Tort reform is a scam that punishes people to protect profits.
« July 2005 |
Main
Lately, I've been getting a ton of hits from people searching for cicinfo. I had no idea why until I got a letter from Freecreditreport.com advising me that freecreditreport.com entered into a settlement with the FTC over consumers who weren't given full refunds. The letter reminded me of the lawsuit I had against Freecreditreport.com back in 2004. (Search the site for the saga.)
Since I've been getting so many hits, I thought I'd dig and see what I can figure out about cicinfo.
Apparently, Freecreditreport contracted with Garden City Group to handle the details of the settlement. Garden City Group appears to be a legal "middleman" that processes the paperwork, refunds, etc. in class action cases and other cases with a large number of people involved. I have no idea how reputable/honest/efficient that Garden City Group is, but judging by their list of clients, I assume they're at least OK.
Freecreditreport.com and I resolved our differences back in 2004, so I have no need to participate in this settlement. However, if I did, here's what I would do:
- Follow the directions in the letter.
- Not send my social security number via email.
- Send any paperwork or forms via certified mail and keep copies for myself of anything I sent.
All the standard disclaimers apply: I'm not a lawyer; this isn't legal advice; if you have legal questions, find a lawyer through the yellow pages or your State Bar Association.
On a side note, I'm happy to see that the FTC did some good in this case. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but at least they still turn.
UPDATE:
For more info, visit the FTC's page about the settlement:
"Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively marketed “free credit reports” by not adequately disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they didn’t cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about “free” offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any “free” offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in ill-gotten gains."
Thanks to Ian at Yale for bringing this to my attention.
Professor John C. P. Goldberg, the Associate Dean for Research at Vanderbilt Law School, has written an article for the Yale Law Journal discussing the Constitutional status of tort law, and of proposed tort reforms. "In short, anyone who takes history seriously will find it difficult to disavow the existence of a federal right of victim access to what we today know as tort law, a corresponding duty on states to provide such law, and a corresponding power in the courts to consider whether certain forms of legislation so undermine tort law, with so little justification, as to amount to a breach of that duty."
Professor Goldberg offers powerful arguments that many of the changes to tort law proposed by big business may in fact be unconstitutional. Perhaps some of his research and ideas may someday be used to repair the damage done to our justice system in states such as Texas.
While our Congress is busy pandering to big business, it seems that the boys and girls who run the European Union are fighting for consumer rights. Business Insurance reports that the European Union wants to:
- Make it easier for consumers to file antitrust lawsuits.
- Create (not eliminate!) special types of class-action lawsuits.
- Eliminate roadblocks in their justice system.
At least one group of politicians understands the need to keep big business in check. Too bad they're on the other side of the pond.
The same pharmaceutical industry that brought us such wonderful medicines as Oraflex, Fen-Phen, Zyprexa, and Vioxx have now been granted immunity for any hastily-developed vaccines they may develop.
The Center for Justice and Democracy summed it up thusly: Today, the U.S. Congress, in a grotesque display of pandering to corporate America, enacted sweeping immunity for drug companies that produce unsafe vaccines and other drugs, leaving average Americans with no recourse if they have been hurt and creating a grave risk to public health in the event of a disease pandemic. This unprecedented legislation was enacted even though this dangerous and cruel provision was contained in neither House nor Senate passed bills, but rather was buried deep in the Defense Appropriation legislation.
While I certainly identify myself as a Democrat, it's too bad that only issues like Arctic drilling can prompt my party to filibuster. Yes, yes - I understand that this was a critical bill and all that. But someday, I hope to see a Democratic politician with the gumption to stand up and fight against such vicious tort reform.
Over the years, I've been pretty happy with TypePad, so I was surprised that the site has been alternatively down and outdated. However, as a former IT guy, I know these things hapen from time to time.
The important thing is that all of my data was backed up and protected, so kudos to TypePad. The site should be fully functional by Monday.
