Last call for your outrageous warning labels!

If you have seen a funny, common sense label on a product and want to enter it in our 15^th Annual Wacky Warning Labels™ Contest, you still have time. But hurry…the deadline for submitting your label is May 15.

Over the past 15 years, hundreds of millions of people around the world have laughed at these labels and learned just how far manufacturers must now go to write product warnings that will hopefully protect them from a lawsuit.  Warnings like:

-       A label on a scooter for children that says: “This product moves when used”

-       A label on a fishing lure that cautions: “Harmful if swallowed,”

and

-       A label on a baby stroller that warns: “Remove child before folding.”

The five finalists in the contest will be announced later in May, and the lucky people who send us those labels will compete for three cash prizes.  The $1,000 grand prize winner will be selected by John Stossel’s studio audience on FOXBusiness News in June.  Last year, the audience gave the top prize to Alex Saenz of Dallas, Texas for a label he found on a dust mask that warned, “Does not supply oxygen.” Really!

The rules for the contest, sponsored by the Center for America, as well as how to enter via email, can be found here.

We must be able to verify that the label isn’t an urban legend, so take a good picture of the label and the product, and send it to us today.  We’ll take it from there and contact you if your label makes it to the round of finalists. Some of our favorite winners from years past were entered just days before the deadline, so there’s still time.

The Wacky Warning Labels™ Contest has been featured on virtually every major television network, in the nation’s largest newspapers, and has even made it into the Congressional Record because it’s a fun contest with a serious point.  Even though we love laughing at these hilarious labels, we’re hoping that some day, product makers won’t have to worry about the kind of frivolous lawsuits that make these warnings necessary in America. Until then, send us your labels!

The Girl Scouts celebrated their 100^th anniversary this March, so I thought it would be a perfect time to share a little-known Girl Scout-related story that illustrates how much things have changed in America in the past one hundred years.

The story involves Girl Scout cookies, and who among us hasn’t enjoyed a few of those over the years?  Fortunately, most of us have bought more than a few boxes, too, because Girl Scout councils around the United States now have to sell a mind-boggling number of boxes each year just to raise enough money to pay for liability insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits.

It certainly wasn’t like this in the early 1900’s, but several years ago, the Detroit Free Press reported that the council in metro Detroit must sell 36,000 boxes of cookies every year to raise money for their liability insurance.  Later, the Nonprofit Risk Management Center reported that the Washington DC Girl Scout council had to sell 85,000 boxes!

Now, before you draw any conclusions about whether the risks of being a Girl Scout are higher in Detroit and Washington DC than in other places, be cautioned that Girl Scouts in other cities have to sell similar numbers of boxes to pay for their liability insurance.  It just happened that the councils in Detroit and Washington DC had their figures publicly reported because of rare events.

The Detroit council was participating in a conference at a local university entitled, “To Volunteer or Not to Volunteer: The Tension Between Wanting to Do Good and Being Sued for Doing Good.”  The Washington DC council had its information reported because the Nonprofit Risk Management Center prepared a special report focusing on fundraising for non-profit groups entitled, “Fortune Cookies.” Since the Center is located in our nation’s capitol, it chose to focus on its local council.

I have found over the years that, not surprisingly, non-profit organizations don’t welcome the attention stories like this attract, so they shy away from sharing these incredible facts.  Years later, when the local Girl Scout leader learned that I used this story in my public appearances to illustrate how litigation affects everyone from businesses to community groups, she asked me not to use the figure because it was wrong.  I thought, “Oh-oh.”

I love the Girl Scouts, but I told her it was important for the public to understand how we all pay for living in the most lawsuit-happy society on earth.  After talking about it for a while, she told me that even though the figure I was using was wrong, it’s only because it had changed. The new figure was 32,000 boxes of cookies. The number of boxes had dropped after the legislature in her state approved significant tort reforms aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits.

