Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) has reintroduced the Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA). The legislation had previously been introduced by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The measure would increase the penalties available to OSHA and prosecutors in the case of certain infractions:

• Felony charges would be available for an employer’s repeat and willful violations of OSHA regulations that result in a worker’s death or serious injury (right now the maximum penalty is a misdemeanor), and
• The minimum OSHA penalty for a worker’s death caused by a willful violation would be $50,000.

“Unscrupulous employers often consider it more cost effective to pay the minimal OSHA penalty and continue to operate an unsafe workplace than to correct the underlying health and safety problem,” said OSHA administrator David Michaels in support of a previously introduced version of PAWA that also would have increase penalties. “The current penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent.”

OSHA fines are small compared to those levied by other federal agencies. The maximum OSHA fine for a serious violation is $7,000. It’s $70,000 for a willful citation. In comparison, the Department of Agriculture can impose a $130,000 fine on milk processors for willful violations of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act. TV and radio stations can be fined $325,000 for on-air indecency. The EPA can issue $270,000 fines for Clean Air Act violations.

The bill would also add federal, state and local public employees to those covered by OSHA. Newly covered employees would include flight attendants, state correctional officers (prison guards) and other workers in government agencies.

PAWA would also:

• Amend the General Duty Clause to include all workers at a work site, not just those of the controlling employer (new addition to this year’s version of PAWA)
• Clarify employer responsibility to provide the necessary personal protective equipment for employees, and
• Direct the Department of Labor (OSHA’s parent agency) to revise regulations for site-controlling employers to keep a site log for all recordable injuries among all employees at the work site (also new to this year’s PAWA).

Whistleblowers who tell government agencies about safety problems in their workplaces would also receive additional protections.

Do you think changes are needed to the Occupational Safety and Health Act which was enacted in 1971? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Bill would increase OSHA penalties, cover more workers appeared first on Safety News Alert.

New research published in the journal Spine outlines multiple risk factors for reinjury after returning to work:

• male gender
• constant whole-body vibration at work
• previous similar injury
• 4 or more previous claims of any type
• possessing health insurance, and
• high fear-avoidance scores.

One factor was associated with reduced odds of reinjury: Surprisingly, that’s obesity.

The researchers at Dartmouth College found 25.8% of 1,123 workers followed over a one-year period suffered reinjury.

The authors noted there have been few studies of risk factors for occupational back reinjuries.

“Increased knowledge of early risk factors for reinjury may help to lead to interventions and graded activity to promote recovery, effective in lowering the risk of reinjury,” the authors wrote.

For supervisors: Now you know which workers might be more likely to reinjure their backs at work. Extra education about back health and safety might decrease the chances they’ll become part of the one-in-four who are reinjured.

A publication on back injury prevention is available on OSHA’s website (PDF).

The post What factors contribute to workplace back reinjury? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

OSHA has fined Progressive Gourmet $73,400 for repeat and serious violations at its Wilmington, MA, production facility.

Inspections were started by OSHA in September after the agency’s Andover, MA, office received employee safety complaints.

The company was issued two repeat citations with $55,000 in proposed fines for failing to:

• institute adequate procedures to prevent the unintended startup of machinery, such as cookers, ovens and conveyors, while employees performed maintenance on the equipment, and
• provide employees with training on how to power down and lock out machines’ power sources before performing maintenance.

Similar violations were cited at the Wilmington location in 2008.

OSHA also issued Progressive three serious citations with $18,400 in fines for:

• lack of routine inspections and maintenance to ensure safe operation of an anhydrous ammonia refrigeration system
• insufficient space between stored materials and overhead piping containing ammonia to allow for safe access to stored materials, and
• slip and trip hazards from wet floors.

The company has 15 work days to say whether it will appeal the citations to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Progressive Gourmet is a wholesale food manufacturer and distributor for food service and catering industries.

The post Employee safety complaints lead to $73K in OSHA fines appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A Connecticut state lawmaker hopes to change that.

Connecticut law provides workers’ comp benefits for counseling for police officers who are mentally or emotionally impaired by “use of deadly force or subjection to deadly force in the line of duty.” Firefighters who witness the death of another firefighter also qualify.

But the Newtown massacre didn’t involve use of deadly force by or against police. The gunman shot himself before police got to him.

State Rep. Stephen Dargan (D), co-chair of the legislature’s public safety committee, wants to amend Connecticut’s workers’ comp law.

Expanding what’s covered under workers’ comp is always a concern because of cost to employers. But Dargan tells The Hartford Courant that if the scope of the expansion is limited to circumstances similar to the Sandy Hook shootings, a change in the law might be possible.

Newtown Police Commissioner Joel Faxon supports expanding the law, as does Connecticut State Police Col. Daniel Stebbins.

Newtown is “much different because it involves children,” Stebbins told The Courant.

Counselors have been available to the first responders.

Amending the law – narrowly

Connecticut has had recent experience with extending its workers’ comp law because of a traumatic incident involving police.

Two years ago, Stamford, CT, police officer Frank Chiafari responded to the scene of an attack by a chimpanzee on a woman. The animal tore off the woman’s face and hands, but she survived.

When Chiafari arrived on the scene, the raging chimp opened a door to his police car and came at him. The officer shot and killed the animal. Chiafari was the first person on the scene to see the badly injured woman.

He applied for workers’ comp for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder but was denied benefits. Chiafari had used deadly force, but it was on an animal not a human. That’s why his comp was denied.

The City of Stamford covered Chiafari’s out-of-pocket medical expenses. And Connecticut amended its workers’ comp law to add violent attacks by an animal. The bill was drafted so it wouldn’t include instances involving rabid smaller animals such as raccoons or when an officer has to shoot a deer that’s been badly injured in a car crash.

Do you think Connecticut should amend its workers’ comp law to cover first responders who face incidents like the Newtown massacre? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post First responders to Newtown massacre may not qualify for workers’ comp appeared first on Safety News Alert.

On OSHA’s wish-list for the last four years: legislation that would increase the maximum amounts for fines.

With Republicans in control of the House, OSHA is still unlikely to get that.

But you can expect enforcement to increase anyway. Why? Because Obama’s OSHA was able to do that already:

• The number of inspections per year has increased from an average of 38,000 to just under 41,000
• The average cost of a serious violation has more than doubled; OSHA’s goal is to bring that average to $3,000, and the agency is on target to reach the goal
• More companies are facing total fines of more than $100,000 after inspections, which OSHA calls “significant cases;” in 2010 only 164 companies had significant cases, but in 2012 that jumped to 217, a 32% increase, and
• OSHA under President Obama and administrator David Michaels is more likely to characterize violations as willful, which carry a $70,000 maximum fine, compared to serious violations which have a $7,000 max. The agency also makes use of “egregious willful” violation status, under which the agency can multiply the $70,000 fine by the number of workers affected.