Apparently, Tiger and the rest of the heartless bastards at the ATRA just issued the 2005 Judicial Hellholes report. Somehow, I missed the story on the web, but I did manage to catch it on Fox News.
UPDATE:
I was absolutely flabbergasted to learn that the ATRA admittedly made an error in the newest judicial hellhole report. From the Charleston Gazette: "Critics of West Virginia’s civil justice system this week conceded that they wrongly attacked state courts for a chemical exposure lawsuit that was not filed here.
The suit, filed in Florida and 13 other states, alleges that DuPont Co. exposed thousands of consumers to toxic chemicals used to make Teflon nonstick coatings.
Citing the DuPont suit, the American Tort Reform Association bumped West Virginia up a spot in its annual “Judicial Hellholes” report, from fourth last year to third in 2005.
Victor Schwartz, a lawyer and spokesman for the association, said the group learned from a Gazette reporter that the DuPont case was not filed in West Virginia.
“This is an error,” Schwartz said in a phone interview Tuesday evening."
That's the best part about preparing propaganda - you don't need to check your facts!
I spent some time working for a nonprofit a while ago that canvassed neighborhoods to build support for alternative energy sources. I learned a great deal about how to run a grassroots campaign, and wanted to offer all of you an easy way to help fight the corporate factions that relentlessly lobby for tort reform.
Below is an image of a postcard in Microsoft Publisher format. After you settle or otherwise resolve a case for a client, ask him or her to sign this postcard. You can either preprint the address and salutation, or provide it for the client to fill in. Depending upon how your state's political system works, you could have the client sign one for his representative, senator, governor, assemblyman, etc. I would try not to ask them to sign more than two, because patience wears thin.
You can either mail them off as clients sign them, or you can work with your local trial lawyers' association and arrange for a lobbyist to drop them off en masse every couple of months.
I urge you not to underestimate the power of postcards and letters from constituents. I've personally seen politicians vote against powerful special interest groups (including large contributors) because of grassroots campaigns.
Obviously, I urge you to check the laws in your state to make sure there's nothing illegal or unethical about doing this. And if there is, I urge you to challenge it.
Any office supply store will have prescored postcard paper, or you can simply print them on cardstock and use a paper cutter to cut them out. If you need assistance in figuring out which politicians to send the postcards to, don't hesitate to ask.
You have my permission to alter the wording on these postcards to suit your needs. If you need a format other than Publisher, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
Here is the publisher file.
Detroit's Metro Times has an article that theorizes why John Engler is the current President of NAM: "Let’s suppose your doctor prescribes some spiffy new drug for your pimples, say, or your aching back. Unfortunately, it turns out to have some minor side effect, like it makes you totally blind. Or kills you.
Whoops. Guess the drug company didn’t experiment enough on those rabbits. Or maybe it didn’t work the same on people. It’s always something. But, hey, you can sue the pharmaceutical firm for what it did to you or yours, right?
Sure you can — in every state in the union except one. That’s right. Mississip— uh, Michigan! That’s right. Big pharmaceutical companies have total immunity in this state — as long as their drugs have been approved by the FDA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration...
We can thank Gov. John Engler for that. Ten years ago, he rammed through a law that prevents us from suing any pharmaceutical company whose drug has been approved by the FDA.
Wonder why he now has a cushy, high-paying job as head of the National Association of Manufacturers?"
The article also describes the efforts of Republican Ed Gaffney to undo the damage done by Engler: "He was shocked when he learned Michigan wouldn’t allow damaged residents to sue drug companies. “This is tort reform run amok,” Gaffney says. (Emphasis added.)
He has introduced his own legislation. Drug companies would be presumed innocent, but if you could prove their product had harmed you, you could successfully sue. Yet so far, he can’t get the time of day from House Speaker Craig DeRoche, a Novi Republican who’s young enough to be his son.
“I’m sure this would pass if we can ever get it to the floor for a vote,” Gaffney says. Republicans have only a 58-51 majority, and a number of them feel as Gaffney does. As far as I can tell, all the Democrats want the change."
