Showing posts with label OSHA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OSHA. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

OSHA: The Next 35 Years -- What Would You Do?

Let's project ourselves into the future a bit. Suppose a labor-friendly Democratic president is elected in two years, along with a Congress with strong, liberal Democratic majorities who vow to make sure that OSHA fulfills its promise to ensure safe workplaces for all American workers. What would you do? That's the question that Michael Silverstein has been tackling for the past several months, and as George Washington University Professor David Michaels explains, you have a chance to weigh in:
For the last several months, Michael Silverstein has been talking with safety and health activists and professionals around the country, evaluating the work of OSHA over the last 35 years and discussing ways to ensure that OSHA's promise - a safe workplace for all American workers - is fulfilled. (Michael, in case you don't know him, has an extensive background in OSHA policy. He has served head of the Washington State OSHA program, Director of Policy for federal OSHA and the UAW's Assistant Director for Occupational Health and Safety.)

Michael has completed a draft of his paper "Getting Home Safe and Sound? OSHA at Thirty-Five” and we have posted it on the website of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP).

SKAPP began this project last year in order to examine ways we can improve our system of protecting worker health and safety. With the political changes that occurred in November, it is even more pressing now for us to consider ways to improve our dysfunctional safety and health regulatory system.

So we are attempting an experiment. We at SKAPP have decided to launch a national electronic discussion of Michael's paper, and especially its recommendations. As a forum, we're using the new blog "The Pump Handle". If you go to you can read a letter from Michael describing the project and by posting a comment, you can participate in the discussion.

If you have thoughts on how to improve the workings of OSHA, please jump into the discussion (and circulate this information to your members, colleagues and friends).

David Michaels, PhD, MPH
Director, The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy
I encourage you all -- whether you're a health and safety professional, or a worker, or a family member of an worker injured or killed on the job -- to read Michael's paper and let him know what you think. As he says (and you all know), OSHA has lots of problems, despite the progress that has been made:
However, after 35 years much is left undone. A worker still becomes injured or ill on job every 2.5 seconds and these injuries and illnesses have disproportionate, unfair impact in especially high risk industries and among groups of disadvantaged workers.

Most workplaces are inspected so infrequently and most penalties for violations of the OSHAct are so small that most employers have little incentive to pay much attention to OSHA requirements. Acts of gross negligence or criminal behavior leading to workplace deaths regularly go unpunished. Employees are discouraged from raising complaints about workplace hazards because the OSHAct provides insufficient protections from discrimination. And millions of public employees are left without the enforceable protections of the OSHAct entirely.

Long after Congress declared safe and healthful workplaces to be a national priority more attention is paid and more resources are devoted to fish and wildlife protection than worker safety. Lives on the job are devalued by this violation of a national promise.

Working to earn a living, to support a family, to build the community has been disrespected and dishonored. We have the technology, the legal framework and the moral capacity to do significantly better. We can reach higher by making more creative use of the existing provisions in the OSHAct, by strengthening the Act itself, and by taking steps entirely outside the OSHAct framework to ensure that those who contribute their labor for their families and communities are honored by returning home safe and sound every day.

Read Michael Silverstein's draft paper "Getting Home Safe and Sound? OSHA at Thirty-Five"

Leave comments here (scroll to the bottom)

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

"Egregious Delay" -- Unions Sue OSHA For Protective Equipment Standard

Seems like common sense.

When workers are required to use gloves or boots or hardhats in order to do their jobs safely, the employer should pay for that equipment. Seemed like common sense to OSHA, as well, eight years ago when it began the process of issuing a standard codifying OSHA's previous practice of requiring employers to pay for workers' personal protective equipment.

Common sense, that is, to everyone except George Bush's OSHA which seems to be filled with very studious types who never have their fill of studying "complicated" issues. Never.
David James, a spokesman for the Labor Department, said, "The case has not fully been reviewed by the department and it deals with complicated issues that will affect different employers and employees in a variety of ways."

James said the department is reviewing public comments about the proposal before offering a final rule.
Those would be public comments from the last century.

America's workers, however, are fed up with what the AFL-CIO and the United Food and Commercial Workers union call an "egregious example of unreasonable delay"

The labor organizations filed a lawsuit today in the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC to force OSHA to issue its "Payment for Personal Protective Equipment Standard" within 60 days. The standard, initiated in 1997, would require employers to pay the costs of protective clothing, lifeines, respirators, face shields, gloves, boots, hardhats and other equipment used by an estimated 20 million workers to protect them from job hazards.

The failure of the Bush administration to issue the standard has been devastating:
The lawsuit asserts that the Bush Administration's failure to act is putting workers in danger. By OSHA's own estimates, 400,000 workers have been injured and 50 have died due to the absence of this rule. The labor groups say that workers in some of Americas most dangerous industries, such as meatpacking, poultry and construction, and low-wage and immigrant workers who suffer high injury rates, are vulnerable to being forced by their employers to pay for their own safety gear because of OSHA's failure to finish the PPE rule.
OSHA began work on the standard eight years ago in response to a court decision that said that OSHA's previous policy of requiring employers to pay for PPE was not legal because it was not specifically stated in OSHA's PPE standard. Many OSHA standards (such as lead, benzene, noise, respiratory protection, bloodborne pathogens, confined spaces, asbestos, and laboratory safety) already require emloyers to provide and pay for PPE, but where PPE is not required by a standard, OSHA's policy since its creation has been to require employers to pay for the PPE.

The tragedy of this situation is that this should have been a relatively short and simple standard to issue. OSHA issued a proposal in 1999, held four days of hearings which generated widespread support from safety professionals and unions, and almost no opposition from the business community. OSHA had originally planned to issue the standard in 2000, but missed that deadline. The Bush administration has set numerous deadlines since then and missed them all. In 2003, the AFL-CIO, UFCW and numerous other unions petitioned the agency for a standard.

