4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, October 29, 1986 The Michigan Daily i , Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Put courts on television Vol. XCVII, No. 40 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. Working values PRESIDENT REAGAN'S PRO- BIG business stand is adversely affecting worker health and safety through his manipulation of regulatory standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA was created in 1971 to ensure safety on the job for U.S. workers. Although the agency was initially ineffective, it started issuing important regulations and inspecting work facilities for hazardous conditions under the Carter administration. OSHA cost/benefit analysis determines the value of a human life in the workplace, which determines the amount business is required to spend to protect each worker. These OSHA estimates affect all federal regulations including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rules on acid rain and many in the private sector such as in hospitals. The experts at Carter's OSHA decided the value of a worker's life was so high that benefits would outvalue almost any cost to business to implement the regulation. But the Reagan administration has deliberately changed the cost/benefit equation in order to drastically cut the occupational safety costs to business. This change consists of combining the worker's salary with the death and accident reports of that occupation to determine the value their life. This equation is designed on the assumption that people who choose to work in more dangerous jobs, which are higher-paid, must value their lives less. What is not taken into consideration is the fact that people often take dangerous jobs because they are desperate for work. Reagan has also hurt the effectiveness of OSHA by cutting the number inspectors by one- third; those remaining work under new guidelines designed to intimidate them from citing business for breaking occupational health and safety regulations. For instance, the inspectors are now required to give employers forms on which anonymous complaints can be made against the inspector after an inspection. These OSHA employees are penalized if an employer contests too many citations, regardless of whether the complaints are valid. Reagan also instituted a new procedure whereby employers who report low worker- injury rates are exempt from further inspections, without further verification of their reports. Injury reports have sharply decreased since 1981; all work-related fatalities of United Auto Workers (UAW) members in 1983 took place in worksites exempt by this new rule which suggests the Reagan policy is not working. Under Reagan's OSHA, 40 percent of U.S. workers previously protected by health and safety standards have lost that privilege and 80 percent of the nation's workers have been excluded from the "right-to-know" rule which would notify them of, any deadly chemicals in their worksite. Not ironically, occupation-related deaths soared 21 percent by 1984 and injury rates were up 13 percent. Such irresponsible measures and startling statistics demonstrate the Reagan administration's commitment to furthering business at any cost -- even that of a worker's health or life. Americans are fascinated with their legal system. The attraction has traditionally been to suspenseful courtroom dramas, with brilliant and crusading lawyers. But now even mundane forms of the legal process are getting attention. Witness what we watch on TV. We have three shows - "People's Court", "Divorce Court", and "Superior Court" - dedicated to the dryer aspects of the legal system. Imagine six years ago as someone got what must have seemed like a crackpot idea. Dramatize small claims court. A man pays a shoemaker to widen his shoes from 7 C to 8 EE. The shoemaker messes up and instead shortens the shoe to 6 1/2 BB, while at the same time ripping one of the man's shoelaces. The man is outraged and demands full remuneration. The shoemaker refuses, saying he has a strict no return policy and denying he even ripped the shoelace. The man sues and the two battle it out in court. Throw in a loveable old curmudgeon for a judge and tweedy reporter Doug Lewelyn to interview them after the case, and you've got a television series. Clearly it seemed the man who designed this show was not long for his job. But the show caught on. People loved it. Judge Wapner became a celebrity. And viewers would tune in nightly to watch "ordinary people" have their day in court. There is only one question that springs to mind when one considers the popularity of "People's Court." Why? The success of the show seems to parallel the attitudes of the country. We live in a litigous "I'm going to sue you" society. "Mental anguish" has become the new fad. The hallmark case involved a woman in San Francisco. Though not physically injured in a trolley car accident, she sued, saying the mental anguish caused her to Marbury vs. Madison could be another episode. We could all tune in as Doug Lewelyn interviews an elated William Marbury and a disgruntled James Madison. Celebrity judges could make special appearances. Bill Rehnquist could try Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. And find segregation legal. The judges on these courtroom shows would be made to look as official as possible. There may still be a problem with realism, though. Most of the TV judges may not have the same qualifications as real judges. In the case of some Reagan appointees, they'll be more qualified. They may be able to spell. The TV court programs have had their good and bad effects. One good thing is that people are now more aware of their rights. TV has always been effective for this form of education. Who the hell would know their Miranda rights were it not for the countless hours spent watching "Adam -12?" These new shows may also be attracting a different clientele to the law schools. In the