The Aerotoxic Logbook (ATLB) in English (EN)

The extremely low number of parliamentarians present during the 30-minute first reading of the reform document shows the 'interest' of the elected representatives in this topic - although every year around 50,000 people fail to pass the 'social net' of the statutory accident insurance system. People thereby "lose faith in the rule of law", as all those affected tell us who contact us. If we apply the disappointment to the whole family, more than 100,000 people lose faith in the law every year, simply by the non recognition of the damage done to their health caused at their workplace.

The planned reform, which is mainly the result of the GUV system, will not change this situation. What would actually be necessary, in the opinion of experts who are independent of the SHI system, and what we have compiled at www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform, will not take place - with the exception of the long overdue expansion of the "Medical Expert Council 'BK", which is now to be provided with useful equipment.

• The speech by Kerstin GRIESE (SPD), Parliamentary State Secretary at the BMAS, confirms this. She sees the "reform work" mainly in the "discharge of 4 million hours" for the citizens and "139 million Euro for the employers". The reason: the "digital reform" of the "welfare state for the future" now makes the welfare state "easier and more accessible.
• The real problems associated with occupational illnesses are obviously only perceived by the Left Party (Die Linke). That is why it has also submitted its own legislative proposal. The demands of DIE LINKE are succinctly summed up by their spokeswoman Jutta KRELLMANN in her speech: research independent of the system of the GUV, hardship regulations and shorter periods of time for the recognition of BK's. Jutta KRELLMANN summarized her party's ideas and her criticism of the GroKo reform in an article for the weekly newspaper Freitag: From Abestos to Pneumoconiosis.

The entire (short) reading can be seen and heard in the MediaThek of the German Bundestag.

Timetable for further procedure:

According to the current status (March 13th) of the "dynamic eruption":

• On 25th March the reform work is to be discussed in the responsible committee "Labour and Social Affairs".
• A hearing of some social organisations is scheduled for 20 April.
• And the second and third or final reading will take place three days later on 23rd April.

This timetable gives an immediate indication of the purpose and function of the hearing three days before the final vote.

Reform of the law on occupational diseases: 1st reading in the German Bundestag

The public debate is scheduled at 2:15 p.m., during which some of the members of parliament will have the opportunity to comment on the draft law introduced by the Federal Government. About half an hour of speaking time has been set aside for this subject. The debate will be broadcasted live by Phoenix.

The Left Party has its draft in which it demands the lowering of the hurdles to recognition. However, the Bundestag administration has not made it available online. The proposals can only be read on the Left Party's website.

The Green Party has not presented anything.

The Federal States had previously demanded a whole series of changes and improvements from the Federal Government (cf. entry 14th February). The latter has adopted almost nothing of their ideas.

AnsTageslicht.de has now written to the members of the Committee for Labor & Social Affairs, who are responsible for the content of this bill: with

•     a one-page explanatory letter
•     and six examples of affected persons and two expert occupational physicians.

We are curious whether the "People's Representatives" will deal with hints and suggestions from the "People".

Fume Events: now also in the ARD boulevard magazine 

The topic is gaining momentum. Now the tabloid magazine BRISANT, part of the "Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk" (MRD) has also picked up the subject. Briefly, but nevertheless. And they referenced the "Patient Initiative Contaminated Cabin Air e.V." (p-coc.com): What to do in case of toxic fumes in the aircraft cabin?

Corrections to our report from January 30!

Please note: 

In the meantime, we have received other and additional information concerning the EASA workshop. Therefore we have changed our entry on January 30. The updated version is now valid.

Thanks!

Since autumn 2019, the Federal Government, or more specifically the BMAS, has been working on a "reform" of the Federal Occupational Deseases Law. For almost 20 years once again. We have already dealt with it a) in detail and b) critically at www.ansTageslicht.de/Reform. 

The federal government and the BMAS, led by the Social Democrats (SPD), apparently (once again) wants to serve the interests of employers above all else, and above all take into account the proposals of the DGUV. 

Meanwhile, some federal states dissatisfied with a) the course of events planned by the government, and b) with the intended changes, are trying to resist this. They have therefore drawn up a statement on the Bundesrat. In this statement,

• they want to enforce a hardship clause in cases involving rare diseases for which very little or no research results or on cause-effect relationships and/or epidemiological studies are available. Such a requirement is then to be applied "restrictively" (relates to previous § 9 SGB VII).
• And in cases in which the continuation of an insured activity would lead to a further worsening of the clinical picture, this should no longer be exclusively at the expense of the employee or how else he should earn his income; instead, the BGen should "work with the employer and the insured to ensure that the insured are no longer exposed to the hazardous activity".

The reasoning behind the latter is rather 'witty': 

"The employer is obliged to provide working conditions where occupational diseases do not arise." 

The fact that this must be pointed out - in the context of a single proposed regulation - seems to confirm the fact that the "reformers" have still not recognised this fundamental problem. And therefore are not prepared to introduce a reversal of the burden of proof. This would probably increase the economic pressure to such an extent that it would be cheaper for companies to take adequate precautionary measures than to pay for long-term and often irreparable damage to health afterwards. In the USA, for example, product liability law works on this principle: successfully.