New and updated regulations

Three proposed regulatory updates are far enough along in the pipeline that they could be enacted quickly:

• An update of electrical power transmission and distribution regulations could come as soon as this month
• An update of the walking and working surfaces regulations could arrive after a review by the Office of Management and Budget, which is usually limited to 90 days, and
• An update of the silica regulations is also on tap, although Michaels indicated last month that it could be delayed again because regulators need to figure out how to incorporate the new hydraulic fracturing industry, commonly known as fracking, into the revised silica rules.

Four more new regulations that could be completed by the end of Obama’s second term:

• combustible dust
• Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (I2P2)
• infectious diseases, and
• Backup alarms on construction vehicles.

OSHA is also trying to figure out how to more easily update permissible exposure limits (PELs) for hazardous substances.

And as long as this administration is in charge, old-style safety incentive programs that rewarded employees for having fewer injuries are still looked upon as a bad thing because they can cause workers to hide injuries to receive rewards.

The post OSHA: The next four years under President Obama appeared first on Safety News Alert.

According to a study by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Alaska has the most expensive workers’ comp rates as of Jan. 1, 2012. Its rate is $3.01 per $100 of payroll, or 160% percent of the study’s median, which was $1.88. The median dropped 8% from $2.04 in 2010. The study is conducted only in even years.

The rest of the top 10 most expensive states, their rates, percent of median and previous rankings are:

• Connecticut, $2.99, 159%, No. 6
• California, $2.92, 155%, No. 5
• Illinois, $2.83, 151%, No. 3
• New York, $2.82, 150%, No. 13
• Oklahoma, $2.77, 147%, No. 4
• New Jersey, $2.74, 146%, No. 7
• Montana, $2.50, 133%, No. 1
• New Hampshire, $2.40, 128%, No. 10, and
• Maine, $2.24, 119%, No. 8.

California has just enacted a workers’ comp reform law which is expected to reduce the state’s rates.

DCBS Director Patrick Allen says rankings are beginning to tighten as more states adopt workers’ comp reforms.

The state with the least expensive workers’ comp rates was North Dakota at $1.01, or 47% below the median. It was also the least expensive in 2010. The runner-up for best rates is Indiana at $1.16, or 38% below the median. Indiana also held that position in 2010.

Ten states had rates under $1.50.

One state that greatly improved its ranking from 2010 to 2012 was Alabama, which went from 10th most expensive to 21st. Its rate is $1.97.

The rates in Georgia and New Mexico were exactly at the national median.

The post Top 10 most expensive states for workers’ comp appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A new study has found poor health costs the U.S. economy an eyeball-popping $576 billion each year. Dan Wisniewski has more about that in HR Morning.

Insurance claims fraud is exploding, according to a new report. The rate of questionable claims for the first time increased by 19% from 2009 to 2011 with workers’ comp one of the largest fraud areas. RiskAndInsurance.com looks at the barriers to fighting this trend.

Staying in that subject area, what are the best and worst states for getting employees off workers’ comp and back on the job? You can find out on BusinessBrief.com.

Vehicle travel is far safer than it was a few decades ago. Several factors appear to account for the sharp decline in fatalities. You can learn why in this infographic from NYTimes.com.

And finally, there’s been a growing debate on whether programs that reward employees for how many days they’ve gone without an injury cause workers to hide their injuries. On the lighter side of safety, here’s a takeoff on a typical “days without an injury” sign often used in those programs. Most workplaces won’t have to worry about this type of incident because the cause is extinct.

Have you seen something on the web that you’d like to share with your fellow occupational safety pros? Let us know about it, and we’ll feature it in a future Safety News Summary.

The post Safety News Summary, Sept. 24, 2012 appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study shows workers with access to paid sick leave were 28% less likely overall to suffer nonfatal occupational injuries than those without access to paid sick leave.

Workers in high-risk occupations and industry sectors, such as construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and health care and social assistance, benefited most from paid sick leave.

The NIOSH study concludes that introducing or expanding paid sick leave can help businesses reduce the number of workplace injuries which in turn could reduce costs to employers.

NIOSH believes this is the first U.S. study of its kind.

What’s the link between paid sick leave and workplace injuries?

When employees don’t have paid sick time, they’re more likely to come to work ill. Workers who aren’t feeling well are more likely to perform at reduced functional capacity, making them less safe and more likely to be injured.

Previous research showed paid sick leave is associated with shorter worker recovery times and reduced complications from minor health problems.

The cost savings by reducing the number of workplace injuries include improved productivity.

Although the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires companies to provide up to 12 weeks of leave to eligible workers, this leave can be paid or unpaid.

In this study, 43% of U.S. private sector workers reported having no access to paid sick leave.

This study is part of the NIOSH Economics Program that focuses on improving the understanding of how economic factors, management strategies and demographic trends affect worker safety and health.

Does your company offer paid sick leave? If so, how much? Let us know about that and what you think about this study in the comments below.

The post Does availability of paid sick leave affect workplace injuries? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A Texas jury says Coca-Cola Enterprises should pay a woman more than $22 million because one of the company’s employees struck the woman’s car while she was talking on a cell phone about business.

Vanice Chatman-Wilson sued the other driver, Araceli Cabral, and Cabral’s employer, Coca-Cola, after she suffered neck and back injuries due to a 2010 car crash in Corpus Christi, Texas. Chatman-Wilson had lumbar surgery as a result. She continues to have a 25% disability.

Cabral was on a business call on her hands-free cell phone when her car struck Chatman-Wilson’s in an intersection. Cabral said she thought she had the right of way, but it turned out she did not.

Chatman-Wilson’s attorney successfully argued that just because Cabral wasn’t holding a phone didn’t mean she wasn’t distracted by the conversation.

The attorney presented studies that showed there is just as much distraction for a driver using a hands-free phone as a hand-held one.

In a statement following the jury verdict, Coca Cola said its “cell phone policy, which requires the use of a hands-free device when operating a motor vehicle, is completely consistent with, and in fact, exceeds the requirements of Texas law.” Coca-Cola plans to appeal.

The jury awarded Chatman-Wilson more than $11.5 million for lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Jurors also awarded her $10 million in punitive damages.

Chatman-Wilson’s attorney, Thomas Henry, said, “Corporations big and small are getting a wake-up call that allowing your employees to use cell phones while driving is a big risk.”

