OSHA Cites Ashley Furniture Over Dozens of Safety Violations

OSHA Cites Ashley Furniture Over Dozens of Safety Violations

ByRACHEL ABRAMS FEB. 2, 2015

Ashley Furniture, one of the world’s largest furniture manufacturers, faces $1.7 million in penalties to settle charges that unsafe conditions at its manufacturing plant in Arcadia, Wis., led to more than 1,000 injuries.

The Department of Labor’sOccupational Safety and Health Administrationcited the company for dozens of violations, including disregard for safety standards that led to a number of gruesome injuries. In July, one worker lost three fingers while operating a woodworking machine, the agency said.

The company also offered employees incentives to work quickly, a practice that encouraged dangerous factory conditions, the agency said.

“Regrettably, Ashley Furniture has become a frequent flier for OSHA,” Thomas E. Perez, the labor secretary, said in an interview. “We have been inspecting this plant a number of times. We have found violations previously. They have been fined; we have come back. The fundamental challenge is they need to build a better culture of safety, and that hasn’t happened.”

In a statement, Ashley Furniture said it “strongly disputes the allegations from OSHA” and “looks forward to the opportunity to present our evidence in the proper setting.”

The company “strongly disagrees with each and every one of the agency’s assertions and believes the proposed penalties are grossly inappropriate and overzealous,” it said in an email.

The penalties are on the large side for OSHA. In April, Republic Steel agreed to pay $2.4 million related to health and safety violations at several of its plants in Ohio and New York.

OSHA has also placed Ashley Furniture in itsSevere Violator Enforcement Programfor its failure to fix a number of issues, including 12 repeated safety violations, each of which carries a penalty of up to $70,000.

The agency had previously cited Ashley Furniture in 2014 when another worker lost part of a finger. OSHA opened its investigation after the more recent incident in July, and found that workers had suffered more than 1,000 injuries over a three-and-a-half-year period.

Of those injuries, 100 were caused by similar machinery. Ashley Furniture employs about 4,500 workers at its facility in Arcadia, according to the agency.

Mr. Perez said the company routinely blamed workers for their accidents.

“I don’t quite understand how the worker can be to blame when the fact of the matter is, the machines lacked the proper safety mechanisms, which are not that expensive,” Mr. Perez said. “This is not splitting the atom.”

Ashley Furniture did not properly protect its workers from machines with moving parts, the agency said. Machines would start unintentionally when workers were changing tools or blades, and could injure workers who came in contact with them.

The agency also said that the company did not properly train workers on how to safely service equipment. Ashley Furniture has 15 business days to pay or contest the penalties.

OSHA has conducted 33 federal inspections and 23 state plan inspections of Ashley Furniture since 1982, the agency said in a statement. Four inspections came after employees suffered finger amputations, and the agency has issued 96 serious violations as a result of its federal inspections. A violation is considered serious if “death or serious physical harm can result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists,” the agency said in a statement.

Penalties of $1.7 million may be a drop in the bucket for Ashley Furniture, which had annual revenue of $3.85 billion as of October 2014, according toForbes. Mr. Perez said he hoped that the latest round of penalties would help the company take appropriate action to protect its brand.

“The failure to have appropriate and proper safety culture puts their brand in serious jeopardy,” Mr. Perez said.

OSHA has not recorded any deaths at the Arcadia facility, according to a spokesman, Jesse Lawder.

Big money in politics

Two depressing thoughts

Nov 7th 2014, 22:06BY LEXINGTON

HERE are two depressing thoughts for Americans who fear that money is killing their democracy, and who pin their hopes on campaign-finance reform saving the day. The first comes from some back-of-an-envelope maths, spurred bya press releasefrom the estimable folk at the Brookings Institution who track campaign spending.

As Brookings announced:

Totaling more than $111,000,000.00, the 2014 North Carolina Senate contest between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis is the most expensive Senate election in the nation’s history (not adjusted for inflation).

Their report then listed the ten costliest Senate races in 2014. The numbers towards the bottom of the top ten, in the $50m range, rang a bell in Lexington’s memory, reaching back to the days, a few years back, when I wrote the Bagehot column on British politics.

Campaign spending is tightly regulated in Britain, along with other forms of free speech (broadcasters are still required to demonstrate political balance, for instance, and paid TV and radio political ads are outlawed). The Electoral Commission in Britain was thus able to put outa detailed reporton the most recent general election in 2010, showing total spending by all political parties and outside groups. A quick bit of currency conversion generates depressing fact number one.

Total spending by political parties in the British general election was £31.5m ($49.9m). Total spending by outside groups was £2.8m ($4.4m). So all in all: $54.3m. With 45.6m registered voters in Britain, that comes out at $1.19 per voter.