It’s a shame that more community groups don’t share this kind of eye-opening information, because the lack of these stories helps perpetuate the myth the personal injury lawyers like to spread about there being no serious downside to living in a country where a lawsuit is filed every two seconds. If the personal injury bar can convince the media that the only ones who pay for all these lawsuits are the “greedy” insurance companies or rich big businesses, there will be less pressure on policymakers to change things and the lawsuit lottery known as our civil justice system will keep churning out more and more lawsuits.

However, rest assured, we’ll keep working to get the real story to the public.  The consequences of letting business as usual continue in our courts are just too high and too costly on everyone from community groups like the Girl Scouts and Little League Baseball, to the businesses we rely on for jobs.

Unfortunately, the link to the Detroit Free Press article is no longer active, but I have a copy of the article.  If you would like to see it, drop me a note, and I’ll be happy to send it to you.  In the meantime, if you would like to see how the Michigan Supreme Court used this information in one of its decisions, check out footnote number 13 at the end of this decision where the fact is repeated and the Free Press article is cited.

Incidentally, the lawsuit that the Supreme Court was issuing an opinion on when they citied this information involved a woman who sued a twelve-year-old for bumping into her on a public ice skating rink.  When will it end?!

Have you read any good email disclaimers lately?

If you get a fair amount of email, chances are that you have at least glanced at a few of them.  Electronic disclaimers are getting almost as common as the wacky warning labels that we see everywhere in America these days, and some are almost as funny.

These disclaimers were recently the focus of a Wall Street Journal story and our own weekly radio commentary, “Let’s Be Fair,” and we thought you might be interested in what lawyers think about them.

Actually, there is no consensus among lawyers on the topic, and there has been an ongoing debate over just how effective — and enforceable — email disclaimers are. Some think these disclaimers have value, but others think won’t stand up in a court of law.

The Wall Street Journal tells the story of one attorney who changed his mind on the disclaimers. “Several years ago, William L. Wilson sent a memo to other partners in his South Bend, Ind., law firm insisting they include a standard confidentiality disclaimer on every email. ‘As I began to think about it further I realized no one reads these things,’ said Mr. Wilson, who practices civil law. ‘I don’t read them.’ He has removed the disclaimer from his emails.

Another attorney, who I suspect sees more of these disclaimers than almost anyone in America, thinks that many of them are worthless.  James Merklinger, vice president of the Association of Corporate Counsel, argues that many disclaimers are pointless, especially ones at the end of emails ordering unintended recipients not to read the text that came before.  As he says in the same article, “It gets harder and harder to argue you have a system in place to keep information confidential, but then you have your order from [Mexican restaurant] Chipotle marked as privileged.”

Since we live in a society where it has become almost a reflex for some people to sue first and ask questions later, we’ll probably keep seeing more and more email disclaimers…even if virtually no one reads them.

To read the funniest email disclaimer I’ve ever seen, click here.  If you have one you would like to share, we would love to see it.

As tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform return home from active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe, they face a new challenge – finding careers in a tough economy.  Even now, millions of unfilled jobs are available for skilled workers, and the military does an excellent job of providing hands-on training in hundreds of disciplines.

The call of duty is to connect the skilled workforce that is the U.S. military with American employers in search of a talented and committed workforce.  This January, that effort is fully underway, and I want to use this space to promote an important nationwide initiative being launched by my organization, the Center for America.

Let me begin with some startling statistics.  According to 2011 business surveys, nearly 3 million American jobs are unfilled due to lack of available skilled workforce.  In manufacturing alone, there are 600,000 unfilled jobs right now.  The majority of American employers list “inability to find adequate numbers of skilled workers” as their top concern.  The average age of the American skilled worker is 55 years old, and they will retire soon.  This is the well-known “skills gap,” and it will serve as an immense drag on the U.S. economy if not fixed quickly.

Contrast those figures with the following numbers from the National Guard and the armed services.  Nearly 60,000 National Guard members are currently unemployed, and many more than that across the armed services.  Among units returning from deployment, unemployment is as high as 54 percent.  What’s clear is that there are hundreds of thousands of National Guard Members, veterans and spouses as well as all personnel in all military branches who are trained, skilled, and have demonstrated commitment to a cause bigger than themselves.