As a former staffer for a Democratic legislator here in Michigan, I can assure you this bill will get a floor vote over Craig DeRoche's dead body.
It's also worth noting that many tort reformers want federal legislation that mirrors Michigan's. In their eyes, you should never be able to sue a drug manufacturer if the FDA approved the drug - even if it is revealed that the manufacturer falsified data to get the drug approved.
Randy Cunningham is a scoundrel and a traitor to his country. Judge Alito is an accomplished jurist who deserves respect - even if you disagree with his judicial philosophy. So what in the world could those two have in common?
John Engler, the President of the National Associationof Manufacturers (NAM) and NAM endorse both of them.
Earlier this week, I wrote to Mr. Engler to ask him why his organization continues to endorse convicted felon Randy Cunningham. To date, there has been no response.
News on the NAM endorsement of Alito here.
The Idaho Statesman tells the story of an 82 year old veteran with Alzheimers that was grossly taken advantage of by Lithia Ford, a Fortune 1000 company. From the article: "A lawsuit filed Monday alleges Lithia Ford of Boise violated an Idaho law that protects consumers from "unconscionable contracts" by taking advantage of an 82-year-old man's dementia.
The lawsuit contends a Lithia salesman convinced Frank Baxter to swap his $32,000 SUV for a $15,000 economy car on Sept. 9 by taking advantage of Baxter's "inability to understand, and other factors due to his age and dementia.
The lawsuit claims the Lithia Ford contract with Baxter also was unconscionable because the dealership knew it was getting a vehicle that had been driven only 16 miles by Baxter and had a value of $31,253, in exchange for a 2006 Ford Focus valued at $15,215...
The suit also alleges that the dealership should have realized Baxter was not capable of entering into such an agreement because he was so disoriented at the time that a Lithia Ford employee had to drive him home."
I wonder what kind of commission you get when you make $15k on a trade-in by taking advantage of a war veteran who lives in the Alzheimer's ward of a nursing home. I hope for Boise's sake that they don't give the man his money back or Tiger and the rest of the heartless bastards might declare a state of emergency in Idaho and label Boise a Judicial Hellhole.
Georgia State Representative Mark Burkhalter authored a congratulatory op-ed for Appen Newspapers, Inc. In it, he claims that tort reform "worked" in Georgia because after tort reform passed last year:
- One insurer is raising its rates by 5.8% instead of 15.8%. (A 10% "reduction.")
- The state's largest medical malpractice insurer is keeping rates the same as they were last year. (Last year, they hiked rates by 30%.)
- The same insurer will lower rates by 10% if the tort reform legislation is upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court.
Wait a minute. I thought tort reform was a magic bullet that would lower insurance rates? Could it be that Georgia passed little, if any meaningful reform? Not according to Burkhalter: "Less than a year ago, the Georgia Legislature accomplished what no General Assembly in this state could do despite more than 15 years of trying: adopt comprehensive civil justice reform.
Within the first six weeks of Republican control at the State Capitol, we adopted a sweeping tort reform plan aimed at giving relief to the medical community, businesses and consumers who pay a built-in "tort tax" on every purchase they make to cover the cost of increasing litigation...
Our legislation not only put a cap on non-economic damages, but we put limits on suing emergency room physicians, made defendants responsible only for the portion of damages they inflicted, and made it harder for trial lawyers to "shop" a case to a favorable jurisdiction where a jury had a greater likelihood of issuing exorbitant damages."
So why is it that insurers are still raising rates after a "sweeping" and "comprehensive" tort reform package was enacted? Why is it that after rate hikes of 30%, one insurer may lower rates by 10%, and another insurer is raising rates by 5.8% instead of 15.8%?
I see two possible reasons.
- Tort reform is saving these insurers a ton of money, and they decided to pocket the savings, rather than lower premiums.
- Other factors (like the cyclical nature of the insurance industry) is what has caused rate hikes - not a legal crisis.