According to the lawsuit, OSHA's failure to require employers to pay for PPE falls most heavily on immigrant workers:
In some jobs, including many low-wage jobs dominated by immigrant workers, PPE is a worker’s principal protection from harm. Poultry workers wear protective gear such as wire mesh gloves to protect their bodies from cuts and rubber boots to prevent them from slipping on wet floors. Welders wear face shields, welding aprons and gloves to protect them from hazards of the welding arc. Construction workers wear hard hats and steel-toed shoes to prevent injury from heavy objects falling on them. They rely on lifelines or lanyards to prevent falls from roofs and other high places. Other workers wear gloves, goggles, face shields, protective clothes and shoes, and other PPE.
Despite its importance, personal protective equipment is the least effective means of protecting workers, behind eliminating the hazard or using engineering controls (such as ventilation) to separate the hazard from the worker. But the lawsuit notes that OSHA itself had expressed concern that the current situation
could also lead to perverse incentives for employers. Given a choice between engineering controls that the employer must pay for, and PPE that would be paid for by employees, employers would have a strong incentive to use PPE even though engineering controls would be more protective and might even be cheaper.
The lawsuit also points out that the failure to require employers to pay for PPE has created an "inconsistent and confusing enforcement landscape."
Workers covered by many specific OSHA standards like asbestos and benzene receive PPE to protect them from these hazards at no cost, but workers who are exposed to hazards that are not covered by a specific rule can be required to pay for their own PPE. Thus, workers on the production line in a battery plant who are exposed to lead are provided protective clothing that is paid for by the employer, 29 CFR § 1910.1025(g)(1). But workers in the same facility on the charging line, who are filling batteries with sulfuric acid, can be required to pay for their own protective clothing, because sulfuric acid exposures are covered by the general PPE rule.
The lawsuit argues that the court should force OSHA to issue the standard because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the development of regulations
directs agencies to conclude matters presented to them “within a reasonable time,” and authorizes courts to “compel agency action . . . unreasonably delayed.” OSHA’s failure to complete the PPE rule almost eight years after it was first proposed represents an egregious instance of unreasonable delay. This is an uncomplicated rulemaking on a straightforward, but significant, issue of importance to worker safety and health. This Court should direct OSHA to complete the PPE rule within 60 days after the Court’s order.
The lawsuit called OSHA's failure to act an "egregious example of unreasonable delay."
"Nothing is standing in the way of OSHA issuing a final PPE rule to protect worker safety and health except the will to do so. It is long overdue that the agency take action on protective equipment. Now, we are asking the courts to force OSHA to act," said Joseph Hansen, UFCW International President.

“The Bush Administration’s failure to implement even this most basic safety rule spotlights how it has turned its back on workers in this country,” said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney. “Too many workers have already been hurt or killed. The Bush Department of Labor should stop looking out for corporate interests at the expense of workers’ safety and health on the job.”
Related Documents

Text of the Lawsuit
Press Release in English
Press release in Spanish

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Thanksgiving Greetings From Elaine!

Chao, that is. Your Secretary of Labor, and her hubby, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

This was sent today to all Department of Labor employees:

From: Secretary Elaine Chao
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Thanksgiving Message from the Secretary


Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones! I hope you’ll have a relaxing and fun holiday weekend with family, friends and loved ones. Last weekend, I was in my neighborhood grocery and learned that the couple who ran it for decades are facing health challenges. I thought of them as I composed this email and am reminded how grateful we are to have the friends, colleagues, and family who enrich our daily lives. I hope we’ll also remember our men and women in uniform this Thanksgiving. And once again, thank you for your service to our country.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Well, how could one not respond to that?

From: Jordan Barab
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:57 PM
Subject: Thanksgiving Message from Confined Space

Happy Thanksgiving to you too and thanks for your note! But I'm afraid I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about!

You say that "Last weekend, I was in my neighborhood grocery and learned that the couple who ran it for decades are facing health challenges."

What the hell does this mean? What's a health "challenge"? Is their health "challenged" or is their ability to pay for their health care challenged?

I'm glad you have friends, colleagues, and family "who enrich our daily lives." Friends, family and colleagues are certainly good things, but when it comes to enriching, I have a feeling a universal single-payer health plan would be far more useful for your grocery couple.

And what's the point of bringing them up in the first place? Are you saying that you're sure glad you're not in their shoes? "Gosh, I sure am glad that Mitch and I aren't health-challenged [as opposed to morally challenged -- see below?]"

And when you say that "we" are grateful to have friends, colleagues, etc., are you implying that your grocery couple doesn't have friends -- unlike you and Senator Mitch, who have lots of friends (particularly Senator Mitch, although he has about 6 fewer friends/colleagues than he had before November 7).

Finally, yes, Elaine, I certainly do remember our men and women in uniform. I mean, how can I forget? I particularly remember the thousands buried in their uniforms, and the tens of thousands permanently disabled -- physically and mentally -- and their families who aren't exactly having a Happy Thanksgiving! And for what?Most of all, I remember that they were sent there for absolutely no reason, thanks to your boss and your husband. In fact, Elaine, in addition to remembering them and thanking them, you should be falling down on your knees and apologizing to them.

(Oh, and by the way, my holiday "weekend" would be more fun and relaxing if I didn't have to work on Friday.)

Happy Thanksgiving To You And Senator Mitch Too!

Monday, November 20, 2006

OSHA Pressures Scientist To Weaken Asbestos Warning

An estimated 60,000 workers die every year of occupationally-related disease, many of which are due to exposure to asbestos. And if the asbestos industry and its friends in government get their way, the bodies will keep piling up.

Baltimore Sun
journalist Andrew Schneider has uncovered evidence that OSHA has threatened to fire an agency scientist for not softening warnings to auto mechinics about the dangers of cancer-causing asbestos in brake linings.

The problem of asbestos in brake linings is so little known that when Washington Senator Patty Murray asked OSHA nominee Ed Foulke at his confirmation hearing last January whether he thought it would be a good idea to ban asbestos, Foulke replied that he wasn't aware that the cancer-causing product was used anymore in the United States. Murray sharply corrected him, listing automobile brake pads as one of the many products in which asbestos can still be found.

Foulke could probably take some comfort in knowing that most Americans are just as ignorant about the hazards of asbestos-containing brake linings as he is. But finally last July, after six years or pressure by public health and labor activists, as well as Senator Murray, OSHA finally issued a bulletin on Asbestos-Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work. All's well that ends well? Not quite.

Three weeks after the bulletin was issued, former OSHA head John Henshaw called on the agency to make changes in its warnings, according to documents obtained by the Baltimore Sun. The order went out through OSHA, according to Schneider:

But Ira Wainless, an OSHA scientist who wrote the advisory bulletin about asbestos in brakes, refused, according to agency documents. Wainless cited dozens of studies, including work at his own agency, to show that his presentation of the medical risk to mechanics was solid.

