EDITORIAL
Whistle-blowers 1,
Hanford company 0
Inez Austin probably thought she was doing her
civic duty as a whistle-blower, but her employer made
her feel differently.
As an engineer working for the Westinghouse Han
ford Co., she complained that she had been harassed
by supervisors after she refused to authorize the pump
ing of two storage tanks that contained the chemical
ferrocyanide. Austin believed the tanks could explode
if temperatures topped 400 degrees Fahrenheit during
the pumping process.
After her refusal, she was told by company officials
to see a psychologist, her workload was reduced, she
failed to receive work-related mail, and was moved to a
smaller office.
She filed a harassment complaint with the U S. De
partment of Labor against Westinghouse Hanford. Af
ter all. Energy Secretary James Watkins toured Hanford
six weeks ago and promised whistle-blowers they
would be protected and rewarded.
Austin and Westinghouse Hanford agreed to a set
tlement earlier this week, and though the company did
not admit any wrongdoing, its settlement agreement
shows otherwise.
Under terms of the agreement. Austin will receive
one month of paid time off. She will bo offered a
choice of new transfer assignments and get a pay raise.
A letter of reprimand will be removed from her
files, and she may review all her company files and re
move any defaming information about the incident. Fi
nally. her $5,000 lawyer fee will be paid by the compa
ny.
After all this, a company vice president said the
company encourages whistle-blowers.
Unfortunately. Westinghouse Hanford will not be
penalized in any way for its actions. It obviously sub
jected Austin to large amounts of stress and tried to
edge her out.
That is not an overwhelming endorsement for
whistle-blowers. While Austin came out OK in the set
tlement. others who feel their employers are conduct
ing illegal activities might not feel the effort is worth
the risk. The only way a whistle-blowing program can
be carried out successfully is to ensure fair treatment of
the whistle-blowers.
One solution is to fine companies an enormous
amount of money and set up a fund for whistle-blow
ers. That's the only thing those conglomerates under
stand — capital.
*
•rri^
«J2> Fr&tiTT
Proposal rattles Congressional travelers
Rep. Bob Carr. D-Mieh., sent a scare
through the House this week when he sug
gested taking authority for overseas junkets
(trips that are paid for by tax-payers) away
from committee chairmen and forcing the
junkets to f>e approved by a majority vote of
the House members.
Although Carr withdrew the proposal
the same day he offered it, he may have got
ten the attention of some of his co-workers
in government. Carr said he was satisfied
that the proposal would be enough to make
committee chairmen more accountable for
the overseas junkets. He said if he continues
to see abuses of the junkets he will work
harder to push the proposal through the
House.
Carr was responding to reports that the
House Ways and Means committee took a
junket, including wives, to Barbados at a
cost to taxpayers of $100,000. The commit
tee was secretly filmed by ABC News spend
ing the majority of their time engaging in re
creational activities.
Although the timing and support for the
proposal may not be in place yet. Carr has a
good idea. Committee chairmen can be over
ruled on most matters by a majority of the
members of the House, according to House
rules. However, there are no such provisions
limiting the chairmen's power to authorize
travel.
And that authority has obviously been
abused.
Under Carr's proposal, all committee
sponsored overseas trips would have to be
approved by a majority vote in the House.
Committees would need to submit detailed
itineraries, the purpose for each stop on the
trip, the name of everyone making the trip,
the estimated total expense and the trip's an
ticipated benefit to taxpayers.
By taking the authorization for these tax
payer-funded junkets out of the hands of the
parties that want to go on them, and by
bringing the expense and reasons for the trip
into the open, abuses of the junket privilege
will be curtailed.
LETTERS
Bicycles
I uin Kltiti lo know that the
University's Office of Public
Safety is concerned enough
about the problem of vagrant
bicyclists to post full-time mo
bile officers on mountain hikes
(in case there is need for hot
pursuit) at strategic locations
on campus
These bicyclists who do not
dismount at every yellow rec
tangle and lock their bikes in
undesignated areas pose such a
threat to t ampus set urily th.it a
full-time staff to eliminate these
dangerously relentless individ
uals is totally justified
These officers are so inspired
to make a difference that they
will hide in the bushes so they
can punish even the most un
suspecting terrorists To show
the determination of OPS, one
officer said, "It's just like
working at Burger king, only I
get (laid more." I wish all po
lice were this dedicated
It is good to know that OPS
has chosen to fix us on these
heinous bicycle crimes rather
than efforts to stop rape, and
sexual and rac ial harassment
on campus,
I can feel safe now walking
on campus without the fear of
la-inn run down by a lunatic bi
cyclist. hut a woman cannot
feel safe walking on campus at
night
(iarv Kosenstem
Student
Attitudes
I'm writing to express my
disappointment in the coverage
[ODE. Nov 25) of OSl'IRG's re
port on consumer attitudes
As coordinator of the survey
at the University I should point
out that the goal of our survey
was to prove that consumers
have been led to believe that
cosmetic criteria are the most
important considerations in
lodging the quality of produce
and that given more informa
tion about tilt- use of pesticides,
post-harvest chemicals and
their health implications, most
shoppers will make different
choices
The main issue is that most
of our produce has la-en pre se
lected for us by the industry,
and we have no way of know
ing where and under what con
dilions il was grown
Consumers deserve the right
to make their own food choices
for themselves. They need to
know the complete story alrout
their lood supply and how it is
chosen for them.
Further. In order to make
true choices at the retail level,
consumers need to have a vari
ety of alternatives available to
them, including food produced
without pesticides and other
chemicals.
We're lucky in Eugene in
that we have a number of mar
kets supplying organic produce
at average prices, but what
about communities less fortu
nate that have no choice but to
eat pesticide laden apples
glossed over by a crust of wax?
For more information on pes
ticides and local sources of or
ganic foods, please contact
OSIMRC; in the EMU. Suite I. or
phone us at :t-»t> -EI77
C.aitilin Twain
ospirc;
Do it right
Having volunteered for the
i ampus ret ycling program. 1
am well aware of some of the
problems facing recycling at
the University.
Interest in recycling at the
University is at an all-time
high The vast majority of those
recycling their paper are doing
a great job.
However, there is a minority
of the campus population that
continues to recycle incorrect
ly. This pertains to recycling
items such as post-its. enve
lopes with plastic: windows or
adhesive labels, paper cups and
plates, candy wrappers, card
Ixiard and magazines.
None of these items can be
recycled on our campus. Con
tinual efforts to remove them
considerably slow down the
process and may even jeopar
dize the long-term existence of
the program.
In combat this, educational
information has boon posted at
nearly every paper recycling
station It seems, though, that
many haven't taken the time to
read it.
For example, the recycling
informational set-up outside
Suite 1 of the EMU is perhaps
the best on campus, but the
condition of the bins at this sta
tion are among the worst on
campus.
Take a minute and read the
information if you are unsure
al>out the recyclability of some
thing If you see someone re
cycling improperly, educate
them as to the proper way.
For recycling properly is the
only way to ensure the long
term continuing and success of
our program.
tireg Papciak
Sociology
COMMENTARY POLICY
The Oregon Daily Emerald welcomes commentaries
from the public concerning topics of interest to the
University community.
Commentaries should be between 750 and 1.000
words, legible and signed, and the identification of the
writer must be verified upon submission.