Robert J. Haynes, President, MA AFL-CIO Testimony ~ Monday November 2, 2009 ~ 10:00 AM ~ Room A-2

Hearing before Joint Standing Committee on:
ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES & AGRICULTURE

Bill: An Act for a Competitive Economy through Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals (SB 442, HB 757)

Lead Sponsors: Senator Steven Tolman, Representative Jay Kaufman

Remarks:
Good morning Chairman Straus, Chairman Petruccelli and members of the Committee.

For the record my name is Robert Haynes and I am privileged to be the President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. I’m here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 442 and House Bill 757. On behalf of the 400,000 working families of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO I offer our organization’s strong support for this legislation.

The key issues for us with this bill are simply: health, health care and jobs.

We are concerned about the health of our workforce here in Massachusetts who are being exposed to toxic chemicals with deleterious effects on their health.

We are concerned about the rising cost of health care in this country and it seems to me that one way to keep costs down would be to stop exposing workers to chemicals that create chronic diseases.

We are concerned about creating jobs in this Commonwealth. While the new “buzz words” around our economy are renewable energy and life sciences and biotech, this legislation provides for the creation of green chemistry jobs and the innovative industries that result. It may not be as chic or headline-grabbing, but it does create good jobs and improve our ability to export our products to nations who already have these standards. Thirty-seven percent of our trade is with European Union nations that mandate these safer alternative standards. The Safer Alternatives program will assist Massachusetts businesses in competing in the global marketplace.

The Labor Movement has existed throughout time to protect and improve the quality of life of working people. This legislature really has also existed for that same reason.

While wages and benefits often get the most attention, the great unsung contribution of the Labor Movement has been to look out for safety and quality of working conditions. There is no greater contribution to quality of life than to ensure that people do not get injured, killed or acquire diseases from their work.

More than 80,000 synthetic chemicals have been produced for use in the U.S. since World War II. Yet very few of these have ever been adequately tested for their potential impact on our health as workers. OSHA regulates a relative handful of these chemicals, regulations that assume an “acceptable risk” level for worker exposure.

A study released earlier this year projected that the number of people suffering from Alzheimer’s disease will quadruple over the next forty years. I am not a scientist, but there are a good many scientists who believe that exposure to toxic chemicals can contribute to diseases such as Alzheimer’s. They’ve proven it. And they’re still finding out how bad it can get. The good news is that many toxic chemicals can be replaced with safer alternatives. Even if we didn’t have scientific proof that these chemicals significantly compromise the health of our workers – even if we just had a hunch – wouldn’t it be worth it to do everything we can to make sure that our workers are not exposed on a daily basis?

Wouldn’t it be worth replacing toxic chemicals with safer alternatives if it would eliminate the question of whether or not a worker developed a chronic disease because of exposure to chemicals at work?

I know some employers will fight this change. But employers who are hesitant to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives should realize that if they don’t pay to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives now then they’ll be dealing with the health care costs down the road. Not to mention the cost to their conscience.

I would like to conclude where I began. The legislature has an opportunity with this legislation to take concrete action to protect and improve the quality of life of our workforce. It’s all about the health of our workers, the health care cost strains that chronic diseases put on our health care system, and the good green chemistry jobs that will be created, as well as the jobs that will be created by bringing our products up to the codes of our international trading partners in the European Union and expanding our ability to export to those nations.

All we’re asking is that where safer alternatives exist we want them to replace the toxic chemicals that harm our workers.

Thank you.