By Benjamin Judge, NCL Public Policy Intern

Benjamin Judge, a public policy intern at NCL this summer, is a rising sophomore at the University of North Carolina- Asheville, where he is majoring in Political Science and minoring in Economics. At UNCA, Benjamin is a Student Senator and Academic Affairs Chair in Student Government, a Student Ambassador, and a member of the Sigma Nu Fraternity.

From California to Maine, legislation is being introduced to increase the minimum wage at that state level, while the federal minimum wage remains stagnant. New research shows that an increase in the federal minimum wage would not only improve the livelihood of the average worker, but would also stimulate the economy, increase productivity in an economic downturn, and draw massive public support.

The benefits

The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 and, according to the Huffington Post, an increase of one dollar (to $8.25) would improve the lives of 10 million workers and “could ultimately pump as much as $9 billion into the economy.” This would greatly improve the economic situation of our country while also helping the workers who provide us with the goods and services we enjoy. It is very hard to make an argument against a measure that does so much good.

Why hasn’t it already been raised?

Many businesses are hesitant to raise wages during an economic downturn because they want to preserve their profits, however there is a productivity phenomenon that the Center for American Progress acknowledges. Whenever there is an economic downturn, the average worker becomes more productive to preserve their job, and this increase in productivity should be rewarded with a payment increase. Sadly, this increase in productivity goes unrewarded in most instances.

Public Support

The last major benefit to increasing the federal minimum wage, is that the general public is largely in support of raising the minimum wage. The Huffington Post article quotes Celinda Lake, president of polling firm Lake Research Partners, who says, “When we’ve done public polls anywhere from 86 to 67 percent say they will support an increase in the minimum wage.”  With all of the before mentioned benefits, combined with a new study that shows that an increase in the minimum wage does not decrease employment, the need to increase the federal minimum wage remains clear.

Like most bullies, scammers are cowards, targeting and picking on those who seem especially vulnerable. Sadly, the elderly have long been a demographic that scammers view as easy targets. Often isolated and living on a fixed income, NCL’s annual Top Scams Report consistently lists the elderly as the age group most likely to be the victim of a fraud.

Over the past year, NCL’s Fraud Center has seen an increase in complaints from consumers over the age of 65, but a study released earlier this month shows just how severe the problem has grown. The study, conducted by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, found that financial abuse of older Americans has increased by 12 percent over the last three years, causing about $3 billion dollars in loses annually.

The study also revealed that:

• The majority of victims were between the ages of 80 and 89, lived alone, and required help with health care or home maintenance.
• Almost 60 percent of the perpetrators were male
• Women were targeted twice as often as men.
• Victims were particularly vulnerable during the holidays.

Crimes in which the perpetrators were strangers to the victim accounted for the majority of cases (51 percent), but family members or friends committed a whopping 34 percent of crimes against the elderly. Twelve percent of crimes were from the business sector, and four percent were from Medicare or Medicaid fraud.

If you are concerned that a senior might be falling victim to financial abuse, contact the National Center on Elder Abuse or report it to NCL’s Fraud Center at www.fraud.org.

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

Oil executives earlier this month testified before Congress that they don’t think they should have to lose their $2.1 billion in tax breaks just because they are making record profits. One exec even claimed ending oil company subsidies would be “discriminatory.” Testifying were execs at Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips. Collectively these companies racked up $35 billion in first quarter profits and will set record profits for the year.

Excuse me, but gas is well over $4 a gallon for most working Americans. This prompts two questions. First, why must the oil companies charge us so much at the pump if they are making record profits? Secondly, why in the heck should the American taxpayer be subsiding oil company profits?

In mid-May the Senate blocked a Democratic bill to repeal $21 billion in tax breaks and apply the savings to deficit reduction. The 52-48 vote was eight shy of the 60 votes needed to advance a bill that would nix incentives for ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and BP, according to The Hill.

But good for New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez. He is a sponsor of the bill to end oil subsidies and at the hearing he took ConocoPhillips’ top dog to task for calling the bill “un-American.”  The exec refused to apologize and that is how things were left. But the fact remains that there is no justification at all for asking average Americans to pay twice for their gas – once at the pump and again by subsidizing the oil companies through tax breaks.

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

In the United States each year, 40,000 users of table saws sustain serious injuries; 10 percent of those injuries are amputations, and that number is up approximately 10,000 injuries over the past decade. The injuries are painful, traumatic, and life-altering events for victims and their families. But what is hard to believe is that, as all of these grave injuries that are racked up year in and year out, there’s been a foolproof, highly effective technology to prevent 99 percent these injuries available since 2003. The only problem is that the conventional sawmakers have refused to adopt the safety technology.

That’s not surprising. In my work in product safety industries often resist adopting available and affordable safety devices that protect their customers. The reasons are varied, but none are defensible in my view – if there’s a safety technology to protect people from such terrible injuries as finger amputations and arms nearly sliced in half (and grisly deaths, I might add. There are a number of those too in the database – I’ve seen the pictures) and it’s affordable, it should be adopted as soon as possible. Imagine arguing that its not needed or wanted by consumers. I cannot.