I think it's very telling that the two rate reductions are both exactly 10%. Perhaps insurers see only a 10% savings when such "sweeping" and "comprehensive" reforms are enacted.
Put your hip waders on and check out the rest of the article.
Few news stories are more yawn-inducing to the general public than a story about a federal agency changing its regulations. Too bad, because that's sometimes a shortcut to tort reform.
Safety Lex reports and expands upon a WaPo article that details an attempt to take away your right to sue auto manufacturers: "In other words, adoption of the agency's proposed standards will cause injured parties in all fifty states to lose their common law tort rights. The change of tactics by the White House to achieve tort reform without Congressional input raises questions concerning the scope of federal agencies' power to legislate substantive changes to state law."
It's an informative read with good background material. Check it out.
You know what I like best about tort cases that are brought by states? The general public doesn't automatically assume the case is frivolous and brought by a greedy trial lawyer.
Rhode Island is suing a group of paint manufacturers that allegedly disregarded the dangers of lead paint poisoning because they believed it only was a problem in slums and for blacks. "The trade association believed that childhood lead poisoning mostly affected blacks and other minorities in slum neighborhoods in the eastern United States and that the solution was to eliminate the slums and "educate the parents," Markowitz said, citing LIA documents from the 1950s.
But the association also thought the solution was unachievable because it was "impossible to clean up the slums and it was impossible to educate those parents," he added."
Worse still, the Defendants hired a PR agency to author a "scientific" study refuting the dangers of lead paint: "A public relations firm hired in the early 1970s prepared a report on lead poisoning, and the association tried to get a "recognized scientist" to sign on as the author, Markowitz said."
Read more here at the Boston Globe.
Looks like we all dodged a bullet. Apparently, Matthew Washington, an inmate in Georgia, filed a motion to compel all Americans to kiss his ass. This post is a funny read over at Concurring Opinions: "In the instant case, Plaintiff has sued all of the judges and one magistrate judge from this District as well as one judge and one magistrate judge from the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff also unsuccessfully tried to join Judge Michael Karpf of the Superior Court of Chatham County and United States Senator Sam Nunn. His five motions to amend are overshadowed by the “Motion to Kiss My Ass” which Plaintiff filed (apparently to express his frustration with Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith's refusal to allow the addition of Judge Karpf and Senator Nunn). This case has been pending less than one year and already Plaintiff has filed three interlocutory appeals. Likewise, in Matthew Washington v. R.D. Collins, et al., Plaintiff has already filed three frivolous interlocutory appeals in a case which is only several months old."
At least this guy puts his money where his mouth is; rather than filing in forma pauperis in which the court waives filing fees, he uses his disability checks to pay them.
From 1010wins.com: "A judge declared a mistrial Monday in the first federal lawsuit over the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.
Merck & Co. emerged from its third Vioxx trial Monday with a hung jury when the panel failed, in about 18 hours of deliberations over three days, to side with the drug maker or the widow of a 53-year-old Florida man who died after taking Vioxx for about a month.
The jury resumed what was to be its fourth day of deliberations Monday, but within about 20 minutes, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon called the jurors in and reminded them they had agreed to reach a verdict in a ``reasonable time.''
"It has now been a reasonable time. We cannot get a verdict,'' Fallon said, declaring a mistrial. Federal litigation requires a unanimous verdict."
Let's see... four down, 7,996 lawsuits to go.
For those of you who don't know, tort reform is one of the biggest legislative goals for the National Association of Manufacturers. The President of that organization is currently former Michigan Governor John Engler.
I had occasion to write Mr. Engler when I visited two NAM web sites, and saw the following:
Here's the text of the email I sent to Mr. Engler: Dear Mr. Engler,
My name is Justinian Lane, and I’m a resident of Lansing, Michigan. I am writing to you today because I am concerned that the National Association of Manufacturers hasn’t stripped former California Representative Randy Cunningham’s Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence. As you know, Representative Cunningham pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy. He also admitted in court that he accepted bribes in exchange for his work to pass legislation.
