d. There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard
I use this requirement as one of MANY regulations that show OSHA puts the industry's health over the workers health. So if the hazard is recognized and can cause death or serious harm, but there is no "feasible and useful method" to correct it (translate "affordable"), then the worker is just s't out of luck? If there is no good method to protect us, then OSHA regulations require that we shut up and face death on the job every day?
WRONG. If there is no safe way to do something, then NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DO IT. It is the industry that is not viable. Let the employer suit up and take the risk. We'll hold his coat, watch, and call 911 if needed, but we won't put our job ahead of our lives no matter what OSHA says.
OSHA has the same requirements for all of their regulations and standards. OSHA cannot create any rule that would endanger the financial health of the industry even if the workers' lives are endangered by failure to regulate. The first thing we need to train students of occupational health and safety to understand is what their rights on the job are, and what they ARE NOT.
I leave it to you to figure out what you think these rules SHOULD be.
Time for my medication.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Info <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Sent: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] OSHA issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus
Insurance carriers and attorneys will take up any slack, no doubt.
It will be interesting to see if anyone ultimate pursues class actions based on the OHSA General Duty Clause, particularly from early in the pandemic in places like meat processing facilities. See, for example,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-meat-workers-59k/ I would expect that any defendant would try to argue that not enough was known at the time to take proper measures, but that the discovery process will ultimately show otherwise.
Employers can be cited for violation of the General Duty Clause if a recognized serious hazard exists in their workplace and the employer does not take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the hazard. The General Duty Clause is used only where there is no standard that applies to the particular hazard. The following elements are necessary to prove a violation of the General Duty Clause:
- The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed;
- The hazard was recognized;
- The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and
- There was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.
Slam dunk case in my mind.
Rob Toreki
I wonder if OSHA has an enforcement strategy for this that reflects its resource levels?
- Ralph
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOL/bulletins/2fab063News Release from OSHA
U.S. Department of Labor | November 4, 2021
US Department of Labor issues emergency temporary standard to protect workers from coronavirus
Increases protections for 84M private sector workers
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at 