I learned about the epidemic of table saw injuries in 2004 when I heard a story by National Public Radio’s Chris Arnold. At the time I was senior product safety counsel at Consumers Union and passionately working to get dangerous products removed from the market. I was shocked – both at the harrowing injury statistics and that the makers of the safety technology had no luck getting any of the saw manufacturers to license the safe saw design. I figured once this story ran, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would take up the issue and require the table saw safety technology on its own accord.

How wrong I was. Last summer I heard Chris Arnold’s follow-up story, six years after the first one; I learned to my shock and horror that the safety technology has never been adopted while table saw injuries have been climbing over a ten-year period. We consulted NCL policy on product safety, adopted in 2000, and it is crystal clear and touches every important aspect of this issue:

• NCL supports strong and effective government regulatory and enforcement agencies to assure safety of services and products used by consumers and the environment in which they are used.
• NCL believes that corporations have a responsibility to assure that safety and universal design be built into product and service design.
• NCL supports consumer education and information to teach safe behavior but recognizes that consumer education is never an acceptable substitute for quality safety standards and careful design and production;
• NCL urges that diligent enforcement of safety standards be carried out by private as well as public groups;
• NCL encourages prompt gathering of injury data by the public and private sectors in order to identify trends, inform consumers, and take appropriate actions to address safety concerns.

In consultation with our Board of Directors, NCL wrote in November of last year to the five commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission urging them to begin the regulatory process toward a mandatory safety performance standard for table saws that is technology neutral – which means not endorsing any one technololgy. Such a safety standard dictates what the result must be – safety in using the product during regular use – not how you get there. Then, in February of this year, USA Today featured an article on the hazards of table saws, which prompted CPSC Commissioner Bob Adler to bring the makers of the safe saw, SawStop, into Washington for a meeting. The industry representatives, the Power Tool Institute, also presented to Commissioner Adler, arguing they couldn’t adopt the technology because it too expensive to implement especially in the smaller saws.

Sally Greenberg speaks to reporters about table saw dangers at the National Press Club on May 25.

In the latest development, this week NCL escorted four men from three different states around Washington. Each of them had personal interactions with table saw injuries – three had serious injuries themselves, including amputations and a mangled right arm that may never function normally, and one owned a cabinetmaking shop where two of his workers had their hands maimed by the saws; three of them knew about the safety technology when they bought their saws; two couldn’t afford a higher-end saw (and ran small businesses on the side while holding other jobs,) and the shop owner had tried to buy two saws before they were on the market. They are all deeply sorry they didn’t have safe saws.

We visited four of the five CPSC Commissioners, a number of senators and several members of the House of Representatives. At the end of this grueling three days, these guys – who had never met before this week, were like brothers. They heard one another’s stories time and time again and all were asking that all table saws sold in the United States be subject to a mandatory safety standard.

We got positive feedback from the Chairman of the CPSC, Inez Tenenbaum, who told us she believes they have the votes to open an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That very important regulatory process is the first move toward a mandatory standard, if one is to be adopted.

And we are ready for the predictable resistance from industry – but that ship has sailed. NCL will invite 100 victims of saw accidents to come to Washington if need be – and with them, pictures of their bloody and painful injuries. They all have a story to tell – about dreams destroyed, careers ruined, livelihoods in jeopardy, being forced to go on welfare, food stamps, and energy assistance because they can’t make a living – and the constant pain and suffering they endure because of one millisecond slip into the blade of a table saw. All the while, they could have been kept safe by currently available technology. Once the real story gets out, no one will be able to argue that making the most dangerous product in the workshop the safest isn’t a cause worth fighting for – and winning.

Football is an inherently rough sport, with takedowns, pile-ups, and tackles all in the name of the game. That’s why football players are required to wear protective gear such as shoulder pads, helmets, and mouth guards. But how do we know if the required equipment does a good enough job of protecting a player’s body from injury? That’s a question a new Virginia Tech study sought to answer when it used more than a decade’s worth of data of more than a million head impacts at Virginia Tech football games and practices, in order analyze to analyze 10 commonly used helmet models. The results were distressing—two models popular among teenagers allow high rates of concussions.

The Riddell VSR-4, a discontinued model still worn by about 75,000 high school and college players, and the Adams A2000, were the lowest-ranked models and carried the highest risk of concussions. Virginia Tech is using the results of the study to create a National Impact Database, that, for the first time, will allow consumers, coaches, and players to go to a website and see which helmets offer the most protection against head injury.

The alarmingly poor performance of several common helmet models is only further proof of the need to pass the Child Sports Athletic Equipment Safety Act. The bill, which NCL strongly supports, would require football helmet manufacturers to develop a voluntary safety standard that address concussion risk and the needs of youth players. The standards would be reviewed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which could issue mandatory safety rules if the voluntary standards are too lenient. The legislation also has a provision that would require independent third party testing and certification of adult football helmets if the voluntary standards prove insufficient.

The rough and tumble nature of football puts players of all levels—from the junior league novice to the NFL superstar—at risk of a developing a concussion and players who sustain multiple hits can suffer long-term brain injury. There is simply no excuse for risking the safety of teen players, many of whom use the sport as a pathway to higher education and scholarships, when there is a fix as simple as a well-designed helmet.