Does your company have a cell phone policy, and if so, what is it? Should states ban the use of cell phones while driving? Does hands-free or hand-held matter? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Company must pay $22M for cell phone/driving injury appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The retail giant dropped out of Texas’ workers’ comp system in March. Wal-Mart is one of the largest private employers in Texas, where 15% of businesses with more than 500 employees have opted out of the system. Texas is the only state that provides such an option. Instead of having workers’ comp insurance, businesses administer their own injury benefits programs. They save a significant amount of money, but in exchange they increase their liability risks.

Opponents say companies dropping out of the system puts more pressure on workers’ comp insurers to cut costs at the expense of injured employees.

Proponents see putting that sort of pressure on workers’ comp insurers as a good thing.

Another point of contention: Benefits for employees aren’t equal. Terry Frakes, a Sr. VP with Texas Mutual quoted in the Texas Tribune, said Wal-Mart’s plan caps total medical coverage at $300,000 compared with lifetime coverage under the state workers’ comp system. He says Wal-Mart’s plan provides 90% of lost wages for up to 120 weeks (2.5 years), compared with 70% of lost wages for up to 401 weeks (almost 8 years) in the state system. Maximum Wal-Mart pay-out: $54,000 compared to $140,350 under the state system.

Bill Minick, president of PartnerSource which has designed private injury benefit policies for dozens of large companies, including Wal-Mart, said the private plans emphasize employee responsibility. Examples: Employees are required to report injuries in a timely manner, visit pre-approved doctors and follow medical advice.

Plans similar to the one in Texas could spread to other states. A bill to do that is being considered in Oklahoma.

The idea to spread this system to other states is being led by large national companies such as Nordstrom and Lowe’s.

The post Wal-Mart opts out of workers’ comp program appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A report (PDF) by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) says an aging workforce may have a less negative impact on comp costs than originally thought.

The old theory went something like this: Baby boomers (those currently 47-66 years old) are postponing retirement. That’s created an older workforce which in turn leads to higher workers’ comp costs because older workers take longer to heal after an injury.

Here’s the reality, according to NCCI: It’s not really about baby boomers. Older workers do tend to have higher comp costs, as long as you define “older” as people above age 34. But costs don’t increase as they reach their 40s, 50s and 60s. All groups aged 35 to 64 have similar costs per worker. Employees 20 to 24 have markedly lower costs, and those 25 to 34 are in the middle.

Another conventional wisdom struck down by the report: Younger workers have much higher injury rates. Now, that’s no longer the case.

One difference in costs for the over and under 35 groups is in the severity of injuries. Older workers tend to have more rotator cuff and knee injuries while younger employees have more back and ankle sprains. Severity for older workers is roughly 50% higher than for their younger counterparts.

Another reason why costs are higher for the over-35 set: They make more money. Older workers received 26% more in average temporary benefits per day than those younger than 35.

What do you think about this study? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Baby boomers not to blame for higher workers’ comp costs appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The viewer posted this on mikeroweworks.com:

“My husband works on the oil rigs as a well tester. We watched you folks do so without any eye protection! Are you crazy? Drilling a hole with no protective eyewear? Between him, a well tester, and me, a workers’ compensation lawyer, we’re cringing! Somebody could LOSE AN EYE! Seriously — Safety First fellas!”

Rowe responded, “It is not the objective of Dirty Jobs to conform to any particular set of safety standards, other than those dictated by the people for who I happen to be working at the time. I take my cues from them.”

That was followed by the quote in the first graph of this story. Rowe called the “Safety First” slogan “a load of unmitigated nonsense.”

“In the jobs I have seen thus far, I can tell you with certainty, that safety, while always a major consideration, is never the priority,” Rowe wrote. “Never. Never, ever. Not even once.”

He goes on to say that safety is important, but not more important than getting the job done. “Making money is more important than safety — always,” he writes.

Rowe’s point: If an employer tells you safety is the most important thing, don’t believe it. He says that causes workers to become complacent and careless.

“When a business tells you that they are more concerned with your safety than anything else, beware,” Rowe says. “They are not being honest. They are hedging their own bets, and following the advice of lawyers hired to protect them from lawsuits arising from accidents.”

Rowe says he wears safety belts and motorcycle helmets not because it’s the law, but because it seems like a reasonable precaution to him and “the only one responsible for my own safety is me.”

He concludes that he probably should have been wearing safety glasses, but not because “safety is first,” but because he likes to hedge his bets.

The replies

The comments on Rowe’s website replying to his post about safety are interesting, to say the least. Here are some sample excerpts:

• You very clearly pointed out that your employer (everyone’s employer) simply does not make our safety their priority. Thank you for that bit of truth-telling.
• Safety is never the first priority and all these laws and rules and BS are intended to minimize statistically insignificant risk while ignoring major risk.
• Thank you for this. I have had to fight more than one boss tooth and nail for what I (and OSHA) considered basic safety precautions. In business, business always comes first. Even an employer who likes you as a person cares more about lawsuits and their workers’ comp rates than your safety. We always say: Safety Third.
• The further we push toward mandating safety this or that, the less people are forced to take responsibility for their own actions.

Then there was a lengthy post from “Harry,” who identified himself as a safety professional. An excerpt:

“I find your attitude ignorant and potentially dangerous … Safety is the reasonable efforts to make the risk lower … About the only thing in your rant that is true, is that everyone is responsible for their own safety … the tired and lame reasoning you spew out will continue to have good workers hurt or killed.”

Harry’s post got these responses:

• Notice the safety professional defending his job. My own work place has two dedicated safety people, and honestly there isn’t really anything for them to do. It’s a scam.
• Just providing gloves and eye protection to workers can be an incredible expense for a manufacturing company. If you really work in safety, you should be privy to the annual budget for safety equipment and compliance. It’s the smallest number possible because it does not contribute to the bottom line. Companies evaluate the following: Is the expense for paying a fine coupled with either a settlement or higher insurance rates if a horrible accident occurs more or less expensive than full compliance?

All this just because of a TV show.

So here are some questions for those of you engaged in keeping workers safe on the job:

• Do you agree with Mike Rowe’s position on workplace safety?
• What responsibility do employers have toward their workers’ safety? Is it, as Rowe says, mainly up to workers to keep themselves safe?
• Does Rowe provide a bad example by adopting just the safety precautions that other workers do on the jobs he takes?
• Do you believe your company when it says, “Safety First?” For most companies, is it really “Production First, Safety Third?”

As always, let us know what you think in the comments below.

The post Mike Rowe: ‘Safety First’ is ‘a load of unmitigated nonsense’ appeared first on Safety News Alert.

one filed by workers, the other by employers.

The BWC has had a lump sum payment program for injured workers since 1994.

