Introduction:Current health reform legislation focuses toward pre-existing conditions and capped medical expenses. However, although pre-existing conditions is an undesired company benefit, individuals additionally focus toward health reform prevention. In essence individuals practice safe methods, which will minimize pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, practicing health reform through prevention translates into retaliation. Hence, when individuals practice health reform prevention in the workplace, health reform retaliation follows resulting from at-will practices. In addition because ineffective labor laws are results from significant research, health reform retaliation appears as a normal outcome.Thus, the following paper highlights research with experiences from various companies. In essence Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Pymm Thermometer Company (PTC), Nebraska Beef and industry, Remec Defense and Space, Complete Automotive Repairs Services (CARS) Protection Plus, industries hiring undocumented workers, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, and others contribute to health reform retaliation. Unfortunately, individuals who desire health reform discover rewards with retaliatory disguised out-the-door policies. Thus, as stated by Bernhardt, Ph.D. et al. (2009), “We found that when workers complained about their working conditions or tried to organize a union, employers often responded by retaliating against them. Just as important, many workers never made complaints in the first place, often because they feared retaliation by their employer”. On the other hand, pre-existing conditions with stratospheric health costs combined with at-will retaliation may appear as an acceptable and litigant’s approval approach.For example:Remec Defense and Space At-Will Health RetaliationRegrettably, as individuals strive toward adequate health and safety in the workplace, additional individuals encounter domino retaliatory effects resulting from protected rights activity. In any event, Remec Defense and Space, a division of Cobham, designs and manufactures various complex modules for the space and defense industry. In essence a manufacturer of complex products that requires precision manufacturing, proper handling of components, and complex technical knowledge.Nonetheless, individuals discuss relevant issues using freedom of expression principles. In addition employees discuss pay issues using protective California rights. Furthermore, employees concerns of across-the-border replacements through reduced labor costs add additional stresses to existing financial concerns. Unfortunately, use of protective rights creates sudden graveyard duties. In essence limited speaking through alienation and at-will retaliation for so-called protected rights becomes the norm.Unhappily, individuals receive unprotected rights through fear of retaliation at Remec Defense and Space. In addition human resources practices at-will retaliation, whereby protected rights become challenged.In any event, graveyard employment has calamities. Furthermore, researchers and various organizations such as Circadian communicate graveyard or night-shift employment hazards. Unfortunately, human resources and managers appear unfazed or unconcerned of graveyard conditions. In any event, current worker hazards combined with growing obituaries reflects a different outcome. In other words, severe fatigue side effects with depression could contribute to Mario Alberto Garay’s passing. Thus, although graveyard conditions are known through hazards, hazards are simply causes of graveyard employees. In essence health reform through prevention creates continued retaliation.Nevertheless, protecting individual health concerns appears secondary. Furthermore, when Falkner’s state of “health concerns to the dogs” then obituary columns increase. In addition when Falkner’s and legal representatives support, “On approximately two occasions when I required him to work overtime, he agreed to do so, but later called in sick,” then health reform is lacking. In other words, extended graveyard or night-shift hours contribute to health concerns and various fatigued events although Garay’s are suffering from graveyard events. Unhappily, Remec Defense and Space with respective litigants have not learned from existing obituary columns. In essence health reform through prevention rather than receiving illnesses appears as a superior solution. On the other hand, acquiring company illnesses and using benefits may direct one toward preexisting conditions.In any event, graveyard shifts can be treacherous amidst of various diseases. As stated from litigants’ comments, “When Plaintiff made REMEC aware of the negative changes in his health condition as a result of being forced to work on the night shift; REMEC failed and refused to make changes to accommodate Plaintiff’s deteriorating health condition.” However, after much persistence, harassment, and three-way conferences were a graveyard shift behind me.Nonetheless, switching from graveyard to day shift becomes a challenge. In addition individuals who endure long-term graveyard with sudden day shift changes develop jet lag symptoms. In essence employees become human switches for a company’s workforce.Nonetheless, individuals research attempt toward discovering unusual chemical performance. Furthermore, investigative manufacturer’s MSDS shows known cancer chemical presence. In addition suspected container appears mislabeled requiring location of source container. In other words, contents from an identified source container are poured into a non-identifying container without proper labeling or individual knowledge. Therefore, MSDS chemical product tracking was nonexistent. Nevertheless, although minute cancer chemical, ethylene oxide, is present in deionized water, manufacturer’s warning recommends path toward caution.On the other hand, as alternate safer solutions such as deionized (DI) water are available and right-to-know processes appear lacking, health and safety moderators appear unconcerned toward product contents. As stated by Workman (2007), “After reviewing the updated MSDS for the cleaning solution, I do not see that it presents a substantial hazard. Since individuals may have different reactions to contact with this cleaner, REMEC provides gloves to employees upon request”. However, because communication, gloves, and cancers appear challenged, cancer prevention serves as a superior alternative. In other words, Remec and others should not create cancer patients such that cancer solutions or vaccines can be discovered. Miserably, when individuals become expendable objects, when employees primary language is not English, occupational diseases through non-communication will continue.Nonetheless, chemical mishandling prompted upper management notification. As stated in litigant’s report, “Plaintiff complained to his management at REMEC about the improper and dangerous use of a chemical industrial cleaning solution being improperly used and handled by REMEC employees.” In essence health reform through prevention of skin cancers can not occur. Unhappily and shortly thereafter, management terminated the employee. Hence, health reform through prevention creates retaliation. In any event, OSHA required Remec Defense and Space to perform corrective actions whereas upper management tackles employee retentions.ConclusionThe following research concludes health reform using preventable measures is desired. Unfortunately, individuals or employees who communicate health reform will receive company retaliation. Furthermore, when hiring practices are toward limited-English candidates, then health and safety practices lingers. Additionally, given that employees fear of unemployment or retaliatory activities, then workplace calamities will continue. As stated by Bernhardt, Ph.D. et al. (2009), “Despite the existence of legal protection from retaliation, many workers chose not to make complaints to their employers, even when they encountered substandard conditions in the workplace” (p. 28). In essence health reform retaliation will continue regardless of labor law regulations. However, although pre-existing conditions can lead toward spiraling healthcare costs, focuses toward healthcare reform using prevention without retaliation appears as a superior alternative solution.
