OSHA Increasing Fines and Penalties SIGNIFICANTLY!

The days of "playing the numbers game" with fatalities in the workplace vs. fines or worse, litigation and settlements and insurance premiums is coming to an end ... the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) is coming to town. Willful violations will start at $250,000 and go up from

H.R.2067 - Protecting America's Workers Act of 2009 (PAWA)

Even though the statistics for 2008 appear to show improvement in worker safety, there is very important legislation being developed in the U.S. Congress, one is the Protecting America's Workers Act of 2009 (PAWA. Some highlights of

OSHA Releases Fall Statistics for 2008; GOOD NEWS!!!

It is with amazement and great pleasure we present the statistics from OSHA
including the year 2008, in the two tables below, from OSHA, along with our
comments.
Fatal falls nationwide FELL 20% from 847 in 2007 (the worst year on record)
to 680 in 2008, a number not seen since 1995, fifteen (15) years ago! The
fatality rate per 100,000 hours worked dropped by 10% overall since 2007. We
don't have

OSHA Releases Fall Statistics for 2008; Table 1 and Table 2

Table 2

Table 1

OSHA Interpretation Letter of March 28, 2005; ANSI/IWCA I-14.1

This OSHA Interpretation Letter was taken from http://www.osha.gov/ and outlines the rules regarding the ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001 and how it will be used in citations. Click title to read more ...

Florida Roofing Firm Fined $54,100 for 9 Violations

OSHA cited a Pompano, FL roofing company with 9 violations and $54,100 in fines 6 months after a worker fell 30 feet to his death., because this worker had no fall protection and also because the roofing company continued to expose workers to the very same hazard!

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-bn-0311roofer,0,3202455.story

$70,000 OSHA Fine to Contractor in Massachusetts

This incident was "willfull" and the potential fall was 50' high - no fall occured and no injury occured. OSHA is doing the right thing!

http://safetyduck.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-just-dont-get-it.html

It's like getting people to wear seat belts (or helmets) - inconvenient, time consuming, uncomfortable - and it flies in the face of the "it won't happen to me" attitude. The fact is, people have car (and motorcycle) accidents and seat belts (and helmets) save lives, and prevent injury - at least as compared to not wearing one. Think about the costs to business of all the accidents that could be avoided. Think about the cost to businesses when a worker dies. Insurance companies should charge higher premiums to those who don't comply, and offer discounts to those who do (like safe driver programs). Workers who fail to wear their PPE should get fines (ie "tickets") every time it happens, and 3 strikes and you are out ("FIRED!"). If the employer or the property owner / manager or general contractor doesn't enforce this, they should be fined severely - and let those fines help pay for the financial bailouts (ha!).

ZERO TOLERANCE!

Canada appears to be stepping up its efforts to prevent fatalities from falls. Recently companies have been fined quite severely in Canada for accidents and for infractions of safety regulations. The great news is the Pro-Active approach to prevention and protection - saving lives.
Here in the USA we suffer from

ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001: an OSHA National Consensus Standard for Window Cleaning (Highlights)

The ANSI / IWCA I-14.1-2001 is an OSHA National Consensus Standard. It has been referenced in several OSHA CITATIONS (found elsewhere in this blog) -- buildings new and old need to meet the requirements of this standard. A few highlights (click title for more):

OSHA References to ANSI I-14.1; It Is Law

Building managers and engineers have been asking, "is the ANSI I-14.1 a requirement, is it a code that we must adhere to?" For some, the answer isn't a clear "yes" or "no", but "it depends". Technically, there is a gray area here. We like to think that the answer is an emphatic YES! Please see the links to OSHA below for our proof. (click title for more)