Workers are offered a lump sum payment instead of getting checks every other week.

Since these cases apply to permanently injured workers, the BWC has to estimate what lifetime benefits would be for each person.

A lawyer is seeking to file a class action lawsuit, alleging that the BWC offered much less than the workers were entitled to receive.

One videotaped deposition shows a BWC official admitting the bureau routinely offered injured workers only 70% of what they were legally entitled to receive. However, the official says the offers were just starting points: The final payment amount could go up or down.

However, a former BWC employee says he and his colleagues were trained never to go above 70% according to a sworn affidavit. In 12 years he performed lump-sum settlements, no one ever received more than 70%, according for the former employee’s statement.

Employers on the other hand are complaining the BWC has cheated them out of $200 million a year.

Their lawsuit accuses the bureau of giving discounts of up to 95% on workers’ comp insurance to businesses with good safety records, then sticking it to other employers by jacking up their rates.

By some estimates, the BWC forced 2,500 businesses per year to shut down.

The post Workers and employers suing state workers’ comp bureau appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a jury verdict against Wal-Mart in the case involving truck driver Holly Averyt.

Averyt slipped and fell on ice and grease while making a delivery to the store. A jury awarded $15 million to her in November 2010. Wal-Mart appealed.

Now, the state’s highest court has said the jury verdict stands. However, the justices reduced the award amount by about $5 million because of a state law that caps non-economic damages.

Averyt had to undergo three spinal surgeries, was unable to return to work and lost her truck. Her lawyers presented documents that showed some grease from the store’s deli didn’t get trapped in a device designed to keep it from getting into the sewer.

Wal-Mart Stores claimed there had been no grease spill at the store in Greeley, CO.

Wal-Mart says it respectfully disagrees with the court’s decision.

The post Court upholds $10M slip-and-fall verdict against Wal-Mart appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Obama White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor, George W. Bush, at this same point in their tenures.

The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than most, but not all, of his predecessors. Rules enacted since 2009 haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father.

The current administration has approved 613 federal rules, 4.7% fewer than the 643 during the same period of the previous administration.

The number of significant federal rules (those costing more than $100 million) has gone up under Obama, to 129 compared to 90 for Bush, 115 for President Clinton, and 127 for the first President Bush during the same time in their tenures. One reason for the current increase: $100 million in past years was worth more than it is now due to inflation.

Still, the Bloomberg analysis hasn’t satisfied Republicans. They contend that the issue is how businesses perceive the regulatory environment. By one count, there are as many as 219 economically significant rules still to come.

Upcoming OSHA rules include:

• updating the Hazard Communication Standard to conform to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Chemical Classification and Labeling
• Electric Power Transmission and Distribution and Electrical Protective Equipment
• Confined Spaces in Construction
• Injury and Illness Prevention Programs
• Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
• Combustible Dust, and
• Occupational Exposure to Food Flavorings Containing Diacetyl and its substitutes.

The post Bloomberg: Obama wrote fewer rules than Bush appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses among private industry employers declined in 2010 to 3.5 cases per 100 equivalent full-time workers from 3.6 in 2009. That equates to 3.1 million injuries and illnesses last year, compared to 3.3 million in 2009. (For information on fatal workplace injuries in 2010, click here and here.)

The good news for workers is obvious: More are going home at the end of the workday the way they arrived at their jobs.

There’s additional good news though: These improving safety numbers are saving U.S. businesses a significant amount of cash.

The total direct and indirect costs associated with injuries and illnesses each year are estimated to be $155.5 billion, or nearly 3% of gross domestic product. Reduce the number of injuries, and you reduce this significant cost to business.

The costs of injuries are borne by injured workers and their families, by all other workers through lower wages, by companies through lower profits, and by consumers through higher prices.

Breaking down the stats

Here are some other key findings from this year’s BLS report:

• The incidence rates for cases with days away from work, job transfer and restriction remained unchanged from 2009, at 1.8 cases per 100 full-time workers.
• Manufacturing was the only private industry sector to see an increase in injuries, rising to 4.4 cases from 4.3.
• The total recordable cases rate in construction decreased from 4.3 to 4.0.
• The total recordable cases rate was highest in 2010 among mid-size companies (those with 50 to 249 employees) and lowest among small firms (those employing fewer than 11 workers).
• 75.8% of injuries and illnesses occurred in service industries which employed 82.4% of the total private industry workforce.

The post How safety is saving money for U.S. businesses: New injury stats appeared first on Safety News Alert.

“We’re getting beaten by people who say they don’t care about the rules,” Bill Moore of Legacy Contracting Solutions told the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post.

The agency is now requiring residential, as well as commercial, builders to use fall-arrest systems.

Moore says his company is hemorrhaging business because homeowners don’t want to pay the extra he now has to charge. The equipment is expensive, he says, and the extra labor is even more expensive, because of the extra time it takes roofers who can no longer freely roam.

Adding to the frustration: Some builders don’t think the rules make sense. OSHA says slide guards — lips that can be installed on a roof’s edge — are no longer acceptable under most circumstances.

But, says Tom Shanahan of the National Roofing Contractors Association, on roofs with little slope, lines can get tangled on the ground and actually trip up workers. There have been more deaths from people using fall-arrest systems, he said, than from using slide guards — because workers sometimes unhook themselves to grab equipment or set up elsewhere, and forget they’re no longer tethered.

Moore said his company had lost five jobs to lower bidders that very day, and that he was concerned about going out of business. His company will continue to follow the rules, he said, but “it’s now us against who’s cheating, and that’s a tough battle to fight.”

The post New OSHA rule a boon for cheaters? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Assistant OSHA head Jordan Barab recently told a NIOSH-sponsored symposium about a hefty speeding ticket he once got. The experience made him lighten up on the pedal, he said.

His point: Enforcement is an important tool. And if OSHA had the power to slap bigger fines on offending companies, you’d see safer workplaces.

But Barab admits there’s no way of knowing for sure — that there’s been little research on the subject.

Which brings us back to the original question: Is your decision not to treat the daily commute like the Daytona 500 influenced more by your concern about a whopping speeding ticket, or by your desire to arrive alive?

Gabrielle Sigel, a Chicago-based lawyer who specializes in workplace health and safety, points out that injury rates have continued to fall while penalty rates have stayed steady.

The vast majority of employers, she says, are motivated by something other than penalties. They’re concerned about answering to their employees and their shareholders, their bottom line and “answering to their own conscience.”

Penalties make a difference, she says, but they’re not the primary driver.

Rick Kaletsky, a consultant and former OSHA compliance officer, points out that repeat penalties can be costly, because they can lead to lost business, especially for contract companies.