Scan down the Brookings list, and that is less than the seventhmost-costly Senate race (Arkansas), which cost $56.3m, or $26.47 per Arkansas voter. So the seventhcostliest Senate race cost more than the entire 2010 general election in Britain.

And here is the second depressing thought. Many Americans worry that public faith in democracy is being undermined by vast sums of corrupting money. There is a prevailing suspicion that elected representatives are essentially bought and paid for by wealthy special interests.

I have covered elections in America, and certainly hear such views all the time. I take them seriously. But here is the thing. I have covered elections in Britain and British voters voiceexactly the same complaints, word for word. Angry, distrustful British voters are convinced that democracy is being undermined by vast sums of corrupting money, to the point that elected representatives are essentially bought and paid for by wealthy special interests.

Yet British election spending is regulated more tightly than any model dreamed of by even the most starry-eyed campaigner in America. Which suggests, I would submit, that when voters say that rich donors control everything, they may not be talking about absolute amounts of money, or even individual election rules. They are—at least in part—saying something else: that they feel the fix is in and ordinary voters are powerless in an economy run for the benefit of the rich and well-connected.

Now, that does not mean that campaign donations cannot be corrupting. At some basic level, it feels indecent to spend tens of millions of dollars on individual Senate races. Nor do I scoff for a moment at those who long for campaign finance reform. If big donors are to be allowed to pour fortunes into election races, for instance, it is common sense that they should not be allowed to do so anonymously.

So this columnist agrees with those rooting for campaign finance reform. I just would not expect it to have magical effects on the public’sangry, distrustful mood.

New Americans in the Voting Booth: The Growing Electoral Power of Immigrant Communities

The United States is in the midst of a major demographic transformation that has profound political consequences. Over the past couple of decades, the number of voters who are immigrants or the native-born children of immigrants (“New Americans”)—as well as members of the larger communities to which immigrants and their children belong (primarily Latinos and Asians)—has grown dramatically. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of New American registered voters rose by 10.6 million—an increase of 143.1 percent—and the number of registered voters who are Latinos or Asians and Pacific Islanders (APIs) increased by 9.8 million. Conversely, fewer and fewer voters are native-born whites.

Immigrants who are naturalized citizens, and the native-born children of immigrants born since the current era of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia began in 1965, are referred to in this report as “New Americans.” The U.S.-born children of immigrants in particular occupy a unique position in U.S. society in that they have watched one or both of their parents navigate a new society and culture. As a result, they are personally connected to the struggles of immigrants and to the ways in which U.S. society reacts to and treats immigrants.

New Americans are both closely connected to, and many are a part of, the Latino and Asian communities in the United States. Latinos and Asians include not only immigrants and their children, but also families that have lived here for many generations. However, in general, Latinos and Asians have a close connection to the immigrant experience because they are immigrants themselves, or their parents were immigrants, or they live in neighborhoods where friends and extended family members are immigrants.

Together, New Americans, Latinos, and APIs are the fastest growing segments of the electorate. This trend goes far beyond the political dynamics of any particular election. New Americans, Latinos, and APIs constitute a rapidly rising political force with which more and more candidates for public office will have to reckon. In the coming years, politicians who alienate these voters will find it increasingly difficult to win national and many state and local elections—especially in close races.

There were 18.1 million New Americans registered to vote in 2012, totaling 11.8 percent of all registered voters. This amounts to an increase of 10.6 million (or 143.1 percent) since 1996. As of 2012, 13.7 million Latinos accounted for 8.9 percent of all registered voters, while 4.8 million APIs accounted for 3.2 percent. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of Latino registered voters increased by 7.1 million (an increase of 108.4 percent). API registered voters increased in number by 2.7 million (an increase of 125.5 percent). Between 1996 and 2012, the Latino share of all registered voters increased by 3.8 percentage points and the API share by 1.5 percentage points. In contrast, the non-Latino white share declined by 8.0 percentage points.

New Americans: California is home to more New American registered voters (4.7 million) than any other state. This is followed by New York (2.1 million), Florida (1.8 million), and Texas (1.4 million). New Americans comprise just under one-third of registered voters in California—the highest share in the nation. Next in line is New York, with nearly one-quarter of registered voters being New Americans. In Nevada, New Jersey, and Florida, New Americans make up about one-fifth of all registered voters. The number of New American registered voters increased by the largest margin in California (2.7 million) between 1996 and 2012. The number also grew significantly in Florida (1.1 million) and New York (1.1 million). In terms of percentages, the ranks of New American registered voters increased most dramatically in Nevada: growing by 588.6 percent. Next are Georgia (472.8 percent), North Carolina (423.8 percent), and Arizona (397.6 percent). The New American share of registered voters increased by more than 15 percentage points in Nevada and California during this period. New York experienced an 11 percentage point increase, and both Florida and Arizona registered an increase of nearly 10 percentage points.