Last week, David Ippolito, an official with OSHA's Directorate of Science, Technology and Medicine, told Wainless that he would be suspended without pay for 10 days if the changes weren't made, according to documents.

Wainless refused again, and the advisory bulletin remains online.
According to Ed Stern of Local 12 of the American Federation of Government Employees
OSHA wants the July 26 advisory to include studies, financed by the auto industry, that say that asbestos in brakes does not harm mechanics.

***

The union rebuttal letter noted that former OSHA chief Henshaw worked with two consulting firms run by Dennis Paustenbach, ChemRisk and Exponent. These firms, according to Stern and documents obtained by The Sun, have been paid more than $23 million since 2001 by Ford, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler to help fight asbestos lawsuits brought against them by former workers.
Amazingly, Henshaw said that the warning wasn't needed because asbestos is no longer used in the United States. This despite evidence (also reported by Schneider) from experts who estimate that there has been an 83 percent increase in imports of asbestos brakes and brake material into the United States over the past 10 years. Dr. Barry Castleman, a former Baltimore County health officer and a leading researcher on medical and legal issues involving asbestos, estimates that thousands of workers die every year from exposure to asbestos from brake pads.

But this shouldn't be any secret to OSHA, according to Schneider,

an Aug. 31 internal OSHA memo on the brake warnings to agency chief Edwin Foulke Jr. stated: "Some domestic automobile manufacturers continue to use, in certain models, asbestos brake pads and linings."

Despite this information,

In the agency's suspension notification to Wainless, it faulted the industrial hygienist, who is an expert on the recognition, evaluation and control of hazardous materials, with failing to have adequate scientific documentation to support the claim of asbestos' danger. Yet the internal memo to Foulke lists 35 studies and reports.
In that memo, OSHA allows that asbestos can cause cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, but it plays down the risk to brake mechanics.
The war against warning auto mechanics about asbestos has been going on for a number of years. In 1986, EPA issued and distributed thousands of copies of the so-called "gold book: Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics. In November 2003, the lawfirm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, representing asbesetos manufacturers, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency "to stop distributing warning booklets, posters and videotapes that give mechanics guidance on the need to protect themselves from asbestos." Senator Murray as been urging EPA to re-issue the publication.

Last year, OSHA officials acted to stop publication of the OSHA bulletin on asbestos in brakes. An OSHA spokesman said that release of publication of a safety and health information bulletin "is not warranted." At that time, Joel Shufro of the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health stated that "It borders on criminal negligence for OSHA to have produced a new alert addressed to mechanics but refuse to publish it because it does not conform to a so-called guideline."

Pressure from Murray finally forced the bulletin out last July. According to Occupational Hazards magazine,
Murray placed a legislative "hold" on the nomination of Stephen McMillin for OMB deputy director when she learned OMB ordered OSHA to shelve the publication which was due to be released on March 25, 2005 in fear of potential lawsuits against auto and parts manufacturers for asbestos-related diseases.
Medical experts, needless to say, are outraged and disgusted with this entire story:
"Asbestos causes cancer, whether it is pulled out of a mountain, scraped off a steam pipe or shed from a brake shoe," says Dr. Michael Harbut, who has examined thousands of autoworkers for asbestos disease under a project funded by the Occupational Health Legal Rights Foundation, which is financed by units of the AFL-CIO.

"To withhold these warnings to mechanics who have no knowledge of asbestos or believe it's banned is unconscionable," said Harbut, co-director of the National Center for Vermiculite and Asbestos-Related Cancers at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit.
The only good news is that this information is being released at a time when something can actually be done about it. How do Congressional oversight hearings sound?

Related Articles

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

What's OSHA Doing About Refinery Safety? Not Enough

And while we're talking about Congressional oversight, a prime subject might be OSHA's weak efforts to ensure safety in our nation's petrochemical industry and how increased funding and inspection strategies might address the problem.

One finding of the US Chemical Safety Board's investigation into the March 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery that killed 15 workers is the contribution of OSHA's lax enforcement.
The board’s chairwoman indicated that OSHA’s approach to workplace safety might be a bit shortsighted.

“It’s just like BP was focused on trips and falls and lost work-time incident rates,” said Carolyn Merritt, who chairs the Chemical Safety Board. “OSHA focused on that, and they’re not going to recognize, for instance, if (a company) cuts too far back in maintenance.”

Merritt said OSHA’s approach does not recognize the long-term potential for disaster due to poor maintenance or other lax process-safety measures.
TJ Aulds, writing in the Galveston Daily News notes that U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao recently released a report showing workplace injuries and illnesses to be at an all-time low, and credits "compliance assistance from the regulated companies, health and safety partnerships with labor groups and targeted, “aggressive” enforcement against bad actors" for the improvement. (More on that here.)

Although OSHA's inspections of petrochemical facilites has picked up recently, that increase is a result of the catastropic BP explosion and other small incidents. In fact, according to Aulds, it may be OSHA's reliance on self regulation that's causing the problems.
Department of Labor statistics obtained by The Daily News show that in OSHA’s Region 6, which includes Texas and four other states, the agency conducted 123 inspections of petrochemical facilities in three years, from Oct. 1, 2003, through Sept. 30, 2006.

The vast majority of those inspections would not be considered preventative. In fact, 91 were conducted as a result of an accident, referral or complaint.

The rest were either follow-ups to previous inspections or related to an accident, complaint or referral.

Forty-eight of all of the Region 6 inspections during that same three-year period were conducted by the Houston office, which has oversight of the petrochemical facilities in Galveston County.

From those inspections, OSHA issued only four non-injury or non-incident citations.

However, the rate of inspections has picked up dramatically in the Houston region since the blasts at BP.
The root cause of this problem is, of course, not lazy OSHA inspectors, according to Merritt:
“Listen, they are understaffed, under-funded and overworked,” she said. “It’s simply a big job, and OSHA doesn’t have the resources to do much more than it already is.”
And the cause of that problem lies in Washington D.C.