But Wayne Gray, an economics professor who’s studied the impact of fines, says companies who are penalized often respond by going beyond the legal requirements. They begin looking for other hazards to fix, indicating that they’re concerned about much more than avoiding fines.

What do you think? Would the threat of larger OSHA fines result in safer workplaces?

The post Saving money or saving lives — what’s your motivation? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The report from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) says the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 workers and sent almost five million barrels of oil into the Gulf over 87 days starting April 20, 2010, was the result of  ”poor risk management, last-minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response, and insufficient emergency bridge response training by the companies responsible.”

The technical reasons for the explosion include problems with cement barriers, production casing and lock-down sleeves.

But the report also finds seven company practices that contributed to the explosion. They read like a list of things not to do if you want to have a safe company:

• the failure of the crew to stop work after encountering multiple hazards and warnings, despite the existence of a stop-work policy
• BP’s failure to fully assess the risks associated with a number of operational decisions leading up to the blowout
• BP’s cost- or time-saving decisions without considering contingencies and mitigation
• BP’s failure to ensure all risks associated with operations on the Deepwater Horizon were as low as reasonably practicable
• BP’s failure to have full supervision and accountability over the activities associated with the Deepwater Horizon
• BP’s failure to document, evaluate, approve and communicate changes associated with Deepwater Horizon personnel and operations, and
• failure of BP and Transocean to ensure they had a common integrated approach to well control.

Specifically, the BOEMRE report says in the days leading up to April 20, 2010, BP made a series of decisions that added incremental risk and failed to communicate these decisions to its business partner, Transocean. As a result, employees for both companies didn’t fully identify and evaluate the risks involved and misinterpreted anomalies they encountered.

Among the problems that BP and Transocean faced: project completion delays and cost overruns. At the time of the explosion, the project was significantly behind schedule. Operations were more than $58 million over budget.

Resulting cost cuts were a major contributor to the disaster, according to the BOEMRE report.

BP rewarded employees for cost-saving steps but didn’t reward them in the same way for increasing safety.

The U.S. Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation that could bring indictments and heavy fines. An expert interviewed by The New York Times says the BOEMRE report increases the likelihood that criminal charges will be filed.

As someone in charge of safety, have you ever faced pressure to cut costs or make changes that would increase risk so a project could be completed on time? How did you handle the situation? Let us know in the comments.

The post 7 company practices that contributed to BP disaster appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, also known as the First Responders Bill, went into effect in July. It makes $1.5 billion in federal and New York City funds available to cover all costs for treating certain 9/11-related illnesses, and $2.7 billion in compensation for victims who suffered economic hardship due to the attacks. The Zadroga Fund was years in the making.

Illnesses eligible for coverage include:

• asthma
• lung disease
• chronic cough syndrome
• laryngitis
• sleep apnea
• sinusitis
• digestive disorders
• depression
• post traumatic stress disorder, and
• substance abuse.

But cancers aren’t covered. The Centers for Disease Control, which is administering the fund, say there isn’t enough scientific evidence linking cancer in first responders to their exposure to toxic substances from the 9/11 attacks.

However, a new study in The Lancet medical journal supports a link between cancer and exposure to substances at the former site of the WTC.

The study tracked almost 10,000 firefighters and found that those exposed to substances at Ground Zero are 19% more likely to develop cancer than firefighters who were not exposed.

Ralph Geidel was retired from the New York City Fire Department, but returned to Ground Zero after the attacks to help search for his brother who was in the WTC at the time of the attacks.

Geidel has spent almost $100,000 on his medical treatment since 2003 when he was diagnosed with tongue and neck cancer.

The type of cancer Geidel has is normally seen in people ages 60-70. He was 44 when he was diagnosed, and he is neither a heavy drinker or smoker.

On the other hand, Chris Doran, a first responder and former New York City police officer has been helped by the Zadroga Act.

Doran suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and a sinus condition so severe that he’s had five operations for it.

He was paying $7,000 a year for medications and had to file for bankruptcy. Now all of Doran’s medical costs will be paid for by the government.

9/11 first responders like Geidel hope the First Responders Bill is amended so cancer treatment will also be paid for.

Other help is available for 9/11 first responders. The FealGood Foundation, a non-profit organization, spreads awareness and educates the public about the catastrophic health effects on 9/11 first responders, and also provides assistance to relieve these great heroes of the financial burdens placed on them over the last ten years.

As the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks arrives, let’s take a moment to remember the first responders, some of whom died, and others who are living with lasting effects to this day from their experiences.

Feel free to leave any thoughts in the comments below as we mark the 9/11 anniversary.

The post Some 9/11 first responders get help, some don’t appeared first on Safety News Alert.

That’s one of the provisions in the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that has already cleared the California House and is being considered in the Senate.

The measure, being called the Babysitter Bill by critics, would require people who employ domestic workers to pay them minimum wage and overtime and provide workers’ comp coverage.

It would apply to all domestic workers, including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers over the age of 18.

And while all sorts of workers can use rest breaks to stay on their toes, this could put parents in tricky situations. The legislation would require a 10-minute break for every four hours worked and a 30-minute meal break after five hours.

Your relatives would be exempt.

Under current law, people employing domestic workers are exempted from requirements to provide workers’ comp if their employees don’t work full-time. This measure would remove that exemption.

There would be penalties for non-compliance: attorney’s fees, legal expenses and back pay up to a maximum of $4,000.

Some are saying that the bill gives new meaning to the phrase “nanny state.”

There’s a good chance that it will pass the California Senate. No word on whether Governor Jerry Brown would sign it.

What do you think about the bill? Let us know in the comments.

The post Bill would extend workers’ comp coverage … to babysitters? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A National Academy of Social Insurance report says employer costs for workers’ comp benefits fell by 7.6% to $73.9 million in 2009 (most recent year for complete data).

However, benefits paid to workers increased slightly by 0.4% to $58.3 billion because of benefits paid to workers injured before 2009. Cash benefits increased 1.9%. Medical benefits dropped 1.1%, the first decline in a decade. Medical benefits still make up roughly half the total amount paid to workers.

Total benefits paid to injured workers in 2009 increased in 23 states and the District of Columbia and declined in 27 states.

States with big increases or drops in benefits paid include:

• District of Columbia (+14.7%)
• Vermont (+12.8%)
• Massachusetts (+11.1%)
• Virginia (-21.5%), and
• South Dakota (-15.8%).

The full report (PDF) contains information for every state.

The post Workers’ comp costs fall due to job losses appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A recent article in the Journal of Business and Psychology reports use of integrity tests was shown to reduce workers’ compensation losses.

