/PRNewswire/ -- As ambassador, when government officials visited Mexico, I'd pen a one-pager offering current insight into the bilateral relationship and timely assessments of the economic, political and social situation in the country.
With President Barack Obama's visit April 16-17 to Mexico City, I offer him a similar memo, with advice I hope he's hearing from his own team of advisors.
And, so I begin, Mister President:
U.S. and Mexico relations are at a pivotal point, and in spite of the challenges our countries face from economic and security threats, we must look for ways to forge stronger partnerships and encourage investment by U.S. and Mexican companies in both countries.
The failed state talk that so dominated our headlines these past few months has subsided somewhat, and--I hope--will continue to fade. It was rhetoric that did more to harm our two nations than produce meaningful progress.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saw firsthand, Mexico is far from finished in its fight against the transnational drug cartels, but there are clear signs of progress and far more awareness in the United State of our own responsibility to reduce consumption and stop the flow of arms to Mexico.
In President Felipe Calderon's first two years in office, the Mexican government has arrested more criminals and seized more weapons, drugs and cash than the previous two administrations over the same period.
Make no mistake, the country is not as safe as it needs to be, but unfair comparisons have been made and substantial progress overlooked. While tragic, drug war fatalities are concentrated largely in areas where cartels war over territory, but the country's homicide rate remains 13 percent below 1997 statistics, and far lower than many other countries in the region.
Our nations are inextricably tied to one another, and we must not only understand this fact, but leverage it for our respective economies, our security and our people.
In spite of its critics, the North American Free Trade Agreement has benefited the United States. Since NAFTA's implementation in 1994, U.S. exports to Mexico have increased by 198 percent. Our countries trade at a pace of nearly $1 billion each day, and bilateral trade totaled more than $367 billion in 2007. Tourism remains a strong economic driver, with more than 21 million visiting Mexico each year, the vast majority from the U.S.
Mr. President, we must focus on trade, and specifically, show leadership and fairness on the trucking provisions in NAFTA. If we don't, we run the risk of further retaliation with additional tariffs on U.S. products, which only jeopardize American jobs. We must stand firm against protectionist measures that would further stifle both countries' economic growth.
These difficult economic times should not lead the U.S. to shy away from investments in Mexico, nor should Mexican companies be afraid to explore opportunities to the north.
Key reforms by Mexico's government in the past two years reaffirm the country's commitment to competitiveness, to job creation and improved living standards.
You've stated your commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, but it's going to take a lot of hard work and political capital to push reform to reality. It's an uphill battle, as President George W. Bush found out, but it's a battle we should wage.
Mr. President, your visit to Mexico could come at no better time. You should view Mexico as your getaway to the Americas, a perfect bridge both north and south. Take this opportunity to draw on the key regional insights that President Calderon can offer.
Lastly, as you prepare for the upcoming Summit of the Americas, a clearly focused and energetic approach to Mexico relations should be among your highest priorities. Regional security and prosperity is critical to Mexico, and perhaps even more critical to the United States.
Antonio O. Garza, Jr. is the former United States Ambassador to Mexico. He is online at www.tonygarza.com.
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama Effort to End Armed Pilots Program an Outrage, Says CCRKBA
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A revelation by the Washington Times that President Barack Obama is trying to quietly end the armed pilot program, making air travel more vulnerable to terrorist attack, should outrage travelers, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
"The Washington Times nailed it," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who proposed arming pilots just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and championed the armed pilot program. "What Obama is doing is risking public safety, as the newspaper put it, 'in the name of an anti-gun ideology.'"
The newspaper reported in its Tuesday edition that President Obama is "quietly ending the federal firearms program" by diverting some $2 million from the training program to hire "supervisory" staff, whose job, it appears, will be to harass armed pilots through unnecessary field inspections.
"How dare the president, or anybody in his administration, take measures to erode the safety of air travelers," Gottlieb questioned. "The armed pilot program provides a guaranteed level of security to the public. There may or may not be an air marshal aboard every airplane, but there is definitely a pilot in the cockpit.
"We trust commercial airline pilots with $500 million aircraft," he continued. "We can certainly trust them with $500 pistols to defend those planes, and the lives of their passengers.
"Certain individuals have never liked the armed pilot program," Gottlieb acknowledged. "These anti-gun, anti-self-defense bureaucrats seem more interested in their own power, and protecting their little empires, than they are in protecting the public. And now, Obama is catering to their anti-gun bigotry."