I’m sure you agree that Mr. Cunningham’s actions prove that he is not an individual who deserves any award for legislative excellence, let alone such an award from an organization as prestigious as yours. Therefore, the National Association of Manufacturers must revoke Mr. Cunningham’s award so the public knows that NAM neither condones nor tolerates the despicable actions of Mr. Cunningham.
As I write this email to you, two separate web sites praise Mr. Cunningham: http://www.bipac.net/incumbent_detail.asp?g=NAM&leg_id_num=504 and http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=232401&CID=81&VID=2&RTID=0&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=False&specialSearch=False. I look forward to seeing those web pages removed, and a statement from NAM that condemns Mr. Cunningham’s actions and revokes his award for legislative excellence.
Sincerely,
Justinian Lane
It will certainly be interesting to see if NAM continues to stand by Cunningham.
Wouldn't it be horrible if malpractice lawsuits drove doctors like this out of practice?
Now, it could be that the doctor in question really wasn't using drugs, despite three drug tests to the contrary. And it could be that even if the doctor was using drugs, that he wasn't impaired when he treated the patients that died. And it could also be that even if he was impaired, that wasn't the cause of the deaths of both patients. We'll have to watch the trial(s).
But if the doctor was high, and his impaired state did lead to these two deaths, is there any reason whatsoever that tort reform should protect him?
MP3 Newswire comments upon a legal "victory" for the recording industry: "A federal US appeals court has upheld a $22,500 judgment against Cecilia Gonzalez, a 29-year-old Chicago mother and a victim in one of the first Big Four p2p file sharing cases.
The mother of five children, in September, 2003, she was among the first 261 people to be named at the beginning of by the Big Four Organized Music cartel's twisted sue 'em all marketing campaign."
Look, I agree that downloading music is, for lack of a softer word, stealing. But these penalties are ridiculous - the woman has to pay $750 for each song she downloaded. That's hardly justified considering the value of the songs is, at best, $20 each. (Valuing the song equal to the whole album.)
One statement in the article raises my curiosity: "The cartel implies it's successfully "prosecuted" some 17,000 people when in reality, not one of them, including Gonzalez, has ever been before a judge. And not one of them, including Gonzalez, has ever been found guilty of anything by a jury of their peers."
I wonder if that's true. If it is, you've no idea how tempted I am to get myself sued by the RIAA...
Greedy Trial Lawyer (informative, if a bit tongue-in-cheek) quotes a very scary WaPo article: "A growing number of U.S. hospitals, including at least eight in the Washington area, are saving money by reusing medical devices designated for one-time use, ignoring the warnings of manufacturers, which will not vouch for the safety of their reconditioned products."
Depending upon how profitable this practice is for a hospital, this might be a great example of Buying The Tort.
Instead of passing more laws that put profits ahead of patients, how about some Federal legislation to prohibit this practice?
I came across an informative blog, drugindustry.co.uk, that commented on Bill Frist's "solution" to the avian flu crisis: Immunize vaccine manufacturers from suit.
"The premise behind the liability shield is familiar, even plausible: American drugmakers have been pulling out of the vaccine business for the last 20 years, and fear of lawsuits must be one reason. But that argument falls apart on close examination. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found only 10 lawsuits in the last 20 years over flu vaccines; the authors have concluded that drug companies withdrew from the vaccine business mainly because of low-profit margins and unpredictable demand."
Good to know Dr. Frist, as always, puts profits before patients. (Do you have any idea how happy I'll be if that Hippocratic hypocrite is indicted by the SEC?)
As exciting as the oral arguments were in F.A.I.R. v. Rumsfeld, a case of much greater importance to our free speech rights was filed in an El Paso County Court-at-Law.
From the El Paso Times: "A West El Paso man is suing his neighbors for $125,000 because he claims the dog barks nonstop. The pet's owners deny the allegations, but their lawyer says that if the dog was barking, it has a constitutional right to do so.