These tests are used by businesses to weed out applicants with a variety of negative behaviors such as

• drug or alcohol abuse
• violence
• lying and deception, and
• theft.

Example: AT&T uses integrity tests to weed out applicants to its retail stores who might be more likely to steal high-priced cell phones and equipment.

But the authors of the newly published study wanted to see if using integrity tests with job applicants would reduce the cost of workers’ compensation claims.

The study was huge, following more than 33,000 employees in four industries. The employees were divided into two groups: those hired using an integrity test and those hired who didn’t take the test.

In all four industries a higher percentage of the unscreened group of employees made workers’ comp claims than in the screened group. Of those who made comp claims in both groups, the dollar value per claim was higher in the unscreened group.

The cost of the tests are relatively inexpensive: $7 to $20 per applicant, depending on the volume (higher volume, less per applicant).

In other studies, companies achieved a return on investment in a few months to two years.

The post Want to reduce workers’ comp premiums? Use this test appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Larry Holland, a facility supervisor at Schwan’s Home Service in Benton, IL, injured his back at work in August 2008. He worked with back pain until January 2009 when doctors told him to cut back his hours.

Doctors said Holland should take time off for physical therapy beginning March 28, 2009. He was cleared to return to work three weeks later, but then he was fired.

Schwan’s claimed Holland voluntarily ended his employment by not accepting a demotion.

However, emails displayed at trial showed Schwan’s management trying to make up a reason to fire Holland once his Family Medical Leave expired.

The jury found Schwan’s corporate officials fired Holland for seeking medical care for the workplace injury and awarded the employee $3.6 million in punitive damages.

Holland’s attorney, Tom Crosby, said, “The whole issue is employers trying to retaliate because a person is exercising their rights” to medical care for a work injury.

The post Worker fired after injury: Jury awards him $3.6M appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Peter Becker and more than 40 other employees sued Murphy Oil Corp. for hearing loss from long-term exposure at the company’s Meraux, LA, refinery.

Becker and the others started working for Murphy as young men and continued for 25 to more than 30 years, until retirement. In many cases, their employment predated the start of OSHA in 1971 and continued after the first workplace noise regulations were enacted.

The workers were all exposed to loud noise and weren’t provided hearing protection. A medical specialist testified at trial that working at the Murphy plant was the most significant factor in their hearing losses.

Murphy tried to get the lawsuit thrown out using a few arguments. First, it said the workers were aware for more than one year that they were exposed to loud noise at the refinery, so the statute of limitations had run out.

However, the court noted that hearing loss is gradual and the workers simply attributed it to getting older. Therefore, the judges said the statute of limitations wasn’t applicable in this case.

Murphy also claimed noise below federally regulated levels couldn’t be considered negligence. The court also rejected that argument.

The company also argued that the hearing loss should be covered instead by workers’ compensation.

Not so, said the court. Louisiana courts had previously ruled that gradual hearing loss isn’t a compensable injury under the state’s workers’ comp law because gradual hearing loss doesn’t meet the definition of an “accident.”

In the first six cases heard, the court ruled in favor of five of the former workers and awarded each one $50,000 in damages plus future medical costs which ranged from $18,000 to $25,000.

The trials for the remaining workers are likely to be similar to these first test cases with similar awards. Murphy could be out hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of dollars.

An interesting note: The court observed that previous rulings regarding occupational exposure to asbestos were “instructive” in the hearing loss case. What do long-term noise and asbestos exposure have in common? Illness or injury connected with the two exposures both occur over time, not as a result of one incident.

What do you think about the court’s ruling? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

(Becker v. Murphy Oil, Court of Appeal, 4th Circuit, State of LA, No. 2010-CA-1519, 6/2/2011)

The post Will company have to pay big for workers’ gradual hearing losses? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

All sides in the NFL labor negotiations hope talks to resolve the players’ lockout are reaching their final resolution. One thing that owners want: an end to a workers’ comp claim system that strongly favors the players.

What’s bothering the owners: the players’ ability to shop their cases from state to state.

California is one state that allows players to file claims years after they’ve retired if they played at least one game in the state.

That part of California’s workers’ comp law was enacted to protect transient workers such as truck drivers. But that system benefits the NFL players, too.

Players choose California for their claims because it has better comp benefits than many other states.

When players file claims for injuries that they allegedly suffered years earlier, it’s difficult for the NFL owners to dispute the claims.

Reports say that if progress is made on other matters, the owners’ may drop the workers’ comp issue.

But not all is lost for the owners. Florida recently passed legislation preventing Florida residents to file workers’ comp claims in other states when they’ve worked temporarily in the other state. A court battle over the law is expected to follow.

Owners can hope that other states follow Florida’s example, and that the new law is held up in court.

Has your company ever been involved in a case in which employees tried to change the state in which they filed for workers’ comp? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Update: The NFL’s new collective bargaining agreement will allow players to file workers compensation claims in states where their teams are not based, a loophole the league had tried desperately to close during negotiations.

The post Workers’ comp a holdup in NFL labor talks appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Angela Grott worked as a finance clerk at the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois. She often had to type on a keyboard while speaking on the phone, so she requested a headset.

Her request was denied, and she said she was forced to hold the phone receiver in the crook of her neck for hours while typing. The result: severe neck, shoulder and arm pain and headaches.

She sought medical help. Two days after she saw a surgeon, she underwent an operation. The surgeon said she had a pre-existing disc degeneration that was aggravated by holding the phone in an awkward manner.

Grott’s workers’ comp claim so far totals $128,424 for medical bills, according to an investigation by the Belleville News-Democrat.

She’s received $7,304 for 12 weeks of temporary disability pay. Even though Grott has been cleared to return to work, a permanent partial disability (PPD) claim is pending, which could range from $20,000 to $110,000.

The newspaper reports the type of headset Grott could have used on the job was for sale at a nearby store for $9.96.

Ergonomic workers’ comp claims = big bucks

The investigation by the News-Democrat shows since Jan. 1, 2008, about $7 million has been paid to Menard employees in PPD awards for repetitive trauma.

The attorney who is representing Grott has also been the attorney for the majority of 260 repetitive trauma claims filed by Menard employees. Most of the claims have been from guards, who said operating heavy cell lock mechanisms caused carpal tunnel syndrome or cubital tunnel of the elbow, which led to surgery.

From the better-late-than-never department, a spokeswoman for the prison system said it’s in the process of obtaining headsets for staff members who’ve requested them.