Call the White House at (202) 456-1111, or send a comment by visiting www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
"The Washington Times nailed it," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who proposed arming pilots just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and championed the armed pilot program. "What Obama is doing is risking public safety, as the newspaper put it, 'in the name of an anti-gun ideology.'"
The newspaper reported in its Tuesday edition that President Obama is "quietly ending the federal firearms program" by diverting some $2 million from the training program to hire "supervisory" staff, whose job, it appears, will be to harass armed pilots through unnecessary field inspections.
"How dare the president, or anybody in his administration, take measures to erode the safety of air travelers," Gottlieb questioned. "The armed pilot program provides a guaranteed level of security to the public. There may or may not be an air marshal aboard every airplane, but there is definitely a pilot in the cockpit.
"We trust commercial airline pilots with $500 million aircraft," he continued. "We can certainly trust them with $500 pistols to defend those planes, and the lives of their passengers.
"Certain individuals have never liked the armed pilot program," Gottlieb acknowledged. "These anti-gun, anti-self-defense bureaucrats seem more interested in their own power, and protecting their little empires, than they are in protecting the public. And now, Obama is catering to their anti-gun bigotry."
Call the White House at (202) 456-1111, or send a comment by visiting www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Employers Unnerved by Ruling Upholding the Legality of Guns in Workplace Parking Lots
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new ruling by a federal appeals court means managers in a growing number of states must accept what, for many, is a troubling reality -- their employees have the legal right to keep guns in their cars at work, even with layoffs on the rise and economic tensions running high, said attorney James P. Anelli, an attorney in LeClairRyan's Labor and Employment Group.
On February 19, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court ruling, thereby upholding an Oklahoma law that gave workers the right to keep guns in their locked vehicles. "This unanimous and clearly worded ruling has broad implications for managers in the several states that have passed laws like Oklahoma's," said Anelli, who is based in the law firm's Newark, N.J. office. "It also could embolden pro-gun lawmakers around the country to draft similar measures."
The aim of the Oklahoma law, introduced with the support of the National Rifle Association, was to stop companies from banning guns in workplace parking lots. The rationale was that such prohibitions violated employees' constitutional rights to possess and carry firearms. In October 2007, however, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued an injunction against the enforcement of the state's legislation. The new law, he ruled, created an obstacle to employers charged with maintaining safe workplaces according to requirements issued by the U.S. Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA).
In its 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited evidence that OSHA does not regard the Oklahoma law as being in conflict with its workplace safety provisions. "The court pointed specifically to a January 16 letter by an acting OSHA official that signified OSHA's neutrality on the matter," Anelli noted. "Essentially, this ruling amounted to a clear invitation to states that have passed these types of provisions to feel free to enforce them. For employers who had hoped to see these types of provisions thrown out in court, this is a dramatic development."
Indeed, several Oklahoma employers, including Weyerhaeuser Corp., Whirlpool Corp., and ConocoPhillips, had challenged the Oklahoma law out of safety concerns. In the wake of the appeals court ruling, Anelli said, human resources and legal teams in states where these pro-gun laws have passed may need to rewrite employee handbooks to include firearms policies specifically crafted to reflect the reality that guns could be present in the parking lot. States that have passed pro-gun laws similar to Oklahoma's include: Georgia, Florida, Alaska, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas and Minnesota. Similar measures are under consideration in the statehouses of Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
"I have never seen an employee handbook that had a firearms policy," said Anelli, who has 20 years of experience representing management in employment discrimination and labor litigation. "It is more than prudent to adopt policies on how firearms should be handled and to explicitly state, for example, that guns must stay locked in vehicles and cannot be brought into the workplace."
Even as they draft such policies, however, employers must still provide a safe workplace and intervene where appropriate. For example, if an employee exhibits violent behavior there may still be a basis to take appropriate action to ensure that the workplace remains safe. In fact, some states allow employers to obtain court orders limiting the possession of firearms in parking lots even when the local law allows them if there is an indication of potential violence.
Still, Anelli said, company executives in states that have passed such laws should remember that they have not been relieved of their obligation to keep the workplace, including its parking lot, safe. It is their responsibility to work with security professionals, attorneys and local law enforcement officials to defuse situations involving potential violence and the possible use of firearms. They can also take other steps to protect both their companies and employees. Some types of businesses, for example, may have been legally exempted from the applicable law and can therefore continue to enforce gun bans. Others might be able to carve out "secured parking areas" that are gun-free but still in compliance with their states' laws.
