Safe Workplace and Safety News
This is the safety news blog for the Safe Workplace web site. We cover workplace safety related news with a focus on how safety, or a lack of safety, impacts employers, employees and their families. We also cover topics such as safety training, safety tools, and legal issues related to safety. For regular safety news and information enter your email address in the box above the Subscribe button to the right (then click on the button).
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Third-Party Sale Puts Product Maker In Court For Accident Liability
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the manufacturer of a machine, that was involved in an industrial accident, can be held liable even though that manufacturer is in the United Kingdom and has no presence in New Jersey or the U.S.
An article on the LAW.COM web site states:
"Justice Barry Albin, writing for the 5-2 majority, said that given the nature of modern international commerce and New Jersey's long-arm rule, there is no reason why a foreign manufacturer cannot be held liable, even if it has barely any contact here."
The accident happened in 2001 and involved the loss of four fingers in a recycling machine.
There were two dissenting judges in the 5-2 decision. The articles reports:
"In her dissent, Hoens said there needs to be more of a nexus to New Jersey than a product just ending up here. 'Repeated quotations and soaring language about the realities of the global marketplace might compel the casual reader to follow what appears to be the majority's relentless logic,' she said. 'But those rhetorical techniques cannot mask the fact that the majority today embarks on a path that stretches our notions about due process, and about what is fundamentally fair, beyond the breaking point.'"
Read the entire article here.
An article on the LAW.COM web site states:
"Justice Barry Albin, writing for the 5-2 majority, said that given the nature of modern international commerce and New Jersey's long-arm rule, there is no reason why a foreign manufacturer cannot be held liable, even if it has barely any contact here."
The accident happened in 2001 and involved the loss of four fingers in a recycling machine.
There were two dissenting judges in the 5-2 decision. The articles reports:
"In her dissent, Hoens said there needs to be more of a nexus to New Jersey than a product just ending up here. 'Repeated quotations and soaring language about the realities of the global marketplace might compel the casual reader to follow what appears to be the majority's relentless logic,' she said. 'But those rhetorical techniques cannot mask the fact that the majority today embarks on a path that stretches our notions about due process, and about what is fundamentally fair, beyond the breaking point.'"
Read the entire article here.
Labels: Industrial Safety, safety regulations, workplace injuries
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Textile Groups Urge OSHA To Avoid Unnecessary Regulations
An article in Textile World magazine reports that the textile industry has responded to OSHA's advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on combustible dust by asking that OSHA not impose rules on industries for which they don't apply. The article states:
"While supporting OSHA's overall efforts to improve safety in the workplace, NCC (National Cotton Council) cautions OSHA to focus its efforts in this case to areas that have experienced problems with combustible dust and not attempt to regulate industries such as textiles that have 'no demonstrated history of combustible dust incidents.'"
You can read the complete article here.
"While supporting OSHA's overall efforts to improve safety in the workplace, NCC (National Cotton Council) cautions OSHA to focus its efforts in this case to areas that have experienced problems with combustible dust and not attempt to regulate industries such as textiles that have 'no demonstrated history of combustible dust incidents.'"
You can read the complete article here.
Labels: combustible dust, OSHA, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, December 14, 2009
Employers wary of changes in approach, focus at OSHA
Business Insurance reports about an increasing concern among employers about increased OSHA regulation. The article reports:
"Fueling some concerns was a proposal last week by the Department of Labor and OSHA to require that employers report worker musculoskeletal disorders, known as MSDs, as part of their Form 300 injury logs.
"Fueling some concerns was a proposal last week by the Department of Labor and OSHA to require that employers report worker musculoskeletal disorders, known as MSDs, as part of their Form 300 injury logs.
Employer organizations said they fear that the increased MSD reporting could set the stage for mandatory workplace ergonomics standards."
Labels: Industrial Health, safety politics, safety regulations, workplace injuries
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Employers Must Record At-Work 'Horseplay' Injuries
OSHA has issued an interpretation letter covering recording injuries resulting from horseplay in the workplace. It states that workplace injuries resulting from "horseplay" must be recorded in OSHA logs. Here is that letter:
Dear Mr. Winkelman:
Thank you for your December 2, 2008, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Recordkeeping regulation found at 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you requested guidance from OSHA on a case regarding "horseplay."
Scenario: In your letter, you describe an instance where two of your supervisors had completed their work for the day and had entered the change trailer to change clothes and proceed home. There was some bantering back and forth concerning how to beat the traffic at shift's end. The discussion escalated into a physical confrontation where one supervisor allegedly pulled a knife and struck the other in the right bicep, causing a laceration that required sutures to close.
Issue: You have asked OSHA to endorse your contention that, because the work environment did not contribute to the "horseplay gone badly," as you described the situation, the injury was not work-related and thus was non-recordable under OSHA regulations.
Response: Under 29 CFR Subpart C, "Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria," an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). We assume that the supervisors were in the change trailer as a part of their work or as a condition of their employment. If our assumption is correct, the injury resulted from an event (the altercation between the two supervisors) occurring in the work environment and was thus work-related. When a work-related injury requires treatment beyond first aid, it is recordable unless it falls within one of the §1904.5(b)(2) exceptions to the geographic presumption.