And one more quirk about this story: Grott’s case was heard before arbitrator John Dibble. The newspaper reports Dibble has been on paid administrative leave since February. He received a workers’ comp award of $48,790 based on a claim that last year he fell on stairs at a workers’ comp hearing site, resulting in delayed onset carpal tunnel syndrome. Records show there were no witnesses to the fall.

Does your company provide ergonomic work station modifications for workers who request them? Have you ever faced large workers’ comp bills because such ergonomic fixes weren’t made available? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The post $10 phone headset or $128K comp bill: Which would you rather pay? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Luis Aragon worked for HDV Construction Systems in Tallahassee, FL, as a framer. He fell from a height of 30 feet and suffered multiple complex fractures of his left foot and forearm.

His injuries required extensive medical treatment, including implantation of a spinal cord stimulator.

Doctors say Aragon’s injuries are permanent and he should perform sedentary work only. He could no longer do construction, farm and manufacturing work.

However, his ability to get a job within a 50-mile radius of his home (a test for whether an injured worker should receive PTD benefits) was also hampered by his limited education, inability to speak, read or write English, and lack of transferable skills.

Taking his limitations and injuries into account, a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) awarded PTD benefits to Aragon.

The company appealed to a state court.

Company should know work status

Aragon shouldn’t get PTD benefits because of his illegal status, the company argued.

The JCC had ruled that his employer should have known Aragon was an illegal immigrant, so that wasn’t a valid reason to withhold comp.

The appeals court agreed. It said there is no dispute that the Florida legislature has intended for workers’ comp to cover both those who are legally and illegally employed. State law defines “employee” as anyone who receives compensation from an employer, whether “lawfully or unlawfully employed.”

The court also pointed out that workers’ comp law was enacted to make sure the expense of injuries created by industry is placed on industry, rather than on society.

“An entity that knowingly employs unlawful labor should not be able to shirk the cost of the injuries it creates — and in turn, shift the cost of the damages that it has knowingly created on the taxpaying public — ultimately placing it in a[n] unfairly superior financial position to those employers who operate lawfully,” the court wrote.

Decision: Aragon should receive PTD benefits under workers’ comp.

Is the system working or broken?

This is hardly the first decision in which an illegal immigrant has been awarded workers’ comp benefits.

However, this case has the added twist of using the worker’s lack of other skills, including little knowledge of English, as a test of whether he should receive PTD benefits.

Opponents of these types of decisions say awarding workers’ comp benefits to an illegal immigrant places a burden on the company by raising its costs.

But the alternative might be more costly. If illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to receive workers’ comp benefits which have statutory financial limits, the injured workers could sue companies instead, and the awards in those lawsuits don’t have the same limits.

Another argument against these workers’ comp awards: The illegal immigrants broke the law. But haven’t the companies also broken the law by hiring the illegal immigrants in the first place?

So here is the question: Isn’t the solution for companies to make sure they hire only properly documented workers in the first place?

Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

(HDV v. Aragon, Dist. Crt. of Appeal of FL, First Dist., No. 1D10-6401, 6/28/2011)

The post Does injured worker who is an illegal immigrant get workers’ comp? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Gov. Pat Quinn signed the comprehensive overhaul of Illinois’ workers’ compensation system into law. The measure will take full effect by Sept. 1.

Illinois currently has some of the highest workers’ comp premiums in the nation.

Among the reforms in the law:

• a 30% reduction in the amounts paid to doctors and hospitals for treating injured workers (the amounts currently paid in Illinois are some of the highest in the U.S.)
• new standards set by the American Medical Association for determining impairment and disability
• new guidelines for treatment an injured worker can receive
• language to make it harder for workers who were drunk when they were injured to win claims
• more safeguards to prevent abuse of the system
• formation of medical networks so companies can choose doctors who don’t cater as much to workers, and
• a cap on awards for carpal tunnel syndrome.

It’s estimated companies will see 10-20% drops in their workers’ comp premiums. Employers will save a total of at least $500 million a year.

As you might expect, a group of lawyers who represent injured workers says the new law goes too far. Some business leaders say it doesn’t go far enough.

What do you think is needed to cut workers’ comp premiums for companies? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The post Is this what’s needed to curb workers’ comp costs? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

OSHA has cited manufacturer Hobbs Bonded Fiber in Waco, TX, with 29 serious violations and $161,100 in penalties. The safety agency inspected Hobbs last December after receiving an employee complaint about unsafe working conditions.

The violations include failing to:

• develop and implement a respiratory program
• provide training for employees entering confined spaces where an oxygen deficiency may exist
• develop a plan to avoid employee exposure to bloodborne pathogens
• provide an area for employees to wash their eyes
• ensure that compressed oxygen and acetylene gas cylinders were stored separately
• provide hazard communication training to employees working with hazardous and toxic chemicals
• adequately guard rotating belts, pulleys, chains and sprockets from pinch points and at the point of operation, and
• provide covers on junction, outlet and transformer boxes.

Hobbs has 15 business days to decide whether to contest the fines.

The post Worker’s complaint leads to $161K fine appeared first on Safety News Alert.

Without reducing employee protection, these changes will result in annual cost savings to employers of more than $43 million and significant reduction in paperwork, according to OSHA.

Among the changes:

• The new rule will result in several changes to OSHA’s existing respiratory protection standard, including aligning air cylinder testing requirements for self-contained breathing apparatuses with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, clarifying that aftermarket cylinders meet National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health quality assurance requirements and clarifying that the provisions of Appendix D, which contains information for employees using respirators when not required under the standard, are mandatory if the employee chooses to use a respirator.
• Other changes to result from the new rule will include updating the definition of the term “potable water” to be consistent with the current EPA standards instead of the former and outdated Public Health Service Corps definition, removing the outdated requirement that hand dryers use warm air because new technology allows employers to use hand-drying products that do not involve hot or warm air and removing two medical record requirements from the commercial-diving standard because that standard no longer requires medical examinations.
• Updates also will include deleting a number of requirements for employers to transmit exposure and medical records to NIOSH, thus saving National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) significant costs to store and maintain the records. According to NIOSH, these records did not serve a useful research purpose. The slings standards also will be updated and streamlined by requiring that employers use only slings marked with manufacturers’ loading information.

So here’s the question after you’ve read these changes: Do any of them reduce the burden of federal government regulation on your company? Are there specific regulations you hope OSHA will address in the future to reduce regulatory burden? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The post OSHA says streamlined rules will reduce employer burdens appeared first on Safety News Alert.

A state supreme court has weighed in on whether punitive damages awarded by a jury to a paralyzed worker were too large.

The $18 million in punitive damages make up almost half of the amount awarded to Andrew Blood, an electric company lineman.

Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that the amount isn’t “grossly excessive.”