The Center for America has formed an alliance with the National Guard and the Military Spouse Corporate Career Network (MSCCN) to launch the “American Jobs for America’s Heroes” Jobs Bank Initiative.  Along with dozens of business organizations, trade associations, and corporations, we are encouraging small and mid-size companies to register and post job openings to reach this vital, trained workforce.  It’s a fast process, with no cost to employers, and provides immediate access to millions of National Guard, military veterans from all services, and spouses.

In December, I was fortunate to serve as master of ceremonies at the first state launch of the Initiative in my home state of Michigan.  I spent time with National Guard members and their families, and I was struck by the fact that so much of the training and real-life application of that training during military service applies to the American marketplace.  After all, we trust these men and women with some of the most sophisticated technology, equipment, and logistical efforts on which our freedom depends.  We can trust them to provide these skills in the American workforce, too.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, Michigan National Guard commander Major General Gregory Vadnais, and American Electric Power chief operating officer Bob Powers shared tremendous insight into the value proposition that occurs when employers connect with military.  Businesses grow, new jobs are created, families flourish, and stable and well-paying careers are built. See video of their remarks here.

Over the next several months, the “American Jobs for America’s Heroes” Initiative will host special events in another 10 to 15 states.  The good news for American employers is that help is available and on its way in the form of the trained heroes who have served and are serving in our military.  In a hotly contested political year, this is one thing on which we can all agree.

As one of my favorite singers, Andy Williams, likes to say, it’s the most wonderful time of the year.  And since it’s the season for giving, I would like to give you some advice that could make it even more wonderful — an insider’s tip that might help you win our annual Wacky Warning Label Contest.

In addition to being the most wonderful time of the year, it’s also the most WARNINGful time of the year.  That’s right, if you look closely, you will see that most of those gifts you’ll be getting come loaded with warning labels…and some are downright wacky.

As the creator of the annual Wacky Warning Label Contest, I have been told by many of our winners over the years that the label they used to win their prize was found on a gift they received during the holidays.

One of my favorites is a label found on a child’s scooter.  It warned, “Caution, this product moves when used.”  Then, there was the snow sled that warned, “Beware: sled may develop high speed under certain snow conditions.”  Doesn’t every kid wanted his sled to develop high speed?!

One label was found right on a live Christmas tree.  It warned: “Not intended for human consumption!”  What?!  I can understand the need for a warning like that on some of the fruitcakes I’ve tasted, but on a live Christmas tree?

So, after you’re done unwrapping and enjoying your gifts, look at the packaging, the user manuals and on the items themselves.  You might just find another little gift in the form of a wacky warning label.  For information on how to enter the contest, click here.

Happy Holidays!

Reprinted from the Daily Caller

As Americans celebrate Thanksgiving and perhaps even consider how far our nation has come since the days when the Pilgrims relied on help from a Native American named Squanto to survive, a new lawsuit over whether a university should use an Indian nickname may have some people wondering just how far America has really advanced after all this time.

This is not, however, a story about a Native American tribe suing to stop a sports team from using its name.  Surprisingly, it’s a story about a tribe that wants a local college to keep its Indian nickname, the Fighting Sioux.

Adding to the intrigue is the fact that one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the college, Archie Fool Bear, doesn’t have the full support of his tribe.  Some members of the tribe can’t bear the lawsuit and think it’s foolish to sue the university.  They would rather spend the money now being spent on lawyers on more productive things that would improve the quality of life for the tribe.

Now, that’s an idea worth fighting for.

After finding out about this unfortunate situation, my first thought was, where is Squanto when we really need him?!  There are better ways to resolve this conflict than by litigating it.

Here is a little background on the situation.  In 2007, the University of North Dakota bowed to pressure from the NCAA and agreed to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA had decided a couple of years earlier that schools with American Indian mascots it considered “hostile and abusive” would be banned from postseason play unless the schools received permission from local tribes to use the names.

Some schools like the Florida State Seminoles and the Central Michigan Chippewas obtained that permission, but the University of North Dakota decided to drop the nickname because the two Sioux tribes in the state couldn’t reach an agreement on the issue.