Violence in the workplace does not generally qualify as an exception. OSHA's Frequently Asked Question 5-2 (found at http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html#1904.4) provides guidance on this issue:
Applying these principles to your situation, it is OSHA's position that the injury was work-related and required medical treatment beyond first aid. This is so whether the incident leading to the injury is characterized as horseplay or as workplace violence, neither of which is covered by any exception to the geographic presumption. Therefore, the injury is recordable.
Both the Note to Subpart A of the regulation (29 CFR §1904.0) and the Overview to OSHA Form 300 (http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf) expressly state that recording a case does not indicate that an employer or employee was at fault or that an OSHA standard was violated. In addition, OSHA recognizes that injury and illness rates do not necessarily indicate an employer's lack of interest in safety and health. Recording a case indicates only three things: (1) that an injury or illness has occurred; (2) that the employer has determined that the case is work-related (using OSHA's definition of that term); and (3) that the case is non-minor, i.e., that it meets one or more of the OSHA injury and illness recording criteria. See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5933.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Dear Mr. Winkelman:
Thank you for your December 2, 2008, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the Recordkeeping regulation found at 29 CFR Part 1904. Specifically, you requested guidance from OSHA on a case regarding "horseplay."
Scenario: In your letter, you describe an instance where two of your supervisors had completed their work for the day and had entered the change trailer to change clothes and proceed home. There was some bantering back and forth concerning how to beat the traffic at shift's end. The discussion escalated into a physical confrontation where one supervisor allegedly pulled a knife and struck the other in the right bicep, causing a laceration that required sutures to close.
Issue: You have asked OSHA to endorse your contention that, because the work environment did not contribute to the "horseplay gone badly," as you described the situation, the injury was not work-related and thus was non-recordable under OSHA regulations.
Response: Under 29 CFR Subpart C, "Recordkeeping Forms and Recording Criteria," an injury must be recorded if it is work-related, is a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria (such as requiring medical treatment beyond first aid). See 29 CFR §1904.4(a). An injury is presumed to be work-related if it results from an event occurring in the work environment, unless an enumerated exception to this geographic presumption applies. See 29 CFR §1904.5(a). The work environment includes any location where one or more employees are working or are present as a condition of their employment. See 29 CFR §1904.5(b)(1). We assume that the supervisors were in the change trailer as a part of their work or as a condition of their employment. If our assumption is correct, the injury resulted from an event (the altercation between the two supervisors) occurring in the work environment and was thus work-related. When a work-related injury requires treatment beyond first aid, it is recordable unless it falls within one of the §1904.5(b)(2) exceptions to the geographic presumption.
Violence in the workplace does not generally qualify as an exception. OSHA's Frequently Asked Question 5-2 (found at http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/detailedfaq.html#1904.4) provides guidance on this issue:
Question 5-2: Are cases of workplace violence considered work-related under the new Recordkeeping rule?Furthermore, the geographic presumption (that is, an injury is work-related if it occurs in the work environment) covers cases in which an injury or illness results from activities that occur at work but that are not directly productive, such as horseplay. See the preamble to the final rule (66 Fed. Reg. 5916, 5929 (Jan. 19, 2001)).
The Recordkeeping rule contains no general exception, for purposes of determining work-relationship, for cases involving acts of violence in the work environment. However, some cases involving violent acts might be included within one of the exceptions listed in section 1904.5(b)(2). For example, if an employee arrives at work early to use a company conference room for a civic club meeting and is injured by some violent act, the case would not be work-related under the exception in section 1904.5(b)(2)(v).
Applying these principles to your situation, it is OSHA's position that the injury was work-related and required medical treatment beyond first aid. This is so whether the incident leading to the injury is characterized as horseplay or as workplace violence, neither of which is covered by any exception to the geographic presumption. Therefore, the injury is recordable.
Both the Note to Subpart A of the regulation (29 CFR §1904.0) and the Overview to OSHA Form 300 (http://osha.gov/recordkeeping/new-osha300form1-1-04.pdf) expressly state that recording a case does not indicate that an employer or employee was at fault or that an OSHA standard was violated. In addition, OSHA recognizes that injury and illness rates do not necessarily indicate an employer's lack of interest in safety and health. Recording a case indicates only three things: (1) that an injury or illness has occurred; (2) that the employer has determined that the case is work-related (using OSHA's definition of that term); and (3) that the case is non-minor, i.e., that it meets one or more of the OSHA injury and illness recording criteria. See 66 Fed. Reg. at 5933.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. In addition, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
OSHA Announces $314,000 In Penalties Against Dana Container Inc.
OSHA has proposed $314,000 in fines against Dana Container Inc. of Summit, Ill., for alleged willful, serious and repeat violations of federal workplace safety standards.
As a result of a safety and health inspection, OSHA has cited the company for three willful violations with a proposed penalty of $210,000. The willful citations address the company's alleged failure to have adequate written programs and permits required for working in confined spaces and not insuring proper working conditions before allowing workers to enter those confined spaces. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
The company also has been cited for 16 serious violations with proposed penalties of $86,500. Some of the citations allege the company failed to provide proper training and procedures on uses of personal protective equipment such as respirators; review permit space entry operations and permit required confined space programs; install guardrails on elevated runways; provide proper identification and warnings on hazardous material tanks; and provide an adequate hazard communication program. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Dana also has received one citation for a repeat violation with a penalty of $17,500. The alleged repeat violation addresses failure to provide emergency eyewash and a safety shower for employees working with corrosive materials. OSHA issues a repeat violation when it finds a substantially similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any of an employer's facilities in federal enforcement states when an initial one previously was cited.