Nevertheless, OSHA has it's opinion and it's sticking the script, no matter how ridiculous it sounds:
“A strong, fair and effective enforcement program is a key part of OSHA’s overall approach to workplace safety and health,” said Elizabeth Todd, a spokeswoman for OSHA’s Region 6 office. “We have the resources we need to be effective. Our balanced approach to workplace safety and health is succeeding, and it’s validated by workplace injury, illness and fatality rates that are at their lowest levels, even as the work force continues to expand.”
Blah, blah, blah. Not everyone is fooled though.
That response drew a chuckle from Glenn Erwin, who heads the United Steelworkers workplace safety initiatives.

Erwin, a former Texas City resident and BP — then Amoco — employee, is also a member of the panel led by James Baker that is reviewing the safety culture of BP.

“There is never an incident that happens that doesn’t have precursors or warnings before it happens if industry and (regulators) would investigate,” said Erwin, a critic of programs that emphasize investigations only when injuries are involved.

“Companies should be required — and OSHA actively force them — to investigate every incident, no matter what the size and even if no one gets hurt or loses work time.”

Erwin said such measures wouldn’t likely take hold unless Congress gets involved.

Fewer people were killed in the Sago Mine accident “and it sent shock waves all the way through Congress,” said Erwin.

“They even had hearings on mine safety. BP didn’t have that shockwave. There were no hearings until you had that problem with Prudhoe Bay, (Alaska).

“Why was it there were not hearings on Capitol Hill as to why (the Texas City) incident was allowed to happen? It’s a double standard.”


Erwin credits the Chemical Safety Board with putting pressure on BP as well as on federal regulators.

“Had it not been for the CSB calling attention to this last year, Terry Shiavo would have been the only news, and we would have been a footnote,” he said. “Congress was so worried about that one woman’s life, but didn’t get at all bothered that 15 people were killed.”
Amen brother.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

AFL-CIO Releases 15th Annual "Death On The Job" Report

The AFL-CIO has issued its 15th annual Death On The Job report (.pdf), an impressive piece of work (particularly considering that they're operating on half the staff they had a year ago.)

The purpose is to report on the state of workers' safety and health. First the good news: Workplace safety has improved dramatically in the 35 years since OSHA was created.

Now, the bad news. According to the report:
Progress in protecting workers’ safety and health is slowing, and for some groups of workers jobs are becoming more dangerous....As the economy, the workforce and hazards are changing, we are falling further and further behind in our efforts to protect workers from new and existing problems.
Here are the "highlights", if you want to call them that.

Workplace Injuries, Illness and Death
  • 5,703 5,764 workers were killed in the workplace due to traumatic injuries in 2004, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is an increase from the number of deaths in 2003, when 5,575 workplace deaths were reported. The rate of fatal injuries was 4.1 per 100,000 workers in 2004 compared to 4.0 per 100,000 workers in 2003, a 2 percent increase. The increase in the fatality rate in 2004 was the first increase in the national fatality rate since 1994.


  • Fatalities among foreign-born and native born Hispanic workers increased in 2004. Fatalities among Hispanic workers increased by 11 percent over 2003, with 883 902 fatalities among this group of workers. The rate of fatal injuries to Hispanic or Latino workers increased from 4.5 per 100,000 workers in 2003 to 4.9 5.0 per 100,000 workers in 2004, a 9 11 percent increase. The fatality rate among Hispanic or Latino workers in 2004 was 19 percent higher than the fatal injury rate for all U.S. workers.


  • 4.3 million injuries and illnesses were reported in private-sector workplaces in 2004, a slight decrease from 4.4 million in 2003. The manufacturing sector had the most injuries, accounting for 22 percent of the total, while health care and social assistance workers accounted for 16 percent of injuries and illnesses, followed by the retail trade at 15%.


  • There were over 400,000 musculoskeletal disorder cases (back, shoulder, wrist pain and disability) in 2004, again accounting for nearly one-third of all injuries and illnesses involving days away from work. (Note that OSHA has estimated that for every MSD reported, there is another that was not reported.)


  • Underreporting: The report also contains a lengthy discussion of how and why the BLS underestimates the number of workplace injuries and illnesses in the United States. We reported earlier this month about a Michigan State University study that showed that the BLS may miss two-thirds of all injuries and illnesses. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that the data doesn't count many categories of workers. Then, there are built-in incentives for employers to underreport, including workers comp systems that will charge more if there's an increase in injuries, and OSHA's system of targeting inspections at companies that report high rates. Finally, of course, there are employer programs of providing incentives to workers for not reporting injuries, or punishing workers that do.
The problem is not new, nor is it going away, despite the fact that the problem is well known:
Year after year, all of these factors known to contribute to significant underreporting are ignored as the statistics are rattled off and administration officials take credit for policies that drove the numbers down. Yet it is these same policymakers who are responsible for ensuring a clear and accurate picture of injury and illness in our nation’s workplaces.

We must not allow inaccurate data to drive safety and health efforts. Only with an accurate picture of the nature of occupational safety and health problems may employers and policymakers work to reduce the occupational safety and health hazards that cause workplace injury, illness and death. Until policymakers require an accurate picture, occupational injuries will continue and there will be no clear strategy to address workplace hazards.
Cost of Workplace Injuries And Death

The Liberty Mutual Insurance company estimates that workplace injuries cost U.S. employers $50.3 billion – nearly $1 billion per week – in direct costs alone (medical and lost wage payments). Liberty Mutual data indicate businesses pay between $150.9 billion and $301.1 billion annually in direct and indirect (overtime, training and lost productivity) costs on workers’ compensation losses.

OSHA Enforcement and Coverage

Staffing: OSHA continues to be seriously understaffed. In FY 2005, there are at most 2,117 federal and state OSHA inspectors responsible for enforcing the law at approximately eight million workplaces. At its current staffing and inspection levels, it would take federal OSHA 117 years to inspect each workplace under its jurisdiction just once. Things are slightly better in the 21 state-plan states that run their own programs. It would only take them a combined 65 years to inspect each worksite under state jurisdiction once. Fewer inspections were conducted in FY 2005 than in FY 2004.

Penalties remain low with serious violations of the OSH Act carrying an average penalty of only $883. Although the number of willful violations issued by federal OSHA increased from 446 in FY 2004 to 726 in FY 2005, 303 of these willful violations were against the BP Texas City Refinery where a March 2005 explosion killed 15 workers and injured 170.

In FY 2005, the Department of Labor referred ten enforcement cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. Under the OSH Act, an employer may be subject to criminal prosecution in cases where a willful violation results in a worker’s death.

