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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you were to put a list together of unsafe workplaces, you’d be hard pressed to have office spaces somewhere near the top. Office safety always seems a given. After all, how dangerous can a 2B pencil, a ream of paper and a Xerox machine really be?
Well, according to the following Mad Men era-ish video it’s positively strewn with all manner of near death possibilities.
This week, a Center for Progressive Reform report highlights a lack of workplace safety procedures as being a key contributing factor of health issues and complaints reported by some Gulf oil spill cleanup workers.
Besides safety training and chemical exposure monitoring, there have been concerns regarding the lack of protective equipment used by cleanup workers.
One of the main problems, according to the report, is the programs themselves (known as the National and Regional Contingency Plans) don’t contain any method of ensuring workplace safety regulations are adhered to.
“These documents, beginning at the national level, consistently pass responsibility for ensuring worker safety down the line to the next entity that has a duty to participate in planning process,” the report states. “But as they pass the buck, they never establish mechanisms for ensuring accountability at the next level for worker safety and health.”
In order to make sure employees are adequately protected while on the job, OSHA has come up with a set of regulations regarding personal protection equipment, such as clothing and safety glasses. While employees are responsible for making sure they are properly equipped with the regulatory safety gear before they begin working, the employers have specific obligations towards being compliant with OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.132.
It is ultimately the employers responsibility to assess the workplace and decide what personal protective equipment is needed on the job. The employer must assess the hazards that are present and that could pose harm to the employee. For each job, the employer needs to choose the best personal protective gear that will properly protect the employee from all the hazards identified in the hazard assessment. Employees must communicate their findings to the employee, and if the employee feels the personal protective equipment is in adequate in any way, he should let his employer know this. Both parties should be in agreement with the type of personal protective equipment needed for the job.
Once the hazard assessment has been performed and the employer and employee are in agreement with the type of personal protective equipment needed, it must be obtained for the employee. The PPE purchased needs to be in compliance with OSHA and ANSI standards. This will vary depending on the specific job of the employee and what situations and materials he daily comes in contact with. The employer needs to make sure the employee always has access to compliant PPE before beginning any job. Employees should never begin working without donning the required PPE.
Though personal protective equipment does not have a specific shelf life, it will need to be replaced whenever it gets worn down. Worn, broken or cracked PPE will not offer the same level of protection as it did with it was new, which means its rating will decrease as the PPE ages. It is up to the employee and the employer to do regular inspections of PPE to ensure that it is in good condition and offers a high level of safety to the worker. If an employee notices that any of his personal protective equipment has become cracked or broken, he should immediately notify his employer and replace the PPE with a new one.
It is the responsibility of the employer to make sure all employees are properly protected with personal protective equipment as mandated under OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.132. Employers should make sure that each employee understands the type of PPE he needs for his job, as well as why. PPE should be available to employees and it should be properly rated to their specific job. While it is also up to the employee to don the PPE while working and to make sure it is in good condition, employers are ultimately held responsible for employee safety so it is important for employers to take employee safety seriously. Many accidents can be avoided in the workplace when employees use their personal protective equipment properly.
Gallaway Safety & Supply for your Safety and Industrial Safety Products. We carry a broad line of products from safety glasses and earplugs to spray paint and duct tape. We look forward to doing business with you not only today, but also in the future.