"Injuries and fatalities from accidents such as asphyxiation due to overexposure of hazardous gases are preventable," said Gary Anderson, OSHA's area director in Calumet City, Ill. "Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful or face strong enforcement actions by OSHA."
Dana Container Inc. is a tank washing company that employs about 375 workers nationally. Its facility has been inspected seven times by OSHA, including two inspections after worker fatalities, and the company has received numerous citations from these past inspections.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Related Past Posts
OSHA Issues Confined Space Proposed Rule
OSHA Citation For Inadequate Lock Out / Tag Out
As a result of a safety and health inspection, OSHA has cited the company for three willful violations with a proposed penalty of $210,000. The willful citations address the company's alleged failure to have adequate written programs and permits required for working in confined spaces and not insuring proper working conditions before allowing workers to enter those confined spaces. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.
The company also has been cited for 16 serious violations with proposed penalties of $86,500. Some of the citations allege the company failed to provide proper training and procedures on uses of personal protective equipment such as respirators; review permit space entry operations and permit required confined space programs; install guardrails on elevated runways; provide proper identification and warnings on hazardous material tanks; and provide an adequate hazard communication program. A serious citation is issued when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.
Dana also has received one citation for a repeat violation with a penalty of $17,500. The alleged repeat violation addresses failure to provide emergency eyewash and a safety shower for employees working with corrosive materials. OSHA issues a repeat violation when it finds a substantially similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any of an employer's facilities in federal enforcement states when an initial one previously was cited.
"Injuries and fatalities from accidents such as asphyxiation due to overexposure of hazardous gases are preventable," said Gary Anderson, OSHA's area director in Calumet City, Ill. "Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the workplace safe and healthful or face strong enforcement actions by OSHA."
Dana Container Inc. is a tank washing company that employs about 375 workers nationally. Its facility has been inspected seven times by OSHA, including two inspections after worker fatalities, and the company has received numerous citations from these past inspections.
The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Related Past Posts
OSHA Issues Confined Space Proposed Rule
OSHA Citation For Inadequate Lock Out / Tag Out
Labels: hazard identifcation, OSHA Citations, OSHA Fines, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, May 01, 2009
OSHA Program Suspended By OSHA Head Jordan Barab
A special worker health and safety program that targets employers that repeatedly put their workers in harms way is not working and needs to be refocused, witnesses told the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee today.
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
"After six years of operation, it’s clear that the Enhanced Enforcement Program original design is flawed, and that OSHA under the Bush administration did not implement the program as intended," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the subcommittee. "We need to know why the program is not working and what we can do to fix it. The EEP has failed hundreds of workers like Jesus Rojas, and that is just not acceptable."
The Enhanced Enforcement Program, created in 2003 by the Bush administration after an exposé into the poor safety and health record of the McWane Corporation, identifies high risk employers by their past behavior and targets them for additional scrutiny. However, the U.S. Department of Labor Inspector General found the Bush federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not properly carry out the initiative and it failed to effectively deter employers from putting workers’ lives at risk.
"It is essential that OSHA target its limited resources to inspect workplaces with the highest risk of hazardous conditions that have greater potential to cause injuries and fatalities," said Elliot Lewis, assistant inspector general for audits at the U.S. Department of Labor. "While we cannot conclude that the enhanced enforcement would prevent subsequent fatalities, full and proper application of EEP procedures may have deterred and abated workplace hazards at the worksites of 45 employers where 58 subsequent fatalities occurred."
The Inspector General report also referenced additional businesses that should have been included in the Enhanced Enforcement Program, but never were. The report cited the death of Raul Figueroa, a mechanic at Waste Management in Florida who was killed while repairing a truck. OSHA cited Waste Management for a serious violation that resulted in the death of Figueroa.
"For some time before his death, my stepfather complained about safety problems at the facility,” said Jesus Royas, Figueroa’s stepson. "Companies like Waste Management should not be allowed to cut corners and compromise safety."
Witnesses also said the current program is too limited in scope because it does not focus on corporate-wide investigations and does not focus on the most flagrant violations that occur before workers are killed.
"What is needed is a more systemic, holistic examination of the current OSHA enforcement regime," said Eric Frumin, director of health and safety at Change to Win. "Waste Management's OSHA violations increased by 28 percent over the period 2003 to 2007. If Waste Management had implemented a comprehensive safety program, and held its managers accountable, Raul Figueroa might well be alive today."
The current head of OSHA testified that the agency is working on improving the Enhanced Enforcement Program.
"The Enhanced Enforcement Program was designed…to focus enforcement efforts on recalcitrant employers," said Jordan Barab, acting head of OSHA. "OSHA is exploring ways to reinvigorate the EEP, and the OIG report provides a starting point for our efforts to do this in the most effective way."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, OSHA Inspections, safety management, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Protecting America's Workers Act of 2009
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
Strengthens Health and Safety Penalties
Improves Whistleblower Protections
Allows Workers and Their Families to Hold Dangerous Employers Accountable
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
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Labor Fears Spawn Boom In Workplace Legal Advice
The following is from the April 8th Wall Street Journal. It discusses how concerns about changes in workplace laws will impact the workplace from a legal perspective. Here is the opening paragraph:
"U.S. businesses, fearful of rising union influence and a crackdown by the Obama adminstration on workplace practices, are scrambling for legal advice and training, creating a windfall for labor consultants and law firms."