Regulatory (In)Action


This is a short section. OSHA issued only one major regulation last year, covering hexavalent chromium, and it was only done under court order. We've written a bit about this already (here, here and here), but in case you're still catching up, the standard was issued with permissible exposure limit (PEL) five times what was originally proposed by the agency; a level exposure which by OSHA’s own admission will leave workers at a significant risk of developing cancer. The final standard also failed to cover hexavalent chromium found in Portland cement, weakened worker access to exposure monitoring results, scaled back worker training requirements, and gave employers four years to implement engineering controls to protect workers.

Otherwise there's not much going on. OSHA still refuses to issue a standard requiring employers to pay for employees' gloves, boots and other personal protective equipment -- a standard that has been hanging around since the later days of the Clinton administration. OSHA says its working on five economically significant regulations (Crystalline Silica, Confined Spaces in Construction, Beryllium, Hearing Conservation for Construction Workers, and Electric Power Transmission and Distribution), but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Job Safety Budget

To sum up:
President George W. Bush’s proposed FY 2007 budget for worker safety and health programs reflects the administration’s policies toward worker protection—it includes priorities and policies that favor employers over workers and voluntary compliance over enforcement.
OSHA: Bush proposed $484 million for FY 2007. Adjusting for inflation, this is about the same as FY 2006, but in real dollar terms (adjusting for inflation), in represents a $14.5 million (3%) cut since FY 2001 when the Bush administration took office. As might be expected, more money is going to voluntary effort for employers and compliance assistance, while standard setting and state enforcement programs have taken major hits, and every year Bush tries to eliminate the $10.3 million Susan Harwood Training Grant Program.

MSHA: The Bush administration is proposing $287 million for FY 2007, a 1.4% increase over 2006, adjusting for inflation, but representing a $13.6 million (9%) cut, since FY 2001 after adjusting for inflation.

NIOSH: Bush proposed a $250 million budget for NOISH, cutting NIOSH's funding by $4.5 million over FY 2006.

Challenges

Hispanic and Foreign Born Workers: Immigrant workers face an epidemic of workplace injury and death and are at far greater risk of being killed or injured on the job than native born workers. Although the share of foreign-born employment has increased by 22 percent between 1996 and 2000, the share of fatal occupational injuries for this population increased by 43 percent. ,” Hispanic men have the greatest overall relative risk of fatal occupational injury of any gender or race/ethnicity group. 22 percent higher than the relative risk for all men.

Ergonomics: Ergonomic injuries still are the biggest job-safety hazard faced by workers, accounting for one-third of all injuries and illnesses. Yet despite Administration promises of a "comprehensive plan" for ergonomics following their 2001 repeal of OSHA's ergonomics standard, only three guidelines have been issued, and the agency has issued on 17 General Duty Clause citations over the past five years.

Pandemic Flu: Despite legitimate fears that the avian flu may develop into a pandemic that could make 30% of the entire population of the United States sick and kill 1.9 million persons, the federal government is failing to plan effectively how to protect the millions of health care workers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, home health care workers and other responders will be needed to care for those who are ill from the virus.

The Pandemic Influenza Plan, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, dangerously recommends the use of surgical masks instead of NIOSH certified respirators, and HHS is also pushing the idea to reuse diposable respirators. Surgical masks will not protect workers against the flu, plus they are illegal under OSHA's respiratory protection standard.

Gulf Coast Hurricane Response Hazards: OSHA’s presence in the Gulf has largely been providing information and it has yet to enforce any of its health and safety standards and carry out its core responsibilities in the areas most heavily destroyed. This lack of enforcement will put workers at increased risk of injury and illness.

Work Organization: Workers in the United States now work more hours than workers in most of Western Europe and Japan. Evidence is growing that long hours of work cause more injuries and illnesses such as heart attacks, increased blood pressure, unhealthy weight gain, increased alcohol use and smoking.

The ways in which work is performed and is being restructured are also emerging as a potential safety and health hazard for workers. Machine-paced work, inadequate work-rest cycles, time pressures and repetitive work are associated with musculoskeletal disorders, increases in blood pressure and risks of cardiovascular mortality. The nurse shortage is resulting in long hours of work and high patient-to-nurse hospital staffing ratios which have been linked to increases in needle injuries and near misses, nurse burnout and elevated surgical patient mortality. In response, nine states have passed legislation placing limits on the amount of mandatory overtime nurses or health care workers can be forced to work (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia).

And finally,

What Needs To Be Done?
Very simply, workers need more job safety and health protection. The Bush administration’s lack of regulation and increased attention to employer assistance and voluntary compliance comes at the expense of worker safety and health. The OSH Act needs to be strengthened to make it easier to issue safety and health standards and to make the penalties for violating the law tougher. Workers need to be given a real voice in the workplace and real rights to participate in safety and health as part of a comprehensive safety program to identify and correct hazards. Coverage should be extended to the millions of workers who fall outside the Act’s protection.

Immediate action is needed to strengthen mine safety and health requirements to protect miners in the event of an emergency, to prohibit dangerous practices like the use of belt air for coal mine ventilation and to increase penalties for serious and repeated violations.

A standard still is needed to protect workers from ergonomic hazards and crippling repetitive strain injuries and back injuries, which continue to represent the most significant job-safety problem in the nation. OSHA needs to keep up with new hazards that face workers as workplaces and the nature of work change. Hazardous conditions in the service sector and in retail trade need greater attention. OSHA and MSHA need additional funding to develop and enforce standards and to expand worker safety and health training. Similarly, additional funds are needed for NIOSH to support enhanced research on safety and health problems.

Monday, December 19, 2005

OSHA "Guidance" Sows Confusion

As you've read here and in almost every paper in the United States, workers cleaning up New Orleans and the Gulf area are exposed to a large number of hazards. Many of these are "traditional" -- falls, electrocutions, power tools, confined spaces, slips & trips. But others are "new," not clearly identified and not covered by any specific OSHA standards: mold, toxic dust (impregnated with chemical wastes) and chemical spills of unknown origin. In other words, it's a toxic mess down there.

Luckily, one might think, OSHA has the perfect standard: the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response or "HAZWOPER" standard (29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65), which covers workers working at hazardous waste sites or workers engaged in "emergency response" to emergencies involving hazardous substances. Although the standard was originally intended to address Superfund cleanups and chemical emergency responses, it sounds like a perfect fit for Katrina workers, right?

