Safe Workplace and Safety News

The Las Vegas Sun reported yesterday that George Washington University professor David Michaels will be nominated to be the head of OSHA. The article reports that:

"Michaels, an epidemiologist, has been a notable advocate for workers to be compensated for health risks from chemicals and has also exposed attempts from businesses to block health regulations by making scientific research appear less certain than it is."

"Last year, he published the book 'Doubt is their Product' about industries' use of misleading public relations campaigns to create scientific doubt and block governmental efforts to regulate health risks."

You can read the complete Las Vegas Sun article here.

Labels: Department Of Labor, OSHA, politics, safety politics

The bill that passed the Texas House last week allows some workers, who are covered by Worker's Comp., to also sue the work site owner for negligence or to obtain additional compensation for an on-the-job injury.

A Houston Chronical article explains that this change applies to contract workers. It states "The bill by Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, changes the Labor Code to clarify that plant owners aren’t immune from lawsuits merely because they buy workers’ comp coverage for their contracted workers."

You can read the entire Houston Chronicle article here.

The Southeast Text Record also reported on this providing some background information. They said:

"Last month, the state Supreme Court considered whether a contract employee injured at a work site can sue the site owner for negligence if the owner has workers' compensation insurance."

"On April 3, the court decided that the worker did not have the right to sue because the law does not explicitly prohibit a work site owner like Entergy from being considered a general contractor. General contractors are protected from workplace injury suits."

Labels: politics, safety management, Workers' Comp

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports that the U.S. Department of Labor will withdraw the proposal for a risk assessment of new workplace safety standards. The article reports that the "risk assessment proposal will be withdrawn in June. Critics have said the proposed rule would add extra steps to an already slow regulatory process by making it harder to prove the level of risk workers face when exposed to toxins on the job."

The complete article is available here.

Labels: OSHA, osha information, politics

If you have not heard about it, this is legislation you'll need to know about. The following is quoted directly from the House Committee on Education and Labor. Keep in mind this represents how your elected representatives describe this legislation:

The Protecting America's Workers Act will strengthen and modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act, our nation's law that ensures the health and safety of American workers. Significant progress has been made on protecting the health and safety of American workers since the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration almost four decades ago. According to studies, nearly 400,000 workers' lives have been saved as a result.

However, too many workers are still dying, getting injured or become ill by working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. The Protecting America’s Workers Act will provide additional tools to ensure that OSHA can fulfill its duty enforce safe and healthy workplaces for all American workers.

Protects More Workers

• Expands OSHA coverage to include state and local public employees and federal government workers.


• Expands coverage to millions of other workers inadequately covered such as airline and railroad employees, and Department of Energy contractors.

Strengthens Health and Safety Penalties

• Raises civil penalties and indexes those penalties to inflation.


• Establishes mandatory minimum penalties for violations involving worker deaths.


• Allows felony prosecutions against employers who commit willful violations that result in death or serious bodily injury, and extends such penalties to responsible corporate officers.


• Requires OSHA to investigate all cases of death and serious injuries (i.e. incidents that result in the hospitalization of 2 or more employees).
  

Improves Whistleblower Protections

• Codifies regulations that give workers the right to refuse to do hazardous work.


• Clarifies that employees cannot be discriminated against for reporting injuries, illnesses or unsafe conditions, and brings the procedures for investigating and adjudicating discrimination complaints into line with other safety and health and whistleblower laws.

Allows Workers and Their Families to Hold Dangerous Employers Accountable

• Provides workers and employee representatives the right to contest OSHA's failure to issue citations, classification of its citations, and proposed penalties.


• Gives injured workers, their families and families of workers who died in work-related incidents the right to meet with investigators, receive copies of citations, and to have an opportunity to make a statement before any settlement negotiations.


• Clarifies that the time spent by an employee accompanying an OSHA inspector during an investigation is considered time worked, for which a worker must be compensated.


• Prohibits OSHA from designating a citation as an "unclassified citation" where an employer can avoid the potential consequences of a "willful" violation, the most serious violation.


• Allows any worker or their representative to object to a modification or withdrawal of a citation, and entitles them to a hearing before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Labels: politics, safety management, safety politics, safety regulations

In discussing occupational safety, health and the environment (SH&E) issues with the new administration’s transition team, American Society of Safety Engineers’ (ASSE) officials reviewed its key concerns and suggestions for the U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Leadership, standards, risk-based safety and health management approaches, global harmonization rulemaking, third party consultation, ergonomics, workplace transportation fatalities, strengthening support for state OSHA programs, cooperation with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and continued support for cooperative programs like the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and OSHA alliances with businesses which advance employer understanding of the positive impact of SH&E on an employer’s bottom line were discussed.

