WHAT OTHERS SAY: Business agenda not about creating jobs, but getting rid of them

Saturday, January 14, 2012 | 6:03 p.m. CST

There's a scene in the M. Night Shyamalan thriller "The Sixth Sense" when the scared little boy at the center of the film finally admits in a whisper to his therapist, "I see dead people."

All of a sudden, the movie comes into focus, and (spoiler alert) you realize that much of what you thought you saw was a mirage, like the therapist himself, who actually is dead.

This fantasy is helpful in trying to understand the inner workings of the Missouri Legislature. Think of a little boy — maybe he looks a little like a young Mitt Romney — who mouths the words: "I like being able to fire people."

This week, the Missouri Senate fast-tracked two pieces of legislation backed by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and the Republicans who control the House and Senate. They call them "jobs bills."

That is a mirage.

The bills, says the chamber, are necessary to improve the state's business climate and, thus, magically produce new jobs.

One, sponsored by Sen. Brad Lager, R-Savannah, is much like a bill Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, wisely vetoed last year. This proposal should be called the "Make It Easier To Fire People Act" because that's precisely what it does.

If you don't care about employees having reasonable legal recourse for sexual harassment, racial discrimination or whistle-blower retaliation, then maybe it might "improve" the state's business environment.

Mr. Lager practically puts himself on a pedestal with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when suggesting his proposal is all about protecting "civil rights."

This, too, is a fantasy. All the state's major civil rights groups oppose it.

But the business community likes this bill. It would be saving some businesses money by capping jury awards, raising the burden of proof on seeking whistle-blower protection and encouraging judges to toss cases before they reach juries.

The other "jobs bill," sponsored by Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, seeks to fix mistakes made by the legislature in 2005 when Republicans sought to reduce workers' compensation costs and once again "improve the business environment."

All that "improving" actually bankrupted the Second Injury Fund, which aids workers who aggravate a previous disability while protecting employers from having to pay for injuries that they didn't cause. The 2005 changes also altered how the courts handle occupational diseases, tossing those cases to civil courts and raising potential employer liability.

Lawmakers should fix these mistakes, but their over-the-top proposals of the last few years actually would make the legal environment worse and do little to fix the immediate problem, which is that 170 Missouri workers have won legal judgments totalling $13.5 million, but the state doesn't have the money to pay them.

Two nonpartisan actuarial studies have pointed to a simple solution: revert to the 2005 law, which would save the Second Injury Fund. The facts, however, are trumped by the Republicans' fantasies.

Three powerful forces in the Missouri Capitol — business groups, trial lawyers and labor unions — have been trying unsuccessfully for a couple of years to find workable compromises to these complex issues to protect employers and employees.

The problem isn't that reasonable solutions can't be found, it's that competing special interests wander into the Capitol with blinders on. They don't see dead people. They just don't see reality.

Copyright St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Reprinted with permission.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Delcia Crockett January 15, 2012 | 4:20 a.m.

@"The problem isn't that reasonable solutions can't be found, it's that competing special interests wander into the Capitol with blinders on."

What insurance companies don't want you to know: You get a cash discount when you pay on medical accounts in payment budget/schedule, you pay for only what you use, and when you pay insurance, they get to build their big mansion-like offices, pay high-salaried CEOs and agent bonuses while you get nothing, if you miss only one payment or change jobs and get new insurance.

People need the money they fork over to insurance for their mere survival in a lot of workers' lives, living from paycheck to paycheck but they are having to flush their money down the drain to insurance, because of insurance-powerful lobbyists who have kissed up to our elected, and turned the elected attention away from the needs of working people.

We do not need more insurance buildings and CEOS for them, we need more medical care available to the working, and a payment plan for them to pay their medical bills.

This is worked out, without insurance, and the discount for cash is in place, because there is a less stack of paperwork and red tape to got through, when a person is allowed to pay for only what he/she has used.

Also, that is Scriptural, moral, ethical and honest.

Insurance is out of hand, and we need to rethink what we are doing to working people in this country. The elected need to stop sticking it to the working people and insurance is one of the biggest robber barons in the working-market today.

Sorry if this seems rude, but it needs to be said - if we are ever going to get our working people back in full force, and to keep the ones we have economically afloat.

Please do not say that insurance "takes care of the sick and dying." Insurance takes care of itself. We do need it for our homes and for our vehicles for safety issues to others, but we do not need coerced medical insurance.

Cash is the best policy. Pay as you go.

If you do not think so, then consider that when anyone becomes seriously ill and the insurance "caps out," then we get the donation requests to bring in the cash to help out.

Dare I say that insurance has become a legalized racket of sorts? Many people who state they fall prey to its methodology of greed and "rip-off" premiums/policies contend this as so. I would be most inclined to agree.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.