Latinos: The largest number of Latino registered voters resides in California (3.7 million). Next in line are Texas (2.7 million), Florida (1.6 million), and New York (1 million). Latinos comprise more than one-third of registered voters in New Mexico, and nearly a quarter in Texas and California. In Arizona and Florida, Latinos account for just under one-fifth of registered voters. The number of Latino registered voters increased the most from 1996 to 2012 in California (2 million), Texas (1 million), and Florida (1 million). The percentage increase in the number of Latino registered voters was greatest in Tennessee (1,063.6 percent), Arkansas (891.6 percent), and North Carolina (779.9 percent). The Latino share of registered voters grew by roughly 11 percentage points in California and Nevada between 1996 and 2012. In Florida there was an increase of 8.2 percentage points, followed by Arizona (5.9 percentage points).

APIs: The greatest number of API registered voters is found in California (1.7 million), followed by New York (400,000), Texas (300,000), and Hawaii (300,000). APIs account for nearly one-half of all registered voters in Hawaii, and more than one out of ten in California. From 1996 to 2012, the number of API registered voters increased by 845,000 in California. Other large increases also occurred in New York (202,000) and Texas (200,000). The most dramatic growth in numbers of API registered voters occurred in Alabama, increasing from virtually nothing in 1996 to 17,235 in 2012. The growth rate in Florida during this time was 1,099.1 percent, followed by the District of Columbia (611.1 percent), Georgia (493.3 percent), and Nevada (457.7 percent). The greatest increase in the API share of registered voters between 1996 and 2012 occurred in Nevada (5.5 percentage points). Close behind were California (4.4 percentage points) and New Jersey (4.1 percentage points).

The electoral power which New Americans wield—or can wield, especially in close elections—is evident in the fact that the number of New American voters in 2012 exceeded the margin by which President Obama either won or lost the race in 12 states. Specifically, New American voters were greater in number than President Obama’s margin of victory in California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Their numbers were greater than Obama’s margin of defeat in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

The Big Influence of the Big Box

Catherine Ruetschlin,Sean McElwee

The notion that all citizens have a voice in our country’s governance is at the center of the American ideal of democracy. Yet the role of corporate and private money in our political system means that the voices of the majority are often drowned out by those with the most money. Campaign and committee donations help wealthy interests determine who runs for office and who wins elections. This effect, combined with millions of dollars in lobbying, allows the biggest spenders to shape the country’s political agenda and gives them disproportionate influence over the policymaking process. As a result, the minority population of affluent Americans see their priorities reflected in our legislative objectives, even when the majority of the country disagrees with their preferences.1This problematic political spending entrenches economic inequality and political power in a system where legitimacy hinges on equality and self-determination. Under this regime the economic advantages held by companies like Walmart can be leveraged to yield legislative returns. The political spending of big retailers reveals how extreme disparity not only subverts our economic promise; it undermines our democratic principles and our government’s commitment to the public good.

In this report we examine the federal election spending of the six big-box retail companies with earnings ranked among the top retail companies in the country, using newly available data from the Center for Responsive Politics. We find that their reach is pervasive, reflected in enormous and growing expenditures to influence electoral and policy outcomes. Among this group,Walmart is the biggest spender by a wide margin, with $2.4 million in donations through its Political Action Committee (PAC) and individual donations and $12.5 million in lobbying expenses during the 2014 electoral cycle—spending about three times more than its nearest rival, Home Depot. This political spending is a problem for democracy, because extensive research suggests that the domination of wealth in our electoral process can significantly affect public policy, and that the priorities of the affluent often diverge from majority opinion.2On issues like taxation, economic regulation, Social Security, and the minimum wage, the differences can be stark.

There has been a dramatic mobilization of political power among America’s largest big-box retailers over the past four election cycles, with federal campaign and lobbying expenditures growing from $5.2 million during the 2000 political cycle to $29.8 million during the 2014 cycle, an almost six-fold increase. Even that number massively underestimates retail’s reach by excluding state and local elections, as well as contributions to 501(c)3 and 501(c)6 groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Chamber of Commerce. The fastest increases in retail political spending over the period appeared with the 2008 election cycle. Total campaign and lobbying expenditures grew by 95 percent in that cycle, driven by lobbying expenditures that more than doubled. In the 2010 midterm election cycle, lobbying topped $25 million. Political spending by big-box retailers peaked at a total of $33.7 million in 2012—the following presidential election year.