As for leadership, ASSE notes federal safety and health agencies should be led by safety, health and environmental professionals who have the leadership capabilities to build relationships across the spectrum of occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholders. ASSE also noted the following:

- Standards -- An examination of how OSHA standards are pursued must be undertaken. OSHA should lead efforts to develop cooperative mechanisms to help counter the division that has limited OSHA’s ability to update standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs).

- Advance risk-based safety and health management approaches -- OSHA should encourage employers to take proactive responsibility for safety and health through risk-based regulatory approaches and compliance assistance resources. Europe, Japan, China and committed U.S. employers already use such approaches. OSHA is falling behind the world in not incorporating risk-based safety and health management approaches.

- OSHA can help U.S. companies save jobs. Rulemaking on global harmonization of US hazard communications (GHS) will help U.S. employers compete across the globe and should be completed. An engaged OSHA can help ensure OSH issues are addressed fully in US trade agreements.

- Continue to support cooperative programs like VPP and the OSHA alliances, which continue to advance employer understanding that safe workplaces save lives and positively impact an employer’s bottom line.

- Third party consultation -- ASSE supports extending OSHA effectiveness by establishing a program to allow third party safety audits of companies under strict requirements to ensure professionalism and maximize effect, thereby expanding OSHA’s reach beyond the limits of its current enforcement and cooperative programs.

- Ergonomics – If ergonomics emerges as a regulatory goal, ASSE will not be able to support a prescriptive approach. Our members’ knowledge and experience indicate that ergonomic problems are addressed through specific job and workplace fixes. Any approach to ergonomics must be risk-based, encourage cooperation, and avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions that cannot work.

- Harmonization with voluntary consensus standards – OSHA should increase its participation level in the voluntary consensus standard community and comply fully with the Technology Transfer Act's mandate to consider consensus standards when engaged in rulemaking. Use of such standards, like ANSI/ASSE Z117 (confined space standard) and ANSI/ASSE Z490.1 (safety training), will help expedite rulemaking and keep pace with current safety practices.

- Transportation-related deaths continue to be the leading cause of workplace fatalities in the U.S. OSHA should examine its current efforts and engage employers, employees and other federal agencies to create a new emphasis on addressing this problem.

- Cooperation with NIOSH – OSHA’s relationship with NIOSH envisioned by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act should be increased so that NIOSH’s work, including key SH&E research, can support and contribute to OSHA’s standards and other activities.

- Improve support for state programs – OSHA’s ability to support and encourage state program effectiveness must be strengthened.

Labels: ASSE, OSHA, politics

The Sunday edition of the Las Vegas Sun continues that newspaper's look at OSHA and construction safety. This article states that OSHA uses directives, which are interpretations of safety requirements, to weaken or abolish the established safety requirements. The article states that in this way, although a safety requirement is on the books, it will not be enforced.

The Las Vegas Sun article states: "OSHA in recent years has issued interpretations of long-standing safety requirements that, in some cases, effectively change or abolish those requirements without public review, critics argue. For nearly three decades after OSHA was created by a Democratic Congress and signed into law in 1972 by a Republican president, the agency issued what are known as compliance directives to instruct field officers in enforcement of OSHA laws.

But in the past decade, OSHA’s construction standards division began using compliance directives more broadly. They were used to interpret safety standards and to tell employers which standards could lead to safety violations."

But labor advocates say the use of directives to interpret or change the meaning of construction safety standards is improper. The directives do not go through the same public review as the standards themselves did.

'A party can challenge a standard within 60 days when it’s issued, but with compliance directives you don’t have the right as a worker or union to challenge it, and it becomes a way of changing the rule,' said Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO’s director of safety and health."

You can read the entire article at the Las Vegas Sun

Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA, politics

The following press release was issued by Change to Win, a partnership of seven unions.

The Cintas Corp. was criticized today in a U.S. Senate hearing for having a dangerous pattern of disregarding worker safety. The hearing, held by the Employment and Workplace Protections Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, sought to hold leading corporations like Cintas accountable for repeated safety violations.

"What is most disturbing to me is that these tragedies are happening over and over again in the same industries. And they are happening far too often at the same companies -- where workers are doing jobs that their employers know are dangerous and unsafe," stated Subcommittee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Not even multiple citations and record breaking proposed penalties have persuaded Cintas to eliminate the kinds of violations that led to the March 2007 death of Tulsa, Oklahoma, worker Eleazar Torres Gomez. More than one year after this fatality, Cintas workers report they continue to face the same kinds of potentially lethal dangers in their plants. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is currently investigating these hazards in an Illinois Cintas laundry.