"I can assure you we are going to fight this case to the death. Take it all the way to the (U.S.) Supreme Court if necessary. I can honestly state that if the dog did bark at all, the dog was simply exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech," said Monty Stevens, lawyer for the Alvarados."
Keep track of this case here.
I don't even know if there are words to describe just how disgusting this is. "The sanctions decision, issued on October 3, 2002, by Placer County (California) Superior Court Judge James D. Garbolino, found that Gratzinger had “deliberately” obliterated key evidence in Davis v. Honda, a lawsuit based on a March 1999 accident in a Honda Civic that left plaintiff Sarah Davis, then 17 years old, a quadriplegic. The court found that by intentionally destroying marks showing that Davis had been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident – the “single most critical issue” in the case – Honda had “attempted to rob” the plaintiff “of her right to litigate on a level playing field.” As a sanction, the court held Honda liable for Davis’s injuries and ruled the jury would only decide how much in damages Honda paid Davis."
At least the good guys at Trial Lawyers for Public Justice exposed this, and as a consequence, the evidence-altering "expert witness" Honda used will probably have a hard time getting gigs in the future. Can anyone give me one good reason why criminal charges shouldn't have been brought against the guy? Disgusting.
I'm not sure he uses the best example, but KipEsquire used a great phrase - "Buying The Tort" - to describe a situation when an individual or company commits a tort because it's profitable. He, like me, argues that in many cases, punitive damages are the only way to deter tortfeasors and would-be tortfeasors: "Now imagine if there were no such thing as punitive damages. People like these jackasses could go around in their balaclavas scaring the bejeesus out of people in order to make a buck (or, perhaps worse, just for the heck of it) as often as they liked. The threat of a lawsuit, based just on compensatory damages, would be no threat at all. This is what is known as "buying the tort" — tortfeasors knowingly committing torts knowing that even if they get sued, it's "worth it." (In negligence, by contrast, the defendant isn't knowingly doing anything wrong -- that's the very definition of negligence.)"
Buying the tort. I'm surprised I've never heard that phrase before...
Continue reading ""Buying The Tort"" »
Insurance Journal reports that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle vetoed legislation that would have capped medical malpractice payouts at $450k for adults and $550k for minors.
These caps were similar to caps the Wisconsin Supreme Court previously declared unconstitutional, and Governor Doyle cited that as the primary reason for his veto: "Approving a law that would quickly be overturned doesn't do anyone any good,'' Doyle said in a written statement."
Assembly Speaker John Gard has vowed to fight to override the Governor's veto and pass this unconstitutional law. That's not surprising, considering he's accepted more campaign contributions from the healthcare industry than any other special interest group.
Anyone who lives in Wisconsin's 89th Assembly District should email him and ask him why he's putting special interest groups ahead of the Wisconsin Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.
Recently, a group of pharmacists working for Walgreen’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that Walgreen’s is discriminating against them by forcing them to follow state law and dispense “morning after pills.” The pharmacists argue that since their religion forbids abortion, they cannot dispense this medication, and to force them to do so is discriminatory.
There are two ways to examine this issue, an easy way, and a hard way. The easy way is to point out that Illinois state law requires the pharmacists to dispense the drug, and that they surely cannot expect Walgreen’s to disobey a state law. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the pharmacists should challenge the constitutionality of the state law, not Walgreen’s. So for the duration of this post, I’ll simply ignore the state law (as the pharmacists do) and focus on the larger issue.
Should an employer be allowed to force an employee to perform job duties that are prohibited by that employee’s religion? This case is getting so much attention because it’s nothing more than a proxy fight over abortion. Rabid pro-lifers believe that their brethren should be able to violate any law to prevent individuals from having an abortion, or even birth control. Rabid pro-choicers, on the other hand, take no small measure of joy at the thought of pro-lifers being forced to assist in an abortion. I have no intention of wading into the thoroughly-muddied waters of the abortion debate, so I’ll use some hypothetical situations based upon the pharmacists’ argument.