You can read the complete article here.
While most of the article focuses on the "Employee Free Choice Act," it does note that increased safety inspections may also be coming. While we all are working to have the safest possible workplace, in these changing times we'll need to be aware of what the government is doing in the areas such as new regulations and inspections, as well as changes in what they are looking for during inspections.
"U.S. businesses, fearful of rising union influence and a crackdown by the Obama adminstration on workplace practices, are scrambling for legal advice and training, creating a windfall for labor consultants and law firms."
You can read the complete article here.
While most of the article focuses on the "Employee Free Choice Act," it does note that increased safety inspections may also be coming. While we all are working to have the safest possible workplace, in these changing times we'll need to be aware of what the government is doing in the areas such as new regulations and inspections, as well as changes in what they are looking for during inspections.
Labels: safety management, safety politics, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, March 19, 2009
ASSE Expresses Concerns About The New OSHA Cranes And Derricks Construction Rule
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) expressed a variety of concerns focused on the failure to reference widely accepted national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane safety in the proposed updated federal ‘Cranes and Derricks in Construction Rule’ in testimony by ASSE professional member Matt Burkart, a crane safety expert from Southampton, PA, who is a member of the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations Standards standard committee and chairman of the ASCE Construction Site Safety Committee at a public hearing held this week at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
The concerns reflect comments ASSE submitted in January to Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Acting Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Stohler for the record of the cranes and derricks rulemaking. In its comments, ASSE requested a hearing be held to discuss its concern that OSHA failed to reference the A10 or other national voluntary consensus standards addressing crane and derrick safety.
In ASSE’s January comments, ASSE President Warren K. Brown, CSP, ARM, CSHM, of Fairborn, OH, noted ASSE represents 32,000 occupational safety, health and environmental (SH&E) professionals who work with employers to protect workers and employers’ property from safety, health and environmental risks.
"Our members are experts in managing workplace safety and health issues in every industry, in every state and across the globe. They belong to sixteen ASSE practice specialties," Brown said. "In fact, ASSE’s Construction Practice Specialty is ASSE’s largest practice specialty. ASSE is also the Secretariat for various ANSI voluntary consensus standards related to safe practices in construction, including the A10 Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations, the Z359 Fall Protection Code, and Z490.1-2001Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health and Environmental Training. The safe operation cranes and derricks on construction sites is of the utmost importance to ASSE’s members."
In his testimony, Burkart brought attention to OSHA’s failure to fulfill its duty under law to consider voluntary consensus standards in rulemaking.
"We cannot help but come to that conclusion when the Proposed Rule fails to reference even once the ASC A10 standard Safety Requirements for Construction and Demolition Operations. The ASC A10 Committee for Construction and Demolition Operations is one of the oldest ANSI committees, chartered in 1931 and enjoying 78 years of continuous leadership in developing construction safety standards," Burkart said. "The inability of OSHA to identify a key set of standards impacting crane safety is a significant failure by OSHA to perform meaningful background research and indicates the Agency failed to comply fully with Public Law 104-113."
Public Law 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1965, requires all federal agencies to "use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."
"ASSE’s members have had extensive and successful experience in helping develop occupational safety and health standards through consensus building in the ANSI voluntary standards development process, including national standards impacting the safe operation of cranes and derricks," Burkart explained. "We already work successfully in managing crane safety through these voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, we need clarity and consistency between the existing voluntary standard and a final OSHA standard."
In his testimony, Burkhart also stated ASSE's support for OSHA's general approach to helping ensure that crane operators are qualified or certified to operate the equipment covered here. Burkart went on to say, however, "We urge OSHA to rewrite the proposed provisions to require that operator certifications be accredited by the same nationally recognized accrediting agencies that accredit organizations certifying the professional competence of safety and health professionals. Without this level of rigor, ASSE fears that unknown entities with little experience in professional certification will be able to establish certifications that do not adequately demonstrate professional crane operator competence and put at risk the advances in crane safety we all want."
Burkart also urged OSHA to look closely at the negotiated rulemaking process used to develop this proposed rule to see if lessons can be learned to help improve the negotiated rulemaking process as a tool for engaging the entire safety and health community in OSHA’s rulemaking.
"While no approach to standards setting can be without challenges, negotiated rulemaking best mirrors the success of the voluntary consensus process and holds promise for some of the more difficult occupational safety and health issues," Burkart said on behalf of ASSE.
Other areas of the proposed rule that concern ASSE include hoisting and rigging; confusing equipment definitions such as for fall protection, competent person and ground conditions; concern that OSHA did not reference the national voluntary consensus standard with regard to use of different derricks; selection of manufacturer or employer procedures for assembly/disassembly and general requirements; power line safety; inspections; wire rope inspections; general requirements for signals; overall fall protection; work area control; operator qualification and certification; training; hoisting personnel; multiple-crane/derrick lifts; design, construction and testing; and, overhead and gantry cranes.
