Here’s a statement that caught our eye: The owner of a small manufacturing business in New Jersey told a local newspaper that his employees are “not concerned about having a safe place to work, they’re concerned about having a place to work.”
O’Shea says he’s appealing the fine because it would put his company that manufactures tools, dies and stampings out of business.
Despite O’Shea’s claim about what his employees care about, OSHA says the reason it inspected the facility is that it received a complaint alleging several workplace hazards there.
OSHA’s inspection turned up 21 violations: 3 repeat, 12 serious and 6 other-than-serious.
The repeat violations were for:
- obstructed exit routes
- lack of proper machine guarding, and
- deficient recordkeeping for power press inspections.
The serious violations included failure to:
- implement a hearing conservation program
- properly mount and identify portable fire extinguishers
- provide powered industrial truck training, and
- implement a hazard communication program that includes training.
The other-than-serious violations involve failure to record injuries.
Schneider & Marquard employs about 24 workers.
O’Shea says his employees came to him and “asked me if they could contest this and what they can do to help.” O’Shea says he plans to talk to his lawyer.
This sums up the debate about OSHA regulations: Are there too many of them, and are they putting companies out of business?
On the other hand, should employees have to work at a facility where lack of machine guarding, for example, could cause a serious injury or death?
Apparently, at least one of O’Shea’s employees didn’t think that was right.
What do you make of O’Shea’s statement? Let us know what you think in the comments below.