logo
'It feels hollow': Advocates frustrated by lack of state action to prevent workplace deaths

'It feels hollow': Advocates frustrated by lack of state action to prevent workplace deaths

Yahoo30-04-2025

CHEYENNE – Workplace advocates rallied Monday for Wyoming's state and federal lawmakers to end the state's right-to-work policies and shift to a pro-union state during a Workers Memorial Day event at the state Capitol.
For the past 20 years, Wyoming has consistently placed among the top five states in the nation for highest workplace fatality rates, according to the Wyoming AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations).
Total workplace fatalities rose from 34 in 2022 to 45 in 2023 in Wyoming, the highest recorded number of deaths in a single year in the state for at least a decade, according to the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services.
Wyoming had the highest workplace facility rate in the nation in 2023, with 16 deaths per 100,000 employees, according to AFL-CIO. This is nearly double the second-highest rate in the country: West Virginia's 8.3 deaths per 100,000 employees.
'Everything you remember tonight represents not just a statistic, but a universe, a web of relationships, dreams, morning coffee rituals, favorite songs and loved ones who still fill the empty space at their dinner tables,' said Wyoming AFL-CIO Executive Director Marcie Kindred. 'Behind every workplace fatality lies a story that was cut short, too.'
Workers Memorial Day lands on April 28, the same day the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) went into effect nearly 25 years ago, and commemorates the men and women who lost their lives on a job site. The primary purpose of OSHA is to ensure healthy and safe working conditions for all American employees.
A group of around 40 people attended Monday evening's event, many of them representing local unions from a myriad of industries, including steel, transportation, fire, mining, and construction and energy. Miner and United Steelworkers Local 13214 President Marshal Cummings said right-to-work laws are standing in the way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
'(Right-to-work is) not about jobs. It's not about freedom,' Cummings said. 'It's about weakening the very organizations, our unions, that keep us safe.'
Speakers at the event said they were tired of repeating these same words after little action from the state. Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association Executive Director Marcia Shanor said 'it feels hollow.'
'It shouldn't be one time a year that we all get together and talk about why this is an important issue,' Shanor said. 'It should be every day.'
She said the state needs to collect more data on workplace accidents in order to strategize better solutions that reduce casualties on the job. Kindred said Wyoming has six OSHA inspectors, and it would take them 307 years to inspect every workplace in the state just one time.
'Isn't that tragically poetic? 307, the single area code that Wyomingites share,' Kindred said. 'This isn't a criticism of OSHA. It's a stark illustration of how severely under-resourced our safety infrastructure is.'
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was heavily affected when 10,000 employees were laid off April 1 in the federal Department of Health and Human Services. NIOSH is an agency of HHS, and most of its supervisors and research scientists were terminated, according to the National Roofing Contractors Association.
Cummings told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle a scheduled health hazard evaluation for his mine was cancelled because the inspector was fired.
'She emailed me and said, 'I want to let you know it's not happening. I was fired,'' Cummings said. 'There's not much I can do.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty
Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty

Washington Post

time27 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty

Aristotle's axiom 'one swallow does not make a summer' suggests caution in anticipating large reverberations from a Supreme Court ruling last week. But the court's unanimous affirmation of a principle that is commonsensical but now controversial might indicate its readiness to temper the racialization of American law and governance, to which the court has contributed. In 2019, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman who had worked in a state agency since 2004, was denied a promotion for a job that went to a lesbian colleague with less experience at the agency and lesser academic credentials. Ames was subsequently demoted to a position involving a 40 percent pay cut, and her prior position was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit saying she was discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of her sexual orientation. She lost in a district court and in her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that she had not demonstrated 'background circumstances' (not defined, anywhere) to justify her suspicion of discrimination. This demonstration requires, the 6th Circuit said, a member of a majority to show that her employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The court heard this case not to decide the merits of Ames's accusation but to consider her extra burden in making them. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's short (nine-page) opinion for the court, she noted that 'disparate treatment' (discrimination) claims generally rest on 'circumstantial evidence,' but only members of a majority have the additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating 'background circumstances.' Jackson briskly held that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, it concerns unlawfully hiring, discharging or otherwise discriminating against 'any individual' (Jackson's emphasis). By stipulating protections for every 'individual,' Congress 'left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Jackson quoted the court's language in the 1971 Duke Power Co. case: 'discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed' (Jackson's emphasis). In Duke Power, however, the court greased the nation's slide into laws that recognize, in order to privilege, groups. The court conceded that the company did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. It nonetheless was guilty of illegal discrimination because when making promotions it administered an aptitude test that had a 'disparate impact' on groups: 58 percent of White candidates and 6 percent of Black ones passed. By creating an illegal discrimination of effects, severed from intentions, the court opened a path to racialist thinking and laws. And a racial spoils system based on the theory that disparate social outcomes should be blamed on 'systemic' racism. So, racism will persist until 'the system' — a.k.a., society — is dismantled and reassembled equitably, which might take a while. Such language — systemic injuries to certain (not all) minority groups — undermines a foundational American premise: that rights (and responsibilities) inhere in individuals. This has helped to create today's simmering stew of grievances: the toxic binary of oppressors and oppressed, grievance groups versus groups aggrieved by being accused of complicity, even if unintentional, in oppression. Justice Jackson's opinion focused, properly, on the narrow question of what Title VII requires and does not mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, in a 14-page concurrence (joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) deplored 'problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.' By now, much constitutional law is 'judge-made': extracted from, not found in, constitutional or statutory texts. Including some doctrines that conservatives rightly applaud, such as the 'major questions' doctrine: Executive agencies should not exercise powers of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized this. Other examples: Miranda warnings (by police), the exclusionary rule (excluding illegally seized evidence from trials), the nondelegation doctrine (limiting Congress's ability to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers). The 'background conditions' requirement for majority plaintiffs is, however, unambiguously discrimination mandated as social policy, implausibly tickled from Title VII language. How will Jackson apply her 'individuals, not groups' reasoning when, soon, the court announces its ruling in a case from Louisiana under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? The core issue there is: Does a map of six congressional districts, drawn after the 2020 Census, constitute 'vote dilution' that denies a particular group, Black voters, a 'meaningful opportunity' to elect candidates of their choice. No such language is in, or implied by, the Voting Rights Act, or is compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for individuals.

