So Mitch McConnell and the senate Republicans want blanket employer liability protection as the price of another round of economic support. They have this leverage because Democrats kept postponing their agenda until they were the only ones with a list of things they wanted to spend money on.
(This illustrates classic bargaining theory to a T. Bargaining power depends on how much you think you will lose if the agreement is delayed [Rubinstein] or fails completely. Democrats feared economic damage to the public if bailout bills weren’t approved immediately. Once the financial markets were backstopped Republicans considered the rest to be low stakes. Hence the strong tilt to McConnell et al.)
So here is a possible Democratic counter:
OK, you want liability protection. Let’s give it to any employer, large or small, that sets up a health and safety committee to oversee protections on the job, elected by the whole workforce, one person one vote. If protections are consensual, liability is waived. Otherwise proceed at your own risk.
This would be good policy, and it has the political advantage of placing liability within a larger, readily communicable frame about participation and consent.
9 comments:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/nyregion/nursing-homes-coronavirus-new-york.html
May 13, 2020
Buried in N.Y. Budget: Legal Shield for Nursing Homes Rife With Virus
In New York, 5,300 nursing home residents have died of Covid-19. The nursing home lobby pressed for a provision that makes it hard for their families to sue.
By Amy Julia Harris, Kim Barker and Jesse McKinley
In the chaotic days of late March, as it became clear that New York was facing a catastrophic outbreak of the coronavirus, aides to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo quietly inserted a provision on Page 347 of New York’s final, voluminous budget bill.
Many lawmakers were unaware of the language when they approved the budget a few days later. But it provided unusual legal protections for an influential industry that has been devastated by the crisis: nursing home operators.
The measure, lobbied for by industry representatives, shielded nursing homes from many lawsuits over their failure to protect residents from death or sickness caused by the coronavirus....
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/nyregion/nursing-homes-coronavirus-new-york.html
May 13, 2020
Buried in N.Y. Budget: Legal Shield for Nursing Homes Rife With Virus
In New York, 5,300 nursing home residents have died of Covid-19. The nursing home lobby pressed for a provision that makes it hard for their families to sue.
New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin have also passed new measures to shield health care facilities, including nursing homes, from liability.
Governors in at least nine other states — Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Vermont — issued executive orders shielding health care facilities from most lawsuits related to their response to the pandemic.
Nursing homes are pressing for legal protections in other states, including Florida, Pennsylvania and California....
Would this be a fair analogy and question:
Since "Democrats" have decided that it's fine to put coronavirus patients in nursing homes and protect private equity owners, why would I think "Democrats" are at all serious about protecting workers over employers?
Boris Johnson's government in Britain also decided that coronavirus patients were to be moved from hospitals to nursing homes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/world/europe/coronavirus-uk-nursing-homes.html
May 25, 2020
On a Scottish Isle, Nursing Home Deaths Expose a Covid-19 Scandal At the Home Farm nursing home on the Isle of Skye, more than a quarter of its residents died and nearly all were infected with coronavirus. Families are furious.
By Benjamin Mueller
By focusing at first on protecting the health system, Mr. Johnson’s strategy meant that some infected patients were unwittingly moved from hospitals and into nursing homes. Residents and staff members were denied tests, while nursing home workers begged in vain for protective gear....
Notice the remarkable word "unwittingly":
"Mr. Johnson’s strategy meant that some infected patients were unwittingly moved from hospitals and into nursing homes."
I'm unconvinced that there is anything to negotiate. The impending pain is going to be felt everywhere and arguably with greater intensity in states where Republican politicians want to remain elected (and say states that rely on sales taxes as opposed to income taxes. Focusing on liability shields is a red herring. Chuck Schumer already had a malicious glint in his eye a month ago when McConnell did the first trial balloon about the necessity of liability protection.
In any case, it is going to be the insurance companies that settle the issue when they raise the premiums for doing business. Insurance companies can read the tea leaves and are nothing if not pragmatic. There is no such thing as a safe workplace until there is a vaccine. If the politicians don't have the courage, the claims adjusters and actuaries will resolve the issue.
Chuck Schumer already had a malicious glint in his eye a month ago when McConnell did the first trial balloon about the necessity of liability protection....
[ Would that be because Senator Schumer is willing to allow ordinary workers to become sick and even die? How should I read the malicious Democratic leader's glint? ]
> How should I read the malicious Democratic leader's glint?
I'm going to assume you're being facetious, and perhaps rewrite your question as How should I read the Democratic leader's malicious glint?
I would interpret it as "just let them try". The optics don't look good, and if it's going to be a contest about either depraved indifference on the one, and solidarity with ordinary workers on the other, I don't think the Republican are in a position to "win", for whatever one's values of "winning" is.
The relentlessly rising body count is not something that can be easily erased and it is global. Further it is clear that competence in the response to the pandemic is not distributed evenly. Even the most insular American can see that other countries, nay other states, are not incurring the same price in flesh and blood. I share the impatience with the speed and efficiency of the US response and am open-mouthed in my outrage at the grievous damage being inflicted.
Stil, you go into a pandemic with the leaders and the political system that you have, for better, and in this case, for worse.
The dysfunction at the heart of the American politics is what it is and we should all throw our virtual bombs at the mess and assign blame and agitate for change.
My thesis is that the politicians are simply posturing until the insurance companies and a few lawsuits make the decision for them. The Smithfield plant lawsuit was the first tell. The Donald immediately invoked the Defence Production Act he had refused to use for months.
Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe the politicians are all venal. The US has been post-shame for centuries after all
Koranteng:
Thank you for the helpful and proper explanation. I appreciate this and understand the argument now.
Post a Comment