sexual preference.

Governor, it's time to get on board on this one!

Here is the text of AB 1093:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... rolled.pdf

The Assembly analysis of the bill can be found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil ... floor.html

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com

Today the WCAB issued revised en banc decisions in the Almaraz/Guzman cases and in Ogilvie.

In a nutshell, the WCAB has substantially trimmed its prior expansive opinion in Almaraz/Guzman. Doctors will now not be free to go beyond the AMA guides. But they will be able to analogize and use various parts of the guides.

It appears that in Ogilvie the WCAB largely retained its prior analysis. The schedule is still rebuttable, but there are limitations on how that can be done. As before, Commissioner Caplane dissented.

I'll be doing more detailed analysis in the coming days. Meanwhile, here is a link so you can download the decisions yourself:

Almaraz/Guzman:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisi ... ep2009.pdf

Ogilvie:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/wcab/EnBancdecisi ... ep2009.pdf

As with prior decisions, there is always a note of caution. These decisions have such wide import that it's almost certain there will be appeals filed.


Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.comn

An important new UCLA study presented today documents a disturbing pattern of abuse of low age workers.

The study, done by the UCLA's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (in conjunction with the National Employment Law Project), was funded by a number of foundations. Just under 5,000 low wage workers in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles were carefully interviewed.

Workplace violations were noted to be widespread. 26% of the workers were paid less than the minimum wage. Violations of overtime laws, meal break requirements , and unlawful pay stub deductions were rife. Violations varied by industry, but were particularly rife in the apparel and textile industry. Results in the construction industry were somewhat better, with restaurants and retail being better than in the apparel industry.

But what about workers' comp? 43% of the low wage workers surveyed had been required to work despite an injury. 13% had been fired after reporting an injury. 4% noted that after they reported an injury, the employer threatened to report them to immigration authorities. 3% noted that they were told not to file a claim.

Of the workers who received medical treatment for an injury, 33% had to pay out of pocket for their own treatment. 22% used their health insurance rather than pursue treatment under workers' comp.

Even if statisticians quibble with any particular finding, the overall picture is disturbing. Low wage workers have limited bargaining power and are often at the mercy of employers who bend the rules.

Clearly, costs are being shifted onto the public sector. The taxpayer ends up paying for health care at public hospitals and clinics that should have been provided by workers' comp.

It's a reminder that special attention should be paid to the problems encountered by low wage workers in the comp system.

You can read the study for yourself here:
http://nelp.3cdn.net/59719b5a36109ab7d8_5xm6bc9ap.pdf

It's notable that the authors of the study thank a number of Northern California folks for assisting in the study. These include Worksafe attorneys Danielle Lucido and Fran Schreiberg , UC Berkeley researcher (and CHSWC consultant) Juliann Sum, and former Cal Labor Fed official Tom Rankin.

Among the Southern California authors were Ruth Milkman, Professor of Sociology at UCLA, along with Victor Narro, Director of the UCLA Downtown Labor Center, and Anna Luz Gonzalez, a doctoral student in urban planning at UCLA.

Stay tuned.

Julius Young
www.boxerlaw.com