The current OSHA safety standard for cranes and derricks was written in 1971. In July 2004, a 23-member industry and union OSHA advisory committee issued a recommendation that OSHA update its outdated standards on crane and derrick safety and proposed a revised standard, including specific rules on crane assembly.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
OSHA Launches National Initiative On Cranes And Derricks
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA To Issue Proposed Cranes and Derricks Construction Standard
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
Labels: ASSE, Construction Safety, OSHA, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, December 15, 2008
Lynn Area Chamber of Commerce Reports OSHA Poster Scam
This morning's Daily Item reports from Lynn, Massachusetts that the Lynn Chamber of Commerce reported that "two men recently tried to scam the organization by insisting the government workplace safety posters they were selling for $30 each were mandatory for businesses.
JoAnn Power, the chamber's communications director, said the pair were selling state and federal labor law compliance posters from a company called Compliance4Less and warned that businesses failing to purchase the items could be fined up to $17,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)."
This type of misleading sales of OSHA posters has been going on for a long time. The following is an OSHA press release from 2001:
WORKPLACE POSTERS ARE AVAILABLE FREE - DESPITE MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Advertisements suggesting that OSHA workplace posters must be purchased from private companies to avoid fines may be misleading employers. OSHA reminds employers that its official posters are available free for the asking.
The official OSHA poster was redesigned last year to make it easier to read and understand. The new poster, called "It's the Law!" is available in English and Spanish. Employers need not replace older posters with the new ones, if they prefer to use them. Employers are required to display one of the two posters in a prominent location.
The OSHA poster informs workers of their rights to a safe and healthful workplace, how to file a complaint, report an emergency, and seek OSHA advice, and advises them of their right to confidentiality. It also lists the toll free number for OSHA, 800-321-OSHA, as well as phone numbers for regional OSHA offices around the country.
For a copy of OSHA's poster, visit OSHA's website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster.html. For the Spanish version, see http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster2.html. Employers can order multiple copies online by visiting www.osha.gov, then Newsroom, then Publications. Complete the order form online, and fax your request to Publications at (202) 693-2498. You can also call (202) 698-1888 or write to: U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA, OSHA Publications, P.O. Box 37535 Washington, D.C. 20013-7535.
JoAnn Power, the chamber's communications director, said the pair were selling state and federal labor law compliance posters from a company called Compliance4Less and warned that businesses failing to purchase the items could be fined up to $17,000 by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)."
This type of misleading sales of OSHA posters has been going on for a long time. The following is an OSHA press release from 2001:
WORKPLACE POSTERS ARE AVAILABLE FREE - DESPITE MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Advertisements suggesting that OSHA workplace posters must be purchased from private companies to avoid fines may be misleading employers. OSHA reminds employers that its official posters are available free for the asking.
The official OSHA poster was redesigned last year to make it easier to read and understand. The new poster, called "It's the Law!" is available in English and Spanish. Employers need not replace older posters with the new ones, if they prefer to use them. Employers are required to display one of the two posters in a prominent location.
The OSHA poster informs workers of their rights to a safe and healthful workplace, how to file a complaint, report an emergency, and seek OSHA advice, and advises them of their right to confidentiality. It also lists the toll free number for OSHA, 800-321-OSHA, as well as phone numbers for regional OSHA offices around the country.
For a copy of OSHA's poster, visit OSHA's website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster.html. For the Spanish version, see http://www.osha-slc.gov/Publications/poster2.html. Employers can order multiple copies online by visiting www.osha.gov, then Newsroom, then Publications. Complete the order form online, and fax your request to Publications at (202) 693-2498. You can also call (202) 698-1888 or write to: U.S. Department of Labor/OSHA, OSHA Publications, P.O. Box 37535 Washington, D.C. 20013-7535.
Labels: OSHA, rtk labels, safety regulations, safety signs
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, September 26, 2008
OSHA Sets Public Hearing On Personal Protective Equipment and Employee Training Requirements
OSHA) will hold a public hearing Oct. 6 and 7 to receive comments on its proposal to clarify the remedies available for violations of its personal protective equipment (PPE) and employee training requirements. The hearing will be held at the U.S. Department of Labor's Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Conference Room C-5320 #6, in Washington, D.C.
OSHA encourages all interested members of the public to participate. A notice of hearing is available at http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-21852_PI.pdf and includes instructions for submitting a required notice of intention to appear by no later than Sept. 26.
The proposed revisions are to implement OSHA's longstanding position that its PPE and training standards impose a separate compliance duty to each employee covered by the PPE or training requirements. An employer who violates one of these provisions commits a separate violation for each employee who is not trained or does not receive the proper PPE.
In this proposal, OSHA seeks to amend its PPE and training standards to clarify the nature of the employer's obligation to each employee and to conform with the language that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has approved as the basis for per-employee citations. More information about the proposal may be found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Aug. 19 edition of the Federal Register (73 FR 48335).
Members of the public with questions about the hearing may contact Veneta Chatmon at 202-693-1999.
OSHA encourages all interested members of the public to participate. A notice of hearing is available at http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-21852_PI.pdf and includes instructions for submitting a required notice of intention to appear by no later than Sept. 26.
The proposed revisions are to implement OSHA's longstanding position that its PPE and training standards impose a separate compliance duty to each employee covered by the PPE or training requirements. An employer who violates one of these provisions commits a separate violation for each employee who is not trained or does not receive the proper PPE.
In this proposal, OSHA seeks to amend its PPE and training standards to clarify the nature of the employer's obligation to each employee and to conform with the language that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has approved as the basis for per-employee citations. More information about the proposal may be found in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Aug. 19 edition of the Federal Register (73 FR 48335).