Importantly, the Court also rejected the employers' arguments that, as a "property owner," they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be "characterized as a restriction on Plaintiff's use of their property." In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer's property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional "taking" arguments. Part of the ruling is based on the notion Oklahoma was expanding the rights of its citizens, as citizens, to store firearms in their vehicles as opposed to regulating employers or addressing employment, per se.
Anelli added that if OSHA were to reverse course and declare such laws in conflict with its existing safety provisions -- perhaps after a policy review by the Obama administration -- or if other appellate panels were to issue conflicting rulings on the legality of firearms in workplace parking lots, the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the matter.
On February 19, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court ruling, thereby upholding an Oklahoma law that gave workers the right to keep guns in their locked vehicles. "This unanimous and clearly worded ruling has broad implications for managers in the several states that have passed laws like Oklahoma's," said Anelli, who is based in the law firm's Newark, N.J. office. "It also could embolden pro-gun lawmakers around the country to draft similar measures."
The aim of the Oklahoma law, introduced with the support of the National Rifle Association, was to stop companies from banning guns in workplace parking lots. The rationale was that such prohibitions violated employees' constitutional rights to possess and carry firearms. In October 2007, however, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued an injunction against the enforcement of the state's legislation. The new law, he ruled, created an obstacle to employers charged with maintaining safe workplaces according to requirements issued by the U.S. Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA).
In its 3-0 ruling, the appeals court cited evidence that OSHA does not regard the Oklahoma law as being in conflict with its workplace safety provisions. "The court pointed specifically to a January 16 letter by an acting OSHA official that signified OSHA's neutrality on the matter," Anelli noted. "Essentially, this ruling amounted to a clear invitation to states that have passed these types of provisions to feel free to enforce them. For employers who had hoped to see these types of provisions thrown out in court, this is a dramatic development."
Indeed, several Oklahoma employers, including Weyerhaeuser Corp., Whirlpool Corp., and ConocoPhillips, had challenged the Oklahoma law out of safety concerns. In the wake of the appeals court ruling, Anelli said, human resources and legal teams in states where these pro-gun laws have passed may need to rewrite employee handbooks to include firearms policies specifically crafted to reflect the reality that guns could be present in the parking lot. States that have passed pro-gun laws similar to Oklahoma's include: Georgia, Florida, Alaska, Kentucky, Mississippi, Kansas and Minnesota. Similar measures are under consideration in the statehouses of Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
"I have never seen an employee handbook that had a firearms policy," said Anelli, who has 20 years of experience representing management in employment discrimination and labor litigation. "It is more than prudent to adopt policies on how firearms should be handled and to explicitly state, for example, that guns must stay locked in vehicles and cannot be brought into the workplace."
Even as they draft such policies, however, employers must still provide a safe workplace and intervene where appropriate. For example, if an employee exhibits violent behavior there may still be a basis to take appropriate action to ensure that the workplace remains safe. In fact, some states allow employers to obtain court orders limiting the possession of firearms in parking lots even when the local law allows them if there is an indication of potential violence.
Still, Anelli said, company executives in states that have passed such laws should remember that they have not been relieved of their obligation to keep the workplace, including its parking lot, safe. It is their responsibility to work with security professionals, attorneys and local law enforcement officials to defuse situations involving potential violence and the possible use of firearms. They can also take other steps to protect both their companies and employees. Some types of businesses, for example, may have been legally exempted from the applicable law and can therefore continue to enforce gun bans. Others might be able to carve out "secured parking areas" that are gun-free but still in compliance with their states' laws.
Importantly, the Court also rejected the employers' arguments that, as a "property owner," they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be "characterized as a restriction on Plaintiff's use of their property." In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer's property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional "taking" arguments. Part of the ruling is based on the notion Oklahoma was expanding the rights of its citizens, as citizens, to store firearms in their vehicles as opposed to regulating employers or addressing employment, per se.
Anelli added that if OSHA were to reverse course and declare such laws in conflict with its existing safety provisions -- perhaps after a policy review by the Obama administration -- or if other appellate panels were to issue conflicting rulings on the legality of firearms in workplace parking lots, the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