Not so fast. Coverage under OSHA standards is much more complicated than you think. So, to clear things up, OSHA has helpfully issued guidance
that is intended to clarify and explain "the conditions in which a response or cleanup activity may fall under the requirements of HAZWOPER."

Sounds good.

Not so fast. I used to work at OSHA, plus I've been in this field going on 25 years -- interpreting OSHA standards,
writing OSHA standards, writing fact sheets about OSHA standards -- so you'd think I'd understand what this guidance was saying.

I didn't. So I hung back for a few days, waiting for journalists or some of my colleagues to explain it to me.

They couldn't.

The good news is that I'm not crazy. The bad news is that OSHA is.

For example, on one hand, according to this "guidance":
When the following conditions, or similar conditions, may develop as a consequence of a release of hazardous substances or threat of release, such situations would be considered emergency situations requiring an emergency response effort:
  • High concentrations of toxic substances.
  • Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) environments.
  • Situations that present an oxygen deficient atmosphere.
  • Conditions that pose a fire or explosion hazard.
  • Situations that require an evacuation of the area.
  • Situations that require immediate attention because of the danger posed to employees in the area.
On the other hand:
The HAZWOPER standard does not cover the inevitable release of a hazardous substance that is limited in quantity, exposure potential, or toxicity, and poses no emergency or significant threat to the safety and health of employees in the immediate vicinity or to the employee cleaning it up. These incidental releases also do not have the potential to become emergencies within a short time frame.
You're covered under HAZWOPER's emergency response section if your response involves a hazardous substance. Sounds easy? That would include mold, contaminated soil and other icky looking stuff. Right?

Not exactly:
Hazardous substance means any substance designated or listed under (A) through (d) of this definition, exposure to which results or may result in adverse effects on the health or safety of employees.

[A] Any substance defined under section 101(14) of CERCLA.
[B] Any biologic agent and other disease causing agent which after release into the environment and upon exposure., ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any person, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction) or physical deformation in such person or their offspring.
[C] Any substance listed by the U.S. Department of Transportation as hazardous materials under 49 CFT 172.101 and appendices; and
[D] Hazardous waste as herein defined. Hazardous waste means --
[A] A waste or combination of wastes as defined in 40 CFR 261.3, or
[B] Those substances defined as hazardous wastes in 49 CFR 171.8.
And if you're not confused now, check out the charts in the document.

Now, it's possible, (although I doubt it) that this might mean something to an OSHA inspector or attorney in the context of what's going on in the Gulf, but this was released as a document that
will assist workers and employers in determining whether an activity is, or would be considered, an "emergency response" activity under OSHA's Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
Fat chance.

This is a perfect example of a document that should not be written by attorneys or by Public Affairs people in Washington D.C. It should be written -- or at least tested -- by those in the field, perhaps even by some real employers or workers.

And, although I hate to beat a dead horse (although as someone recently told me, sometimes there's no horse too dead for me to keep beating it), this is also an example of what happens when a government agency that is supposed to address the concerns of workers never talks to any real workers.

The sign outside says "Department of Labor" -- but that's apparently just for show.


Update for Government bashers: This is not an inherent problem of government. Some agencies actually manage to put out materials that are helpful and understandable. Check out the NIEHS Katrina site for example. Now check out OSHA's materials.

Compare.

Discuss.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Kansas City Star Clobbers OSHA

It's a delightful, but all-too-rare occurence when reporters (and not just lonely bloggers) actually see the sham that this nation's attention to workplace safety has become.

Only hours after starting his first day on the job, Les James was dead.

The 25-year-old father of three was working on a window-cleaning crew in July 2000. Suddenly, the window-washing rig fell off the roof of Research Medical Center, catapulting James to his death 84 feet below. Two other window washers were seriously injured.

That morning, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration launched an investigation. OSHA cited the Holden, Mo., window-cleaning company — which had a fatal accident only four years earlier — for serious safety violations in James’ accident, records show.

The company’s fine: $2,700.
So begins a Kansas City Star series on OSHA and workplace deaths, focusing on the low penalties for workplace deaths. I'm officially nominating Star reporter Mike Casey for Confined Space Journalist of the Year. Instead of just regurgitating the usual "on one hand...on the other hand" debate, Casey and Star staff analyzed 27,281 Kansas records in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s inspection database from July 1972 through January 2005, looked at trends in average fines and industries with the most fatal or serious injury accidents, interviewed more than 100 people and reviewed thousands of pages of records for these stories. And with the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting in Columbia analyzed the 3.3-million record OSHA database for the United States and its territories

What has emerged is a tragic indictment of this country's commitment to ensure a safe workplace for every American worker, a story that would be news if it were actually news. Unfortunately, as the Star found, James's story is just business as usual for the agency charged with protecting the health and safety of American workers:

The Star found that in 80 such fatal and injury accidents, half of the fines Kansas City area employers paid were $3,000 or less. Regulators and OSHA lawyers reduced employers’ initial fines by nearly 60 percent. Adjusted for inflation, fines last year averaged less than they were in 1972.

And in three accidents that killed five area workers, OSHA changed its most serious citations from willful violations to “unclassified” — removing the word “willful” in describing the violations — and then significantly reduced the fines.

Nationwide, fines were even lower in the last decade. Half of the fines employers paid were $2,500 or less in fatal and injury accidents involving at least one serious violation.

Many experts said low fines were a symptom of the agency’s weakness, even when taking enforcement action in the worst accidents.

But the current administration defends the "penalties," having discovered new laws of human nature: people actually don't respond to fines or punishments -- I guess because they really just wanted to do the right thing all along:

“As far as we’re concerned, the amount of the penalty is incidental to the accomplishment that we get as the result of that inspection,” [OSHA Regional Administrator Charles] Adkins said.

But even former OSHA administrators decried the low fines.
“Fines are not a deterrent,” said Charles Jeffress, who led the agency in the Clinton administration. “The level of fines that Congress has authorized is an insult to the American worker.”

Jerry Scannell, an OSHA administrator in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, said: “It’s almost like chump change with some companies.”

OSHA’s own policies state that penalties should be “sufficient to serve as an effective deterrent to violations.”