Members of the public with questions about the hearing may contact Veneta Chatmon at 202-693-1999.
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, August 22, 2008
You Can't Win
Laws, codes, rules and requirements sometimes conflict such that to obey one you most likely will break another. You can end up in a situation in which there is a potential for a lawsuit no matter what you do. Finding the middle ground can be difficult, or impossible.
Last Wednesday's Houston Chronicle has a good example. An employee of an Animal Health Clinic became pregnant. When her employer became aware of the pregnancy they took actions to protect the employee's health. The article states:
"Lisa Davila [the clinic manager] said she went through all the chemicals to identify which ones were dangerous, changed the employee's work duties to eliminate exposure to radiation or cat litter, and checked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Web site to make sure the clinic in College Station was taking the necessary precautions to keep its employee safe."
The result of Ms. Davila's actions was a lawsuit and a settlement to the employee of $15,000.
What went wrong? The manager may have violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which states that you can not treat a pregnant woman any different than anyone else... even if you are trying to protect the health of that person or the baby.
You can read the article at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/sixel/5956708.html#none
I suggest also reading the comments at the end of the article. Hare2share has a reasonable suggestion for how this situation might have been handled better. Although I still think the door would have been open for a lawsuit or OSHA fine.
Last Wednesday's Houston Chronicle has a good example. An employee of an Animal Health Clinic became pregnant. When her employer became aware of the pregnancy they took actions to protect the employee's health. The article states:
"Lisa Davila [the clinic manager] said she went through all the chemicals to identify which ones were dangerous, changed the employee's work duties to eliminate exposure to radiation or cat litter, and checked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Web site to make sure the clinic in College Station was taking the necessary precautions to keep its employee safe."
The result of Ms. Davila's actions was a lawsuit and a settlement to the employee of $15,000.
What went wrong? The manager may have violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which states that you can not treat a pregnant woman any different than anyone else... even if you are trying to protect the health of that person or the baby.
You can read the article at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/sixel/5956708.html#none
I suggest also reading the comments at the end of the article. Hare2share has a reasonable suggestion for how this situation might have been handled better. Although I still think the door would have been open for a lawsuit or OSHA fine.
Labels: Industrial Health, safety management, safety politics, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 1 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
OSHA's Proposed Rule On Remedies For Violations of PPE and Training Standards
OSHA announced yesterday in the Aug. 19 Federal Register that it is accepting public comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and training standards. The proposal clarifies that when an OSHA standard requires an employer to provide PPE, such as respirators, or training to employees, the employer must do so for each employee subject to the requirement. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation for penalty purposes.
"We want employers to understand the importance of complying with OSHA’s PPE rule for each and every one of their employees," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "Without question, providing PPE for all employees will reduce costs, save money and, most importantly, save lives."
The proposed rule affects OSHA’s general industry, construction, and maritime standards. In many cases, OSHA combines separate violations of a single requirement in a standard into a single penalty. However, under the instance-by-instance penalty policy, OSHA may propose a separate penalty for each specific violation where the employer demonstrates a flagrant disregard for safety and health.
The proposed rule makes clear that failure to provide appropriate PPE or training may result in per-instance penalties in appropriate cases. The proposed rule does not add new compliance obligations, nor are employers required to provide any new type of PPE or training. The amendments merely clarify that a separate penalty may be assessed for each employee not provided the required PPE or training.
The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule until Sept. 18. Interested parties may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; or by FAX at (202) 693-1678 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages. Comments must include the Agency name and Docket Number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0031).
"We want employers to understand the importance of complying with OSHA’s PPE rule for each and every one of their employees," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "Without question, providing PPE for all employees will reduce costs, save money and, most importantly, save lives."
The proposed rule affects OSHA’s general industry, construction, and maritime standards. In many cases, OSHA combines separate violations of a single requirement in a standard into a single penalty. However, under the instance-by-instance penalty policy, OSHA may propose a separate penalty for each specific violation where the employer demonstrates a flagrant disregard for safety and health.
The proposed rule makes clear that failure to provide appropriate PPE or training may result in per-instance penalties in appropriate cases. The proposed rule does not add new compliance obligations, nor are employers required to provide any new type of PPE or training. The amendments merely clarify that a separate penalty may be assessed for each employee not provided the required PPE or training.
The agency will accept public comments on the proposed rule until Sept. 18. Interested parties may submit comments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal; by sending three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; or by FAX at (202) 693-1678 if the comments and attachments do not exceed 10 pages. Comments must include the Agency name and Docket Number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0031).
Labels: OSHA, PPE, safety regulations, Safety Training
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Is A Handgun Considered PPE?
Here are some brief stories that caught my eye today...
Which OSHA Requirement Would You Toss? - This is an article in Occupational Hazards by David K. Ermer in which he proposes eliminating the requirement that MSDS's be retained for 30 years.
Occupational Health & Safety reports today that the International Labour Organization calls the declaration that came out of a meeting that preceded the 18 World Congress on Safety and Health at Work as a "'Major New Blueprint' for Global Safety". "The declaration says governments should consider ratifying the ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006, as a priority, and should ensure workers are protected by an adequate system of enforced safety and health standards."
Is A Handgun Considered PPE? - The police union at Princeton University filed a complaint with OSHA because the University did not provide them with handguns they felt they needed to protect themselves. Read this Daily Princetonian article to find out how OSHA ruled. (OSHA said "no".)
