Jan 3, 2011
Posted on Jan 3, 2011 in OSHA | 0 comments
So the first working day of 2011 sees California introduce a new set of workplace safety laws. The state’s worker safety agency – Cal/OSHA – will now find it easier to investigate safety violations that occur in California workplaces following a revision to its labor code laws.
Susan Kemp, a labor law attorney for the California Chamber of Commerce, describes how the new laws will work.
She says the boost to Cal/OSHA’s enforcement powers applies mainly to businesses that own and operate heavy equipment. “Any type of machinery that involves anything that can pinch you, push you, cut you, smush body parts, anything with the height that you can fall, tunneling, people in ditches where there’s a cave-in, those kinds of things,” Kemp said.
Cal/OSHA will enforce a new safety standard this year to prevent farm workers from getting sick from the heat. Farm and orchard managers now have to provide each worker with a quart of water an hour – and five minutes of rest in the shade if the employee asks for it.
Susan Kemp says the new law also requires employers to train managers on how enforce the new regulation. Kemp explains, “The employer has to monitor the weather and make arrangements in advance, and supervisors and managers have to be trained to do that as well.”
[via]
The new laws in detail include:
New Off- Duty Meal Break Exemptions
AB 569 provides greater legal clarity to Labor Code section 512(a) which requires employers to provide their employees, who work more than six hours in a day, one 30-minute off-duty meal break after five hours of work. The new law adds section 512.7 to the Labor Code and will exempt from the off-duty meal break requirement workers in specific industries who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that contains meal period provisions. The employee groups include: construction workers, commercial drivers, security officers and employees of electrical and gas corporations or local publicly-owned electric utilities. These are industries or positions where it was deemed an off-duty meal break can be impractical. The revision was made to better meet the requirements of the particular positions. The bill was introduced by Assembly Member Bill Emmerson (R-Hemet).
Workers’ Compensation Extended Eligibility for Public Service Workers
AB 2253 expands workers’ compensation eligibility for firefighters and law enforcement officers who have developed certain types of cancer that are reasonably linked to their jobs. Existing law establishes that this presumption be extended for a period of three months for each full year of service the employee worked, not to exceed 60 months beyond their last day of service. The pending legislation will expand that time frame to up to 120 months and will amend Labor Code section 3212.1. The bill was introduced by Assembly Member Joe Coto (D-San Jose).
Organ / Bone Marrow Donors’ Leave and Benefits for Employees of Private Employers
SB 1304 requires private employers to permit employees to take paid leaves of absence for organ and bone marrow donation, similar to provisions existing for California state employees. Under the new law, private employers are prohibited from interfering with employees taking organ or bone marrow donation leave and after the conclusion of the leave of absence must allow them to return to the same job or an equivalent job. The bill, introduced by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), further prohibits retaliation of the employee for taking the leave and provides employees to seek restitution if these rights are violated.
New Procedures Established and Definition Clarified for Cal/OSHA Serious Citations
California employers are legally bound to provide employees a safe workplace. California law has authorized DIR’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, to enforce applicable safety and health regulations and issue citations when investigations reveal that an employer has committed violations of those standards, including serious violations that cause an employee to suffer or potentially suffer, among other things, “serious injury or illness” or “serious physical harm.” AB 2774, introduced by Assembly member Sandre R. Swanson (D-Alameda), amends labor code section 6432 to define serious physical harm and establishes a rebuttable presumption as to when an employer commits a serious violation of these provisions. The bill further establishes new procedures and standards for an investigation when issuing serious citations.
[via]
Learn more at the California DIR.
Dec 17, 2010
Posted on Dec 17, 2010 in Safety Vest | 0 comments
Over in the UK, school patrol crossing guards are commonly known as Lollipop Men or Ladies (dependent on their gender of course) due to the long signage sticks they use looking a bit like a lollipop. If you’d prefer graphic confirmation, here’s a picture:
But, same as in the US, it’s all hi-viz vests and lots of day-glo while stopping traffic so children can cross the road safely.
Well, one such Lollipop Lady in the UK has resigned over a health and safety issue with her being asked to turn the stick upside down when not in use. The story gets taken up by The Daily Mail:
Council chiefs claimed Mrs Gaisford had confused passing drivers by holding her stick aloft but she argued it was equally dangerous to ‘swing a 6ft pole like a majorette’ while there were children nearby.