But the agency is limited by law to maximum civil fines of $7,000 for each serious violation and $70,000 for each willful violation. Those maximums have not been raised since 1991. And OSHA’s policies allow it to reduce fines for companies with fewer than 251 employees and for other factors.The rest of the article joins the debate over whether OSHA fines do any good. Advocates of stronger penalties argue that because OSHA can visit relatively few workplaces every year, big penalties are needed to set an example. But even the Star doesn't realize how few workplaces OSHA is able to visit, claiming that "It would take inspectors many years to visit every workplace under their jurisdiction."

Years? Not even close. Actually, according to the AFL-CIO, on a national basis, it would be closer to a century for OSHA inspectors to visit every workplace in the country.


Interestingly, opponents use the same facts to argue against higher penalties:

“A lot of employers … are never going to see an OSHA inspector, and that fear is never going to motivate them,” said Marc Freedman. “I’m not convinced employers look at the OSHA citation situation in deciding whether they’re going to do the right thing in protecting their employees.”

Indeed, some businesses said the fear of workers’ compensation costs is a bigger factor in eliminating safety hazards than OSHA fines.
Actually, if anyone thinks that either fines or workers comp is an adequate deterrent, I have a 15 foot deep unshored trench I'd like you to climb down into.

Susan Baker, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University who has expertise in occupational safety, argues that “Until the fine for ignoring a hazard is bigger than the cost of fixing the hazard, a lot of employers won’t do anything.”

Well, OSHA has a long way to go before its penalties are that high.

The Star also discusses an OSHA innovation -- the "unclassified penalty."

About 15 years ago, OSHA began changing some of its willful safety violations — its most serious charge — to “unclassified.”

The reclassification does not change OSHA’s findings, but it removes the words “willful,” “repeat” or “serious” in describing the nature of the violations, OSHA’s Adkins said.

OSHA records show that the agency uses the unclassified citations as a “settlement tool” to correct safety hazards quickly and avoid lengthy litigation. The change also allows employers to avoid the stigma of being labeled a willful violator, records noted.

But the newspaper found that changing willful violations to unclassified in at least three local fatal workplace accidents also was accompanied by dramatically lower fines.

Adkins said the agency has a policy of collecting at least 80 percent of a proposed penalty in settlements that involve unclassified violations, but he acknowledged, “That doesn’t always occur.”

Indeed. Casey goes on to cite three cases where OSHA penalties were reduced from 40% to 72% after the penalties were downgraded from "willful" to "unclassified.

“I think it’s really outrageous,” said Peg Seminario, director of safety and health for the AFL-CIO. “There should be no unclassified citations, particularly in the case of fatalities.”

Oh, and by the way, don't waste a lot of time looking for "unclassified penalties" in the OSHAct -- because they don't exist. Congress must of overlooked the benefits of helping employers avoid the stigma of being known to their friends as willful killers.

And then there's this old news:

Killing Workers Is A Misdemeanor, according to the OSH Act

That fact is nothing new to Confined Space readers, but I'm thinking most Americans would be shocked. As Clinton Administration OSHA director Charles Jeffress says: “By saying, ‘It is a misdemeanor to willfully kill a worker’ just underscores the lack of value put on a worker’s life by Congress.”

“They’ve gotten out of the standards business.”

So says Eula Bingham, who led the agency in the Carter administration. Even Jerry Scannel of the Bush I administration agrees:
“Standards development has been slow — slower than it should be.” Scannell suggested that Congress or the Labor Department could require the agency to establish safety and health standards within three years.
Hmm, interesting idea. I wonder what current OSHA leadership thinks about that suggestion?
The Star requested an interview with acting OSHA Administrator Jonathan Snare to discuss standards, but he declined. A Labor Department spokesman said it was inappropriate for Snare to comment while the nomination of Edwin Foulke Jr. as OSHA administrator was pending before the Senate. Foulke also declined to be interviewed.

In a written statement, OSHA said the Bush administration had issued some standards, but not ones that would have wide economic impact.
As usual, this excellent series leaves me with mixed emotions. Although it's great that the Star invested so much inand resources developing this series, it also points out how pathetic most of the rest of the media is in this country. There's no reason to believe that the situation in Kansas is unique. There should be reporters in every state busy writing similar articles. And readers should rise up and force politicians to try and defend the underfunding and understaffing of OSHA. They should be forced to go before the parents, spouses and children of those who gave their lives so cheaply to earn a living and defend their refusal to strengthen OSHA's penalty structure.

And anyone who whines about how oppressed small businesses are by evil OSHA regulations, or dares to support the shameful legislation in Congress that further weakens OSHA should be kicked unceremoniously out of office.

Oh, and one more thing, Mr. Casey. For your next story you might want to look into a group of Kansas workers who are in even worse shape than the employees you just covered: public employees in Kansas (and 26 other states) who have no OSHA protection. Another story that shouldn't be news.

Kansas City Star Series

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

A Carolina COSH Member in John Henshaw's Court

I'm still on vacation (actually, a break between two vacations -- taking my daughter to college tomorrow -- sniff), but with a little help from my friends, Confined Space goes on.

Tom O'Connor, Coordinator of the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (the umbrella organization of COSH groups), attended a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) the other day and filed the report below.

NACOSH, as originally devised, was a true advisory committee. While I was at OSHA, NACOSH members set their own agenda, requesting reports from OSHA and other experts on various topics, such as alternative methods of rulemaking or improving OSHA's enforcement policies, in addition to listening to (and discussing) reports on the progress on OSHA's projects. They were generally fairly lively meetings that held the feet of the Assistant Secretary, NIOSH Director and OSHA Directorate heads to the fire.

According to Tom, things have changed over the past couple of years:

I attended a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) the other day and, while I learned some things about what OSHA and NIOSH have been doing lately, I left somewhat puzzled as to the role of this committee. In a six and a half hour meeting, there was a total of 30 minutes devoted to “committee discussion” and a few scattered minutes for questions from committee members. The rest of the time was devoted to presentations by OSHA Director John Henshaw and his staff and Dr. John Howard, Director of NIOSH.

Now the members of this committee seem to be a dedicated, nice bunch of folks—too nice maybe. If I had been sitting on the committee rather than just being an observer, I would have liked to ask a few questions about some of the statements made by Mr. Henshaw during the meeting, for example:

1) Ergonomics: Henshaw pointed to the fact that the agency conducted 1,703 inspections addressing ergonomic hazards over the past year, resulting in 300 “hazard alerts” and fourteen citations under the General Duty clause. Whoa, was I wrong! I guess that ergonomics standard wasn’t really necessary after all! All those inspections, presumably in high ergo-hazard industries, and less than one-tenth of one percent is found to have a problem! If I had been on the committee, I would have wanted to hear more about how they were so successful in their ergonomic hazard prevention efforts that 99.9% of inspected worksites are now free of serious ergo hazards.