China Found World's Pain Point on Trade — and Will Use It Again
China Found World's Pain Point on Trade — and Will Use It Again

Bloomberg

time31 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

China Found World's Pain Point on Trade — and Will Use It Again

For months Donald Trump pushed tariffs and trade restrictions on China to unprecedented levels, part of a strategy to force Xi Jinping into talks the US president expected would help cut the trade deficit and boost American manufacturing. With US tariffs soaring to 145% and the Trump administration boasting that it had the upper hand with China, Beijing turned the tables, essentially shutting down exports of one thing the modern world can't function without: rare earth magnets.

Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House
Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House

The falling out between President Trump and Elon Musk is just the latest reminder that the relationship between the new White House and the titans of technology has turned out to be complicated. The CEO of Tesla (TSLA) was among several big names from Silicon Valley awarded prime seats for the president's Jan. 20 Capitol inauguration, alongside Meta (META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook, Amazon (AMZN) chair Jeff Bezos, and Google (GOOG) CEO Sundar Pichai. In the five months since, the president has either confronted all of their companies in court or applied pressure on those firms with his own words. Musk and Trump made their break official last week in a series of social media posts that featured insults and threats hurled by both men. The other executives and their companies had already been grappling with a tougher-than-expected stance on their industry. Zuckerberg, for example, was not able to convince Trump to stop an antitrust trial against Meta from going forward this spring. The president has since threatened Cook's Apple with 25% duties on overseas-made iPhones and criticized the iPhone maker's ramped-up production in India. Meanwhile, the company is defending against an antitrust lawsuit led by the Justice Department, filed during President Joe Biden's administration. Trump's Justice Department has also pushed ahead with a Biden-era recommendation for a judge to break up Pichai's Google empire. Trump even called Bezos to complain about Amazon after it was reported that the online retail giant was considering displaying the cost of tariffs next to prices on its site. Trump said Bezos "solved the problem very quickly.' Yet Amazon still faces a lawsuit from Trump's Federal Trade Commission that is due to start in February 2027. The FTC, which brought the case during Biden's term in office, told a judge in the spring that it needed to push the original October 2026 trial date due to Amazon's litigation delays. One of the biggest questions facing the tech world as Trump took office was how aggressive Trump's antitrust enforcers would be following four years of a Biden administration marked by legal fights with many of Silicon Valley's biggest names. By sustaining many of these cases and probes against Big Tech, Trump has parted ways with traditional Republican-style enforcement, legal experts say. "This isn't the Bush administration," Trump's FTC chair Andrew Ferguson told a group of American CEOs this spring in Washington, D.C., referring to one of the weakest US antitrust enforcement periods in modern history. Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Anat Alon-Beck expects the Trump administration will continue to rein in Big Tech, especially given bipartisan support for the idea that Big Tech currently has too much power. There have been some positive developments for the tech firms too. Big Tech has gained the benefit of a relaxed regulatory environment, especially in the industry of artificial intelligence, making fundraising and complying with securities laws easier. In an executive order titled 'Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,' the president rescinded Biden's executive order on AI safety and directed federal agencies to remove regulatory obstacles to US global AI dominance. "So they have to take what they can get from the current administration," Alon-Beck said. One tech giant that does have an early win from Trump is Microsoft. President Trump's antitrust cops ended what had become an uphill government effort to unwind Microsoft's (MSFT) $69 billion acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard that also began during the Biden administration. The decision came when the FTC voluntarily dropped a lawsuit that Biden's FTC boss, Lina Khan, first filed against the tie-up in December 2022. But Microsoft may not emerge unscathed, either. Bloomberg has reported that Trump officials at the FTC are also broadening a probe into Microsoft and its relationship with AI upstart OpenAI ( The probe was first launched by Khan, a key architect of a new movement seeking to expand the legal theories that can give rise to antitrust claims. In June of last year, multiple news organizations reported that the probe also involved a DOJ investigation into chipmaker Nvidia's (NVDA) competitive conduct. The probe was to address concerns over the company's dominance in the market for microprocessors that power AI. The Trump administration has not indicated it has dropped the investigation. And in April, Nvidia said in a regulatory filing that the president had kept in place Biden's export restrictions on the company's H20 AI chips to China. As for Musk, Trump this past weekend said he had no desire to repair the relationship, which he said was over. He warned there would be 'serious consequences' if Musk financed candidates to run against Republicans who voted in favor of the president's domestic policy bill. But on Monday, Trump made some conciliatory comments about Musk and Tesla. "I'd have no problem with it," Trump said at a White House event on Monday when asked if he would be willing to speak with Musk. "I'd imagine he wants to speak with me." He added, "I wish him well, very well actually." The Tesla CEO has also conceded that he regrets some of his social media posts about Trump, saying on Wednesday that they "went too far". Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note on Monday that he doesn't expect Trump and Musk to fully patch their soured relationship but would not be surprised if it improved in the months ahead. At the end of the day, Ives wrote, "Trump needs Musk to stay close to the Republican party and Musk needs Trump for many reasons," including a federal framework for autonomous vehicles. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store