After the North Dakota Board of Higher Education decided to officially retire the nickname, the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe and Archie Fool Bear decided to sue the NCAA in federal court in an effort to keep the nickname alive. Maybe it would have been fine if the university had adopted the name, The Fighting Sue.

The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA’s efforts to force the retirement of the nickname “violate Native American civil rights, equal protection rights and religious rights.”  It also seeks damages of more than $10 million.

The North Dakota News has reported, however, that some members of the tribe strongly oppose the lawsuit and even attended a press conference organized by the tribe’s attorney so they could object.  The newspaper reported that:

“A few opponents gathered in the back of the room during the news conference at tribal headquarters to object to the actions being taken on behalf of the tribe.”

“It’s not our fight,” Arlene delaPaz shouted, while Arliss Krulish declared, “I’m not giving my agreement.” The newspaper reports that Krulish and delaPaz said they are enrolled members of the Spirit Lake Tribe and UND graduates.

Krulish stated that she believes the money being spent on the lawsuit “could be better spent at home — on housing, medical care, roads and education.”

I agree. Americans spend too much money litigating disputes in court when we could be focusing on less antagonistic and more productive ways to resolve differences.

As we take time this week to celebrate Thanksgiving, we can certainly be thankful for the presence of a civil justice system that provides us with a way to peacefully resolve disputes.  However, we should also remember that alternatives to litigation like mediation have a very high success rate, cost much less, and often leave parties feeling better afterward.

It’s time to advocate for a new spirit of cooperation – even in settling disputes.  If it worked for the Pilgrims and Squanto, it can work for us, too.

Here’s some good news for smokers seeking to kick the habit — and bad news for plaintiff lawyers hoping to use junk science to hit the lawsuit lottery.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has released two studies that strongly indicate that smoking cessation drug Chantix is no more likely to cause adverse side effects than other accepted nicotine replacement therapies.

Plaintiff lawyers who jumped the gun once again and filed numerous lawsuits against Pfizer, the maker of the prescription drug, will undoubtedly be hoping the media ignores this story.  We’re hoping they don’t, and we’ve have made it the focus of our recent radio commentary broadcast across the country.

The two studies, one conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the other by the Department of Defense, found no evidence of an increase in hospitalizations for psychiatric reasons in Chantix users compared to nicotine patch users.

The Bloomberg news service reports that:

“The Veterans Affairs study included 14,131 Chantix users and an equal number of nicotine replacement therapy users. Sixteen Chantix-treated patients were hospitalized for psychiatric reasons compared to 21 in the replacement therapy group.

The Pentagon studied 11,978 Chantix users and an equal number of replacement therapy patients. Patients on Chantix were hospitalized 18 times for psychiatric reasons compared to 16 times among replacement therapy patients.”

Undoubtedly, the plaintiffs’ bar will produce their own study or studies to try to mislead the media, the courts and juries, but the FDA is the only objective party whose results can and should be trusted.

The problem with America’s legal system is that it allows plaintiff lawyers to file unfounded lawsuits against medical providers and pharmaceutical companies even when there’s no scientific evidence to support them.  These lawyers believe they can mislead juries with emotional stories based on highly speculative and unproven theories.

Judges must now do their job and refuse to let these lawsuits move forward.  Otherwise, manufacturers and health care providers face years of expensive litigation with the possibility of a massive verdict.  That would potentially rob Americans of safe and effective medical treatment and strike yet another blow to the nation’s struggling economy.

We usually talk about lawsuit-related issues on this blog and how abuse of the civil justice system makes life difficult for Americans working on Main Street.  Today, I’d like to address another important issue affecting Main Street, too.  Because, let’s be fair, if this economy is ever going to rebound, Main Street is going to lead the way.

My colleague at the Center for America, John Ratzenberger, has developed a Main Street jobs plan that is being unveiled this week.  Yes, that’s right, John Ratzenberger has a new jobs plan.  I understand you may know John as an actor, but before that, he was a carpenter, and he strongly believes that one of the keys to creating a better future for our country is to expand our skilled workforce.