2) The public’s right to know: Henshaw matter of factly stated that the agency has been fighting a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times seeking more detailed inspections data. Now readers of Confined Space will remember that OSHA hasn’t always appeared real enthusiastic about giving full access to the inspections data on their website, but what’s up with fighting the FOIA request? Didn’t the committee at least deserve an explanation as to why the public doesn’t have a right to this information? A court recently ruled against them, Henshaw explained, and now they are “considering our next steps.” He didn’t ask the “advisory” committee for their advice on how to proceed.

3) The Hispanic “Summit”: As previously reported here, OSHA recently held a conference on Hispanic worker health and safety without bothering to involve most of the public health experts, grassroots Latino organizations, or labor unions who have real experience in these issues in the planning process. The conference was reported at the meeting to be a stunning success. Undoubtedly, some useful information exchange took place and folks in attendance got to see Secretary Chao hand out a real big check to a faith-based Latino organization in Florida, in case anyone missed the real point of the whole exercise. (Maybe the Bush folks saw this as particularly culturally appropriate since handing out pre-election goodies is a tried and true campaign tactic in Latin America.) If I were on the committee, I would have liked to ask why they decided to have the meeting in Florida in the middle of the summer (The cheap airfares? All the great restaurants in Orlando?) and why the only Hispanic organizations involved were the Chamber of Commerce and a Republican political organization.


4) The "benefits" of deregulation: In response to the recent Washington Post story which essentially accused the current administration of bringing worker safety and health regulations to a grinding halt, Henshaw stated that the story contained “a number of inaccuracies.” He declined to specify what these were. He said that he was “proud” of the agency’s action in killing the TB rule and in their general approach to regulation. I would have liked to ask him for a little clarification on how taking away health workers’ protections from TB was a step forward.

But, hey, I’m not on the committee.

By the way, kudos to NIOSH Director Howard for staying through the full day of the meeting, offering some insights into NIOSH research priorities, and making a point of talking to folks attending the meeting.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Hispanic Summit: Political Advantage Without Political Leadership

I've spent quite a bit of time trashing the Bush Administration's recent Hispanic Summit (here, here and here), so now I'm happy give some bandwidth to Maria Echaveste, President Clinton's former Deputy Chief of Staff and currently senior fellow at the American Progress Action Fund and a member of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Echaveste argues that "the summit was one more example of how the Bush administration never misses an opportunity to seek political advantage without actually exhibiting leadership."

We've already discussed here the "photo-op" nature of the event while Hispanic workers continue to die in high numbers:
What else can one conclude when the big news of the summit was a grant in the sum of $2.75 million to Esperanza USA, a faith-based Hispanic nonprofit organization, to work in nine U.S. cities with at-risk Hispanic youth? While a worthwhile goal, it is hard not to see the political opportunism at play here when two of the cities are Miami and Orlando in hotly contested Florida. Even the declaration signed with Mexico's secretary for foreign affairs, also announced at the summit, was all talk and no action. That declaration simply affirmed both countries' commitment to improving workplace protections for Mexican workers in the United States, without any new resources or enhanced enforcement efforts.
Echaveste points out however, that if the Bush administration was really interested in helping Hispanic workers, there was something concrete they could have done:
Chao might have used this summit to announce administration support for the AgJobs bill sponsored by Sens. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, and Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat. Enactment of this bill would do more to save lives and prevent injuries than Chao's thinly veiled political pandering of last week. Why? Simply because one of the three most dangerous industries in the country is agriculture, and Latinos comprise more than 90 percent of farmworkers. Yet because 80 percent of that workforce is undocumented, many workers are afraid to speak up when facing work-safety issues for fear of deportation.

The AgJobs bill would grant temporary legal status to approximately 500,000 farmworkers and an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status if those workers continue to work in agriculture for a specified period of time. And because agriculture is so dependent on a foreign workforce, the bill would also update the existing foreign temporary worker program to enable employers to recruit the workers they need in a legal manner, and no longer be complicit in the underground labor market that is the underpinning of agriculture.
The bill has the support of organized labor and the agriculture industry. So why are Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) holding it up?
The vocal but small anti-immigrant wing of the Republican Party appears to be more important to Bush than finding solutions to intractable problems.

Monday, August 02, 2004

Court Orders OSHA To Disclose Companies' Safety Records

Right wing & libertarian think tanks often argue that OSHA is not needed because in a perfect market system, workers who think a job is too dangerous could just ask for more money, or move freely to a safer job. One of the many, many, many problems with this theory is figuring out which employer is safer. Aside from monitoring the news to see who dies where, there was no easy way...until now, thanks to a lawsuit filed by the New York Times.
A federal judge has ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to disclose for the first time the company names and the worker injury and illness rates of the American workplaces with the worst safety records.

The ruling, issued Friday but released yesterday, came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in October 2002 by The New York Times. The Times asked the agency, known as OSHA, to release the injury rates for 13,000 sites it had identified as having unusually high numbers of worker injuries and illnesses.

Up to now, the agency has published the names of the sites with worker injuries above an established norm, but not the injury rates for specific sites or any ranking to identify the worst offenders. In practice, it was difficult for reporters or the public to know where it was riskiest to work and whether the agency was effective in bringing about improvements.
Employers had allegedly worried that the information would allow "trade secrets" to be disclosed because the data included "hours worked" by their employees. OSHA had argued that the agency would have to spend valuable resources asking each and every one of the 13,000 employers for permission.

The judge noted, however, that the new recordkeeping standard already requires employers to post hours worked, so that the information is no longer confidential.
David E. McCraw, a lawyer for The Times, said the ruling forces the agency to "reveal information that we think should be public: what workplaces are America's most dangerous." The ruling applies only to injury figures for 2002.

Ed Frank, a spokesman for the Labor Department, which includes OSHA, said, "We are reviewing the decision and options to determine what approach best advances the department's mission to protect workers."
If the ruling is eventually expanded to additional years, the information will allow outside researchers to determine the effectiveness of OSHA's targeting program.

More here.