New ASTM Task Group Works on Standard for Safe Handling of Annealed Glass - "Recent accidents involving annealed glass along with requests from OSHA have led ASTM International to form a new task group that will work on the development of a proposed standard guide for the safe handling of annealed glass."
Which OSHA Requirement Would You Toss? - This is an article in Occupational Hazards by David K. Ermer in which he proposes eliminating the requirement that MSDS's be retained for 30 years.
Occupational Health & Safety reports today that the International Labour Organization calls the declaration that came out of a meeting that preceded the 18 World Congress on Safety and Health at Work as a "'Major New Blueprint' for Global Safety". "The declaration says governments should consider ratifying the ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006, as a priority, and should ensure workers are protected by an adequate system of enforced safety and health standards."
Is A Handgun Considered PPE? - The police union at Princeton University filed a complaint with OSHA because the University did not provide them with handguns they felt they needed to protect themselves. Read this Daily Princetonian article to find out how OSHA ruled. (OSHA said "no".)
New ASTM Task Group Works on Standard for Safe Handling of Annealed Glass - "Recent accidents involving annealed glass along with requests from OSHA have led ASTM International to form a new task group that will work on the development of a proposed standard guide for the safe handling of annealed glass."
Labels: OSHA, osha information, safety politics, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Monday, June 16, 2008
Unqualified Hardhats Feared As Fake Crane-Safety Papers Found
Sunday's edition of the New York Daily News reported that workers involved in erecting and dismantling towers cranes in New York City may not be qualified to be doing that type of work. A worker was found to have a fake OSHA 30 card that he received from his foreman.
The Daily News articled reported that:
"The worker, Luis Alvarez, a 32-year-old Mexican immigrant, said he was given the wallet-sized card by a construction foreman in case federal job-safety inspectors questioned him.
The card - also required for certain construction supervisors and workers in high-risk jobs - certifies the holder has completed 30 hours of safety training and passed a rigorous 40-question U.S. Labor Department
The federalOccupational Safety and Health Administration issues the certificates, known as OSHA 30 cards.
Alvarez told The News he was handed the card after a two-hour safety lecture. He said he did not take a test."
OSHA 30 cards became required for all workers who erect and take down tower cranes following two tower crane collapses and nine deaths since March 15th.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA Investigates Crane Accident
OSHA Citations Issued In Connection With Fatal NYC Crane Collapse
The Daily News articled reported that:
"The worker, Luis Alvarez, a 32-year-old Mexican immigrant, said he was given the wallet-sized card by a construction foreman in case federal job-safety inspectors questioned him.
The card - also required for certain construction supervisors and workers in high-risk jobs - certifies the holder has completed 30 hours of safety training and passed a rigorous 40-question U.S. Labor Department
The federalOccupational Safety and Health Administration issues the certificates, known as OSHA 30 cards.
Alvarez told The News he was handed the card after a two-hour safety lecture. He said he did not take a test."
OSHA 30 cards became required for all workers who erect and take down tower cranes following two tower crane collapses and nine deaths since March 15th.
Our previous posts on crane safety include:
Tower Crane Safety
OSHA Investigates Crane Accident
OSHA Citations Issued In Connection With Fatal NYC Crane Collapse
Labels: Construction Safety, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
What's More Important, Religion or Safety?
Hard hat policy spurs debate between safety and religion.
International Forest Products Ltd (Interfor) in Delta, BC (Canada) put a new safety policy in place that required all sawmill workers to wear hard hats. This caused a problem for two employees who practice the Sikh religion. OHS Canada reported yesterday that:
"Since early last November, Sikh sawmill workers Mander Singh Sohal and Kalwant Singh Sahota have not been permitted to work at Interfor's Acorn Mill in Delta because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans. For many Sikhs, it is considered a religious requirement to not cover their turbans."
You can read the complete article at: OHS Canada
Negotiations are in progress. Interfor will enforce the new safety policy, and they plan to offer alternative work to the Sikh employees.
International Forest Products Ltd (Interfor) in Delta, BC (Canada) put a new safety policy in place that required all sawmill workers to wear hard hats. This caused a problem for two employees who practice the Sikh religion. OHS Canada reported yesterday that:
"Since early last November, Sikh sawmill workers Mander Singh Sohal and Kalwant Singh Sahota have not been permitted to work at Interfor's Acorn Mill in Delta because they refused to wear hard hats over their turbans. For many Sikhs, it is considered a religious requirement to not cover their turbans."
You can read the complete article at: OHS Canada
Negotiations are in progress. Interfor will enforce the new safety policy, and they plan to offer alternative work to the Sikh employees.
Labels: employment, safety, safety regulations, workplace safety
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Friday, March 14, 2008
Combustible Dust Standards
On February 7th a dust explosion at the Imperial Sugar refinery killed 12 workers and critically injured 11 others, making this the deadliest industrial explosion in the United States since 1980. The following provides links to articles that summarize what is happening in this area.
Occupational Hazards Magazine reports that on Wednesday this week OSHA Administrator Edwin Foulke Jr. stated in congressional testimony that OSHA would consider new rule making on combustible dust a "strong option" only if its investigation of the Feb. 7 explosion and an inspection of existing standards show that existing standards are not adequate.