It is time for you, the average consumer, to take a stand!Fellow consumer, for years we have been taken to the cleaners from the automotive industry: It is time for us to demand change in product quality and how the automotive industry conducts business! As consumers, we need to pressure the industry to change course and give us the best product and service they can or let them die – let them go bankrupt! If a few American companies survive they might just get it – they might finally understand that Americans deserve and expect more.Do not be fooled by the stories of bad economy and poor sales! The U.S. automotive industry has done this to themselves!I am not saying that a bad economy does not exist but they have been on this road to destruction for a long time. I used to work in an Oldsmobile, Subaru dealership: in 1986 we sold all models from both manufacturers’, please allow me to cite two models from the 80′s to make my point.1) The Oldsmobile Cutlass Sierra wagon came with a 4-cylinder motor, air conditioning, A.M. radio, power steering, power brakes, the approximate retail price was 10k to 11k.2) The Subaru GL wagon came with 4-cylinder motor, air conditioning, F.M. stereo, power steering, power brakes, 4-wheel drive, power windows, power locks, split rear seats, rear defrost, multi position front seats with tilt, roof rack and more: the approximate retail price was 10k to 11k.The Olds had a reputation for having major motor problems and often would not survive past 100,000. By contrast, the Subaru was well known for surviving 200,000 miles plus with little motor troubles. In addition, there was a massive difference in standard comfort features for the same price – we sold Subaru’s at a rate of 40 to 1 compared to the Olds.The U.S automotive industry continued down that path for several years, as the price of vehicles rose dramatically they started to use financing tactics to sell their inferior products. The inevitable happened and many of the vehicles sold failed to last the term of the loans without major repairs and the resale value of a U.S. vehicle was poor so you could not trade them in without going financially backwards.Around 1990 U.S. automotive manufactures started to take heed, they produced some better quality vehicles and kept the prices more stable. Unfortunately, along with the better quality product came a substantial rise in part costs. Thus, repair bills began to skyrocket and continued to stay behind foreign competitors’ and their technology. Around 2000 it seemed we went downward again in the Quality department, around 2005 we started to rise some but I think it was far too little and a little too late.In 2008 Ford Motor Company had an ad campaign on stating they now had cars that with equivalent quality of Toyota. I don’t know about you, but if I owned a Ford I would feel like “Oh great, so the Ford I bought prior to 2008 was admittedly inferior!”U.S. automakers sponsor racing teams at a cost of millions of dollars per year: they continue to grossly overpay their executives: they have wildly exaggerated union worker compensation: and still, after at least 2 decades of foreign competitors nipping at their heels, they still stay so far behind in technology and quality. Quite frankly, I don’t understand why!Now, after years of inferior products, higher repair bills, exuberant executive payouts, must have unions in order to work in the plants, they put their hands out for the taxpayer to bail them out? There should be no question about the answer: a resounding NO!Thank you Mr. Ford for making the model T and further ushering in the industrial age, thank you U.S. auto manufacturing for providing good jobs for so many years: But you are a business after all and must hold to do or die like the rest of the business world!I am not advocating Americans should buy foreign products – especially in our current economic crisis! However, the majority of the working U.S. public has a limited amount of money for automobile purchases necessitating we use that limited amount wisely. With past and current conditions in the automotive industry higher quality, better comfort, more options for the same price suggests the foreign automotive makers provide “more bang for the buck”.(By the way, I own two American vehicles, one I am not pleased with at all and the other has so far *crossing fingers* been fantastic.)