In addition to Cintas, Senators heard testimony about pork producer Smithfield Farms, garbage collector Waste Management, and residential construction developer Avalon Bay. While these employers are from vastly different industries, like Cintas, they have made choices that increased the risk of injury or illness to their workers.

The hearing also addressed OSHA's failures to investigate and remedy corporate-wide health and safety violations as a result of ineffective enforcement tools and inadequate resources.

"To prevent accidents, instead of only assigning blame afterward, OSHA needs to root out the source of these problems," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), HELP Committee Chairman. "A broad-based approach to enforcement has the power to transform workplace accidents from senseless losses to catalysts for changes that save lives."

Witnesses made several suggestions to reform OSHA including passage of the Protecting America's Workers Act. This bill would expand the protection of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, strengthen the agency's ability to enforce the law and increase criminal penalties for the most egregious safety violations.

"OSHA and America's working families need your help to send a clear message to negligent employers: Workers lives must be valued more than profits," Change to Win Health and Safety Coordinator Eric Frumin told senators. "The Protecting America's Workers Act is a good first start. But much more is needed to prevent more families, like the Torres family in Tulsa, from mourning because of unsafe jobs."

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) agreed. "Workplace safety isn't an option, it's an imperative," he said. "American workers built this nation's prosperity, and it is in our nation's interest to protect their health and safety in the workplace."

Labels: OSHA, politics, workplace safety

The following is based on press release issued by Behavorial Science Technology.

BST testifimony at the Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee hearing on serious OSHA violations states that safety program effectiveness is influenced by the culture that leaders create.

In a hearing yesterday before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, Behavioral Science Technology, Inc. (BST) testified that organizational leaders strongly influence the effectiveness of injury reduction programs through the cultures they create. Data show that safety outcomes markedly improve in companies that take a holistic approach to improvement activities that includes giving leaders an active role in safety functioning.

BST executive consultant Carmen Bianco cited results from more than 150 client sites in North America to show that companies reduce injuries more effectively with a comprehensive employee-engagement approach than with traditional safety programs alone. Companies in the study group achieved an average 25% reduction in injury rate after the first year, increasing to an average 65% improvement after five years.

"Traditional safety programs are essential but not sufficient for excellence," says BST chief operating officer Scott Stricoff. "Business systems, management decisions, and the culture as a whole all influence how effectively safety systems perform. Engaging executives, managers, and
supervisors helps companies align the business to work with, not against, the safety objective."

According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, work-related accidents injure more than four million workers, and cause more than 5,000 worker fatalities, every year. Workplace injuries are estimated to cost U.S. businesses in excess of $120 billion dollars annually.

For a copy of BST's testimony or additional information on culture, leadership, and workplace safety, contact Rebecca Nigel or visit http://www.bstsolutions.com/about/press_room.shtml.

BST is a global safety consulting and solutions firm headquartered in Ojai, California.

Labels: Industrial Safety, OSHA, politics, workplace safety

As I read the news across the internet a topic I have not covered here has been what appears to be a growing discontent with OSHA's enforcement activities, or perceived lack of enforcement activities. This has seemed to me to be more of a political issue than a safety issue. I've wondered whether the type and the tone of attacks on OSHA will change after this November's election.

However, an article in yesterday's Las Vegas Sun, called "OSHA Goes Easy", highlights a growing problem for OSHA, and for safety professionals. I suggest reading the article and all of the comments added by Las Vega Sun readers. There is also a video included as a part of the article. The caption for the video reads:

"For family members featured in this video, the light response from government authorities has compounded the mourning process. Others wonder: Is safety sacrificed in the rush to build? CityCenter developer MGM Mirage says no. 'We’re very concerned about safety in everything we do, whether it’s a room remodel or something as enormous and complex as CityCenter,' MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman said. 'For the number of people on the site and the amount of activity going on, we can be very proud of the fact that we have a very safe environment in which to work.'"

I find Mr. Feldman's statement to be disturbing. It as though he is saying that if you have a large number of people on a job site, then some accidents and even a death are acceptable. Hopefully that is not what he meant.

But what about OSHA's finding and reduction of the fine? What most of the public does not understand is that the level of an OSHA fine is not intended to provide punishment for a death, it is intended to reflect the seriousness of the hazard and how the company has responded both in the past and present. But, as this article shows, that's not what the public sees.

What do you think? Has OSHA's focus on programs such as VPP been a good thing or should they be putting more emphasis on enforcement and imposing fines? Please feel free to add your comments here.

Labels: Construction Safety, OSHA Fines, politics, workplace fatalities