Safety Business and Legal Reports (Safety.BLR.com) published an article yesterday titled: "OSHA Reissues Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program". This article states that OSHA is taking action. The article states:
"OSHA reissued its Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) Instruction. The NEP will increase enforcement activities and focus on specific industry groups that have experienced frequent combustible dust incidents. 'Combustible dust fires or explosions can pose significant dangers in the workplace,' said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. 'With this new Combustible Dust NEP, the Agency will increase its activities in outreach, training, and cooperative ventures with stakeholders, as well as enhance its enforcement activities.'"
You can read the Safety.BLR article at: http://safety.blr.com/display.cfm/id/105965
Meanwhile Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner John W. Oxendine announced new tougher state regulations to improve safety in workplaces that "produce flammable dust in their manufacturing processes." An article in the Peachtree Corners Weekly reports:
"Oxendine said the new rules will require all industries in Georgia that produce combustible dust to draw up emergency plans, practice implementing the plan, and train employees in evacuation techniques."
In addition:
"At Oxendine’s request, the International Fire Code Committee has approved for their final action hearings, requirements for factory fire emergency evacuation procedures and drills for the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code."
Occupational Hazards Magazine reports that on Wednesday this week OSHA Administrator Edwin Foulke Jr. stated in congressional testimony that OSHA would consider new rule making on combustible dust a "strong option" only if its investigation of the Feb. 7 explosion and an inspection of existing standards show that existing standards are not adequate.
Safety Business and Legal Reports (Safety.BLR.com) published an article yesterday titled: "OSHA Reissues Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program". This article states that OSHA is taking action. The article states:
"OSHA reissued its Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) Instruction. The NEP will increase enforcement activities and focus on specific industry groups that have experienced frequent combustible dust incidents. 'Combustible dust fires or explosions can pose significant dangers in the workplace,' said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. 'With this new Combustible Dust NEP, the Agency will increase its activities in outreach, training, and cooperative ventures with stakeholders, as well as enhance its enforcement activities.'"
You can read the Safety.BLR article at: http://safety.blr.com/display.cfm/id/105965
Meanwhile Georgia Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner John W. Oxendine announced new tougher state regulations to improve safety in workplaces that "produce flammable dust in their manufacturing processes." An article in the Peachtree Corners Weekly reports:
"Oxendine said the new rules will require all industries in Georgia that produce combustible dust to draw up emergency plans, practice implementing the plan, and train employees in evacuation techniques."
In addition:
"At Oxendine’s request, the International Fire Code Committee has approved for their final action hearings, requirements for factory fire emergency evacuation procedures and drills for the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code."
Labels: Emergency Planning, OSHA, safety regulations, workplace safety
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Multi-Employer Doctrine
The June 2007 issue of Occupational Hazards magazine reports on an OSHRC decision that invalidates a 1976 ruling that general contractors are responsible for supervising OSHA compliance of their subcontractors.
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
The opening paragraph of the article states:
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) decision, in a case involving home builder Summit Contractors, held that citing a general contractor solely because it is a so-called “controlling employer” is inconsistent with 29 CFR 1910.12(a), a regulation that governs the application of OSHA’s construction standards in 29 CFR Part 1926. That regulation states, in part, that “Each employer shall protect … each of his employees engaged in construction work by complying with” Part 1926 (emphasis added). The commission held that issuing a citation to a so-called “controlling employer” whose own employees were not exposed to an alleged violation was inconsistent with the phrase “his employees.”
This decision removes the need for general contractors to "patrol" work sites conducting safety inspections covering areas in which the general contractor's employees are not involved. While the general contractor is still responsible for the safety of their own employees, they are no longer responsible for the safety of subcontractor employees. There are some exceptions to this, however. For example OSHA standards in Part 1926 have their own multi-employer requirements related to steel erection in Subpart R.
I recommend reading the entire article, which is titled: End of the Line or a Chance for a Fresh Start?
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Unions, Employers Quarrel Over Safety Gear Tab
Who should pay for safety gear such as gloves and safety boots? If safety gear is considered a "tool of the trade" some industries have employees pay for that safety gear. While most employers provide safety equipment such as ear plugs, safety glasses and hard hats, this is not true of all industries. In construction workers are commonly required to provide their own hard hats and in the chicken processing industry workers typically provide their own puncture proof gloves.
Unions have sued the government to implement new rules that would require employers to provide needed safety gear. Read about it on Bloomberg News. The opening paragraph of this article states:
"For almost eight years, labor unions have been waiting for the Labor Department to finish a rulemaking that would make it clear employers are supposed to pick up the tab for safety equipment for millions of workers."
The article explains:
"The controversy has a long history. When the initial protective equipment rule was issued in 1994, it said employers had to 'provide' various safety gear. But unlike a series of health-related OSHA standards, it didn't say who should pay the bill, and not every company did."
Unions have sued the government to implement new rules that would require employers to provide needed safety gear. Read about it on Bloomberg News. The opening paragraph of this article states:
"For almost eight years, labor unions have been waiting for the Labor Department to finish a rulemaking that would make it clear employers are supposed to pick up the tab for safety equipment for millions of workers."
The article explains:
"The controversy has a long history. When the initial protective equipment rule was issued in 1994, it said employers had to 'provide' various safety gear. But unlike a series of health-related OSHA standards, it didn't say who should pay the bill, and not every company did."
Labels: PPE, safety regulations
posted by Steve Hudgik |
Workplace Safety Post 0 Comments |
Add Comment | links