past, lawyers were brought up in aristocratic families and were taught respect for the law as a sacred social contract that bound society together. Now, the new generation of lawyers will be weaned on "Divorce Court" and Judge Wapner. Television has brought the judicial system to the public. Already we have an all music channel, an all news channel, and an all weather channel. In our litigous and compulsive society, how long will it be before we have an all legal channel? "Hi. I'm your guest VJ William Kunstler. And this hour we'll be seeing highlights from Plessy vs. Ferguson, Roe vs. Wade, and we'll be talking to a man who sued his neighbor because the dog ate his television. And it's only here on Legal TV, the only 24 hour legal channel." Talk about mental anguish. .OES IT OVERTURN LAWG YOU LVE. ANDM (OLt ONF& "Io a ATe? No-T ALT TRoS NINE V~NoW-iT-AuLL5 TELL YOU \N ST THE.LAW IS! Cf --51 be.sexually frigid. The judge decided her sex life was worth $50, 000. (How -the judge arrived at that figure is another matter altogether and will nota be discussed here). Recently another California woman sued and won. Her claim: the CAT scan that the hospital gave her zapped her psychic powers. With examples like this, is it aky wonder shows like "People's Court" 're popular? The people on that show - compared to the people in real life -'ae not crackpots. But, of course, "People's Court" wasn't enough. Next came "Divorce Court." And then to round out the courtroo trilogy, "Superior Court." There are no brilliant lawyers here. No crusading battles for right or wrong. 'No suspenseful courtroom deliberations. It's just the American legal process, minus all the paper work and condensed iri to Reader's Digest form. And people love it. One wonders what will be next. How trivial is too trivial? How mundane can the shows get? How about "Probate Court" where viewers watch as judges divide .p people's estates? Or "Traffic Court," where people can fight it out over who pulled out of the parking space first? were the groceries blocking the man's rear view mirror? or did the person really fail to give the proper turn signal? Myriad of bizarie traffic accidents can be thought up for tis show. And if this show catches on, there will be a spinoff. If people have a fascination with moving violations, why not non-moving violations? "Parking Referee" will be the next show. Watchas plaintiffs go to contest their parking tickets before a tough but righteous parking referee. Was the fire lane clearly marked? Did the man really have his parking permit the required 2 3/4 inches above the dash? And then there could be "Naturalization Court." Viewers watch as immigrants get sworn in. My personal favorite would be "Classic Court." Classic cases from the history of the United States could be deliberated. Who wouldn't watch when Judge Wapner rules on the Dred Scott Case? WRITEWA NOW0 FOR Do0e GIVE TtHF 5UP2?, C O12T YOU A P MA"I FPEIE FOOV1. T i 1 t m-ITyUZELF CoN W gL Spellbinding Series Yotu MAVEYOUR L. 1s OW" -T RY' VE 6EEN CHiAN GI N& 200I MINDS $! p. I v ~u r' T HEBASEBALL SEASON ENDED finally with the seventh game of the World Series Monday night. The 83rd World Series between the victorious New York Mets and Boston Red Sox was complete with thrills that baseball fans will relive for many years. Game 6 alone, in which the Mets were down to their last strike and behind by two runs in the 10th inning, rates right up there with the best World Series games ever played. Perhaps the Series will be remembered for the Red Sox failure to win their first fall classic since 1918 when Woodrow Wilson was President, and Babe Ruth was their star pitcher. Give the Sox credit, though. Baseball experts figured them to finish no higher than fifth this year in their division, the American League East. They turned back challenges from teams such as the Yankees, Tigers, and Baltimore Orioles all season long, and they themselves were down to their last strike in the American League Championship Series against the California Angels. This year, however, belonged to the Mets. They won their division, the National League East, by 21 and one-half games. They finished the regular season with 108 victories, the most wins since the Cincinnati Reds won 108 back in 1975 (they, too, beat the Red Sox 4 games to 3 in the World Series). They defeated the Houston Astros in the National League Championship Series in thrilling fashion in a 16 inning game six come-from-behind victory. Congratulations to both teams for a most memorable season, and a heart-stopping World Series. - S w .. . f F cz I --t_ --! I - - LETTERS: Daily is naive about homeless issue To the Daily: As a volunteer at the Ann Arbor Homeless Shelter, I was a little disappointed in your editorial "bringing home homelessness" (Daily10/8/86), in which you seem to have such a simplistic answer to a complicated situation.You contradicted yourself in the opening paragraph by saying "the arrst of a homeless Ann people are living in dorm lounges it is because they have nowhere to stay;... Needless to say, they don't have access to laundry facilities, either." If anybody from the Daily actually did any volunteering at the shelter, they would know that any homeless person is free to use the sleeping and laundry facilities there, except might have explained his long stay over in the dormitory. You then concluded your editorial by saying "as students, and concerned community members, it is possible to have an impact. The homeless shelters here in Ann Arbor needs volunteers; as Pete Seeger once said about where to go to change the Don't run away. Dig in. Maybe if the Daily practiced; what it preaches, and didn't always assume things, it wouldl know what it was talking' about.', -Roberto Javier; Frisanch o MSA Rep. 4 sr;:} :fr:?i:" }:':P :v:i.::} v-- V.'.}:r i :-}:',}{.%.V srv {:":{ .W,{;5:: v.{i:}":{: C .,{" }{";y. f } .s . ''"~4 " b}:}":"' ". . . . .{r. ; t, .fi4r October 2f, I , da