What if Denny’s hired a Muslim cook and the cook refused to cook any pork products because it is strictly forbidden by the Quran? Perhaps Denny’s would try to work around the cook’s beliefs by allowing him or her to pass pork orders to another cook? Walgreen’s tried a similar tactic by allowing the pro-life pharmacists to pass morning after pill prescriptions to other pharmacists. There’s a problem with this compromise: What if the Muslim cook was the only cook working, and a customer ordered pigs in a blanket? Should the customer be forced to order another breakfast, or should Denny’s be permitted to fire the cook for refusing to do his or her job?
The answer, to me, seems pretty clear: While an employer should attempt to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs of its employees, it’s unreasonable for an employee to expect his or her employer to lose customers because of his or her religious beliefs.
Any individual planning on becoming a pharmacist should surely know that at least once in their professional career, he or she will be asked to fulfill a prescription for birth control pills and possible even a morning after pill. If the prospective pharmacist knows that he or she will be unable to do so, he or she should reconsider careers – or own their own pharmacy. But it’s simply ludicrous to expect an employer to lose business to accommodate your religious beliefs.
Should a Hindu worker in a slaughterhouse expect to keep his or her job if he or she refuses to slaughter cows? Or to bring it back around to abortion, should a pro-life nurse who works at an abortion clinic receive a paycheck if he or she won’t assist the doctor perform an abortion?
Right or wrong, Walgreen’s has chosen to stock emergency contraception pills. Company policy and state law requires their pharmacists to dispense those pills. If the pharmacists can’t do so, the pharmacists need to find a different employer.
Maybe it has; there's about six inches of snow outside tonight, and I find myself in complete agreement with Pat Buchanan.
As you may know, GM's grand plan to revitalize the company includes laying off around 30,000 workers, closing plants, and paying their executives multimillion-dollar salaries. I live in town that will see two plant closings, and like many other residents, I'm sickened that workers, not shareholders or executives, have to pay the price to fix GM.
Apparently, so is Pat Buchanan. Check out these quotes: "SCARBOROUGH: Pat, if you are the CEO of GM and you see that you are losing money, that you're getting raked out there on the market, don't you have — if you are talking to Wall Street, if really talking to your people, don't you have to fire these people? Don't you have to cut back? Don't you have to become more conservative? Did they have any other choice?
BUCHANAN: Well, first, I don't call it conservative.
But you are exactly right. They sacrificed the workers for the benefit of the corporate guys and for benefit the shareholders. The global economy puts shareholders at war with workers. It puts guys like me at war economically with me with working folks. And, Joe, we shouldn't be. That's not the old Republican politics or economics."
It seems weird to read a Republican arguing against free trade, doesn't it? How about this: "SCARBOROUGH: Take a look at the money that is being made, Pat, by General Motors` top brass. With bonuses and salaries, CEO Richard Wagoner made $4.6 million last year. Chief financial officer John Devine pulled in almost $3 million, as did GM chairman Robert Lutz.
Now, Pat, I don't usually talking about salaries, but while you are firing 30,000 people Thanksgiving week, it's kind of hard to justify that type of money, isn't it?
BUCHANAN: Yes, Joe, it used to be that the top executives made 20 times what their workers do. It's now in the neighborhood of 400 times, the great big executives, what their workers do... Joe, something is wrong with the board of directors of these companies who are voting those kinds of salaries or tolerating that. And, frankly, that's not terribly high, given what some of them are making."
The rest of the transcript is great, too. Jim Cramer and Pat Buchanan agree that corporate interests are not in the best interests of the American worker. I wonder if American workers will ever start voting their interests instead of their perceived identities?
Buy corpreform Swag!
 - Link to go666.com
Even better than telling your friends about the site is linking to it, because that helps our Google rank go up. Link to corpreform, and if you want, I'll link back in the Reciprocal Links column.
- E-mail a Friend!
A great way to support the site is to e-mail a friend about it.
- The go666.com Company Store
Sport some official corpreform products, and be sure to irritate those who would take away your rights to sue!
| |
Recent Comments