Blood worked for Xcel Energy, an electricity provider.

On June 29, 2004, Blood was working toward removing an electric pole. He was about 25 feet up the pole taking down wooden cross-arms when the pole broke six inches below the ground.

Blood’s fall fractured his spine and immediately paralyzed the worker, who was 24 at the time.

In 1960, Xcel entered a contract with Qwest to share Qwest’s telephone poles.

Blood sued Qwest, and a jury awarded him a total of $39.65 million. The $21.65 million for compensatory damages was broken out this way:

• $10 million for physical impairment and disfigurement
• $750,000 for loss of consortium
• $1 million in non-economic damages, and
• $9.9 million in economic damages.

The question of whether the punitive damages were warranted centered around Qwest’s failure to implement a pole inspection program.

The contract between Qwest and Xcel mentioned recommended inspections for their utility polls based on their age. A first inspection was to be conducted 24 years after a poll is installed, with additional inspections every 12 years after that.

The court said Qwest showed no evidence that it had ever inspected the pole Blood was on. It had been in service for 46 years.

Qwest said it relied on pre-climb inspections by linemen to detect internal rot.

In this case, Blood has visually inspected the pole and struck it several times with a heavy hammer to detect internal rot. He believed the pole was solid enough to climb, as did other experienced Xcel linemen on the scene.

But the rot that caused the pole to collapse happened underground.

Colorado’s highest court said the jury properly awarded the $18 million in punitive damages to Blood. It said Qwest failure to even start a pole inspection program for 46 years was “willful and wanton” and that the lack of the inspection program was “sufficiently reprehensible” to justify a punitive damage award.

What do you think about the court’s ruling? Should there be a maximum amount for punitive awards, and if so, how should that ceiling be determined? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

(Qwest Services Corp. v. Blood, CO Supreme Court, No 09SC534, 5/23/2011) A PDF of the court’s opinion is available here.

The post Court upholds $18M in punitive damages against company; worker paralyzed appeared first on Safety News Alert.

OSHA has issued 33 citations to the Parker Hannifin Corp. plant in Batesville, MS, with penalties totaling $487,700.

Sixteen citations are for repeat violations. OSHA issues repeat violations when a company previously had been cited for the same or a similar violation at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years.

Park Hannifin’s repeat citations are based on previous inspections conducted at other company locations, including a facility in Olive Branch, MS.

The 16 repeat citations, which accounted for $407,000 in fines, include failure to:

• train workers on lockout/tagout procedures
• conduct periodic inspections of the lockout/tagout process
• unblock exit doors and routes
• provide machine guarding, and
• correct electrical deficiencies.

OSHA administrator David Michaels said Parker Hannifin “ignored many violations that OSHA previously had brought to its attention.”

The company has 15 business days to decide whether to contest the citations.

The post $487K fine: 33 violations, including lack of safety training appeared first on Safety News Alert.

On April 28, 2011, OSHA turned 40 years old. Is the agency suffering an early mid-life crisis?

Why is the age 40 associated with mid-life crisis? It’s probably because people realize that they’ve spent about half of their time on this earth and have only another 40 years or so left.

If someone is fairly happy with his or her first 40 years, the birthday may pass without much notice.

But if that’s not the case, the birthday celebrant may be thinking, “How can I turn this around?” And that seems to be the case with OSHA.

Many are unhappy with OSHA these days. Groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say its regulations are job killers.

Unions and progressive groups say the agency has fallen down on its job, noting 14 workers are still killed on the job each day in the U.S.

(If those on opposite sides of an issue both feel you’re on the wrong track, chances are you must be doing something right.)

Even OSHA’s administrator, David Michaels, points to struggles the agency faces. In a speech last year, he pointed to four of them:

1. Michaels said OSHA is too small. Combined with state OSHAs, there are about 2,000 inspectors to cover 7 million worksites in the U.S.
2. OSHA’s statutory maximums for fines are much below those of other federal agencies. The maximum fine for a serious safety violation is $7,000. On the other hand, Congress raised the maximum Federal Communication Commission (FCC) fine for obscenity on radio or TV to $325,000 in 2006. A company would have to rack up 47 serious violations to reach the amount that the FCC could impose for one potty-mouth moment on TV.
3. Michaels bemoaned “weak legislation” that hampers OSHA’s ability to protect workers from retaliation and discrimination when they speak up about workplace hazards.
4. Occupational exposure limits exist for only a small percentage of chemicals commonly used in U.S. workplaces. Some of those limits are based on science from the 1960s or earlier.

The road ahead?

OK, enough about the agency’s troubles. How does Michaels intend to turn this thing around?

• Stronger enforcement. Michaels says some companies are willing to permit the existence of workplace hazards because it’s not in their financial interest to correct hazards. He says inspections must be increased and penalties must rise so they act as deterrents.
• Change workplace culture. Michaels has called for a paradigm shift with employers going beyond meeting OSHA standards to implementing injury and illness prevention programs (I2P2) that find and fix hazards. The agency is in the process of creating regulations that would require many companies to have I2P2s.
• Better ways to address hazards. Michaels has called OSHA’s process for issuing regulations “unworkable.” New permissible exposure limits (PELs) take years to enact. It’s been reported that Michaels would like to use the General Duty Clause to hold companies accountable for employee exposures, even when PELs haven’t been developed for particular substances.
• Improve injury tracking. Michaels believes workplace injuries are significantly under-reported. To prevent injuries, it’s necessary to track previous patterns. Comparatively, less information is available on how OSHA plans to tackle this problem. Electronic data collection is mentioned as one part of the solution.

So, let’s here from those of you responsible for making sure U.S. workers go home safe every day. What should OSHA focus on in the coming years? What should it not focus on? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

The post OSHA: The next 40 years? appeared first on Safety News Alert.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil lawsuit against BP in December.

Now comes word from Bloomberg news that federal prosecutors are considering whether to pursue manslaughter charges against BP managers for decisions leading to the explosion.

The report says prosecutors have been looking into charges of involuntary manslaughter or seaman’s manslaughter, which carries a more serious penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

At issue: Decisions by BP managers leading up to the explosion that may have sacrificed safety for speed and cost savings.

A presidential commission identified 11 decisions at Deepwater Horizon that saved time and increased risks. Seven of those decisions were made by BP managers on shore.

The investigation is being conducted by a DOJ criminal division task force. The department moved recently to consolidate management of the probe.

Do you think BP and/or its managers should face criminal charges, including involuntary manslaughter, in connection with the deaths of 11 workers due to the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Let us know what you think in the Comments Box below.

The post Report: Feds considering manslaughter charges for BP appeared first on Safety News Alert.