‘I’m not a Jedi with a lightsaber and this isn’t Star Wars, I don’t want to be swinging the thing around like that,’ she said.
‘Surely swinging a 6ft pole around when there are children nearby is more of a health and safety issue?
‘I resigned because I disagree with the council’s policy – I think it is wrong and puts pedestrians at risk.’
A Worcestershire County Council spokesperson claimed the rules are in place to ensure drivers have a clear indicator of exactly when they must stop.
‘When guidelines are not followed, this leads to confusion with drivers either slowing down whilst the patrol is not operating, braking suddenly or driving straight through and therefore putting pedestrians at risk,’ she said.
Dec 8, 2010
Posted on Dec 8, 2010 in General | 0 comments
Of all the potential risks at your average workplace and working environment, you’d have thought you’d be safest parked in a comfortable chair in a warm office behind a desk.
Not so according to several studies in the U.S., New Zealand and Canada. Sitting between six and ten hours a day or for two hours unbroken can lead to some very serious health problems posing a similar health risk to that of a smoker.
Increased health problems include:
- Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
- Obesity
- Diabetes
- Heart attacks and heart disease
- Cancer
- Depression
- Musculoskeletal pain and disorders
And the following are a few quotes from various articles:
People who sit without moving for 10 hours a day – and for at least two hours without getting up – are three times more at risk of an embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those who do not, a study by the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand suggests. [via]
Women who reported more than six hours per day of sitting (outside of work) were 37 percent more likely to die during the time period studied than those who sat fewer than three hours a day. Men who sat more than six hours a day (also outside of work) were 18 percent more likely to die than those who sat fewer than three hours per day. The association remained virtually unchanged after adjusting for physical activity level. Associations were stronger for cardiovascular disease mortality than for cancer mortality. [via]
Doctors say the evolution of technology has impacted the way we use our bodies. Humans have moved from the active life of being hunter-gatherers to becoming agriculturalists. The Industrial Revolution moved us to factories and the technological revolution landed us behind desks and into the culture of sitting too much.
“Sitting has become the most common human behavior, literally, it outstrips the amount of time we spend sleeping,” Hamilton said.
Hamilton said that sitting has become a new form of smoking. Smoking was once so common that people were reluctant to see the health hazard it posed. [via]
Quite sobering stuff!
Nov 5, 2010
Posted on Nov 5, 2010 in OSHA, Standards | 0 comments
According to a recent federal study, both North and South Carolina have been deemed to be the safest places to work in the country with the least number of injuries reported.
As this report states:
North Carolina’s Labor Department said Thursday the state’s rate of injuries or illnesses at private companies dropped to a historic low in 2009. The 3.1 percent rate compares with 3.4 percent in 2008.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said there were just over three cases of illness or injury per 100 full-time workers in both Carolinas. Injury rates in both states were near the country’s lowest along with Texas, Louisiana, Virginia and New York.
But, the workplace safety in South and North Carolina has been heavily criticized by the US Labor Department for suggesting paltry fines to companies flouting the laws and not taking safety issues seriously enough.
Another state OSHA that has also come under fire recently, California, has hit back at the US Labor Dept’s audit suggesting that its criticisms asking for better complaint resolution and improved safety training are irrelevant due to the audit relying heavily on out of date information and lacking understanding of the state’s process.
As reported by ABC:
Cal/OSHA chief Len Welsh said in an interview Thursday that the federal audit didn’t provide documentation for many of its claims, making it difficult to pinpoint failures and make effective changes.
Cal/OSHA could change the way it responds to complaints as a result of the audit’s criticism that the state takes an average of 24.5 days to initiate an investigation after a complaint is received, a process that should only take three days.
To speed up the process, Welsh said the department may stop sending on-site inspectors to workplaces for low-priority complaints — those alleging non-serious hazards — to reduce inspection workload. Cal/OSHA can make the change unilaterally, Welsh said, but it wants to vet it with stakeholders before changing protocol.
“As time goes on and resources dry up we’re going to have to find ourselves prioritizing what we do more and more,” Welsh said.
