Proposed industrial bill frivolous

Imagine we're in next year's Legislature, and a representative suggests the following: Whenever the police arrest you for a crime, they can only keep you for as long as they reimburse you the wages you've lost.

Cue the cadre of political strategists, arguing that we're wasting money. Arguing that we're giving people a free pass to commit crimes we can't afford to prosecute. Arguing we're coddling a special segment of society.

It's not too much of a stretch, if you live in Alaska. Its Legislature is currently debating House Bill 168, The Industrial Security: Industrial Operation Bill. It comes from a desire to stop protracted legal battles that can shut down projects for long stretches and leave workers without a job.

Here's how it works: If you see an industry doing something in clear violation of its permit, you're more than welcome to file something in court. You just have to cover any lost corporate profits, contractor payments and employee salaries for as long as the case goes on.

It's in the industry's interest to keep a case going as long as possible — in this bizarro world, the financial incentive lies not in expediting the case as soon as possible, but in waiting out a plaintiff that it can't cover its running tab.

It's all done in the name of stopping "frivolous lawsuits." But judges can already stop those kind of lawsuits without additional legislation.

"Corporations are people, my friend," we've heard from the campaign of the GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney. But this type of legislation shows that it's a one-way street; that same protection would never be afforded for the average citizen.

And for good reason. Just imagine. "Miss Johnson, we believe your account of this sexual assault, and we want justice. But it turns out the guy you're accusing would get suspended is a district manager, and he pulls in a pretty decent salary. We'll just need you to file an initial deposit of $5,000."

But why do you care, Kevin? This is in Alaska, thousands of miles from you. It's because states may work by themselves, but they often have a cumulative effect.

Example: State A passes legislation with onerous requirements for abortion providers (Kansas tried to require every surgery room contain a janitor's closet with at least 50 square feet), and providers close instead of following the shifting regulations. Neighboring State B only allows abortions for in-state residents. So abortion's still legal in State A, but it's not possible.

Likewise, if this passes in Alaska, the effect is that it becomes the legislative standard. Suddenly it's required legislation of a state to be "business friendly," because specialized tax cuts and taxpayer-funded "economic development" won't be enough.

So if you live in Alaska, tell your representative to stop this. If you don't live in Alaska, find a friend that does and let them know about it. If you don't, we may reach a day where you want to speak, but you can't afford the tab.

Kevin Wilson is a columnist for Clovis Media, Inc. He can be contacted at 763-3431, ext. 313, or by email:

[email protected]