By focusing on creating more jobs for skilled workers, John’s jobs plan addresses a huge problem that Wall Street and Washington haven’t fixed yet:  the growing skills gap in our country.  Even with unemployment in this recession at nine percent, there are still hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs going unfilled.  Sadly, there aren’t enough skilled workers to fill them, and the problem is going to get worse.

The average age of the American skilled worker is fifty-five years old, so there will be a shortage of ten million skilled workers by the year 2020 as these workers retire.  This is a serious threat to our economy, so to raise awareness about the urgent need to address this situation, John and the Center for America are encouraging all Americans to sign the “10 By 20 Pledge for America.”

The idea is that America needs to jump-start skills training and that the effort to do this must begin in our own communities.  It’s going to take a lot of cooperation, but it could take a big chunk out of unemployment and get America working again.

Learn more about John Ratzenberger’s plan for expanding the skilled workforce by clicking here. You can also see a video of John talking about the “Employing America” series for AOL Jobs Week 2011 here.

Let’s get started!

As we mark the tenth anniversary of the senseless terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, our thoughts turn to those who were taken from us that day, the heroes who prevented even more tragedy from taking place, and those who put themselves in harm’s way so they could aid the survivors.

My thoughts also turn to several people I met in the World Trade Center a couple of weeks before the attack.  We had been invited by ABC News’ 20/20 to film a story about the Wacky Warning Label Contest in New York City, and we spent the day doing interviews in a vacant store in the mall beneath the twin towers.  Sadly, it would turn out to be the last video footage filmed in the World Trade Center for national television.

The producers at 20/20 had decided to set up tables in this landmark location so they could display the products and ask tourists and employees of companies located in the towers to comment on the wacky labels.  The segment was scheduled to air a few days after the attack, but it was immediately shelved.  Of course, the networks focused on news coverage of the tragedy in the days and weeks after the attacks on America.

ABC News eventually decided to air the segment on the wacky labels, but only if all of the people who had been interviewed in the World Trade Center survived.  Happily, the producers learned after much searching that all of the people they had filmed had indeed survived!

The New York Times ran a story in which it reported that the people who had been filmed for the segment thought it would be nice to see the footage taken on that carefree day.  In November, 2001, the segment aired.  There was no mention of where it had been filmed because it was not considered crucial to the segment.  To see the video, click here.

The scenes where people can be seen walking in the background as others are interviewed about the funny labels were all filmed in the lower level of the World Trade Center.

I often think about the nice people we shared laughs with that day.  This week, I will fly my American flag proudly, as usual, and my thoughts and prayers will be with those survivors and all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.

In case you missed the “funnies” section of your newspaper last Sunday, we thought you’d like to see the “Pearls Before Swine” comic strip that delved into the often-comical world of warning labels.

In the award-winning strip by Stephan Pastis, one of the characters reads through a litany of warning labels he found on a kitchen toaster.  After several panels, he looks at the toaster and says “I’ve never been so afraid of a toaster.”  We share his pain!

The full strip, published by the United Feature Syndicate, can be seen at the website of GoComics.

Pastis probably understands why toasters and other consumers goods carry so many warnings better than any cartoonist around.  He’s a former lawyer who spent nine years practicing law, and he litigated many civil cases on behalf of the defense.  I think I’ve found my new favorite cartoonist.

If you’re a lawyer considering a similar career move, or even if you’d like to read about how Pastis’ fellow lawyers helped him develop a comic strip that would eventually be carried in 650 newspapers worldwide, here’s an interesting interview with the cartoonist you might enjoy.

Coincidentally, one of our Let’s Be Fair radio commentaries recently focused on the fear created by litigation-fueled warning labels, too.  To hear the real-life story of someone who was too afraid to use a product she purchased because of an ominous warning printed on it, click here.

Thanks to Kevin Soave of Farmington Hills, Michigan for sending us the tip on the Pearls Before Swine comic strip.  Kevin won the grand prize in our Wacky Warning Label Contest in 2007 for a label he found on a small tractor.  It said, “Warning: Avoid Death.”  Hard to argue with that.