The Effects Of Osha 's Mandate Under Section 3 ( 8 ) Essay

“The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) was passed to prevent workers from being killed or seriously harmed at work. The law requires that employers provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers. The Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which sets and enforces protective workplace safety and health standards. OSHA also provides information, training and assistance to workers and employers. Workers may file a complaint to have OSHA inspect their workplace if they believe that their employer is not following OSHA standards or there are serious hazards. “OSHA's commitment is to provide information to help employers and employees in the meat-packing industry comply with OSHA standards and increase safety in the workplace. There are currently no specific standards for the meat-packing industry.” (OSHA, N.D).

“Employees or their representatives have a right to request an inspection of a workplace if they believe there is a violation of a safety or health standard, or if there is any danger that threatens physical harm, or if an "imminent danger" exists. In addition, anyone who knows about a

As referenced in the text (Moran 2011), “In establishing standards, the Secretary of Labor must set forth standards to prevent employees from suffering substantial harm to their health even if the employee worked at this job for most of his or her adult life. The Secretary of Labor must rely on research and experiments to establish reliable

In 2008, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. have failed to ensure a sustainable safety environment, put in place a health program, and maintain adequate record keeping on work-related injury and illnesses claims for certain locations in the state of Ohio. This employer has been made aware of OSHA requirements for its industry and has been cited many times for similar infractions. OSHA regulators have imposed stiff penalty fines that have cost Lowe’s Companies Inc. thousands of dollars. The record-keeping violations at the

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), often referred to as the "OSH Act," was enacted in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon. Its purpose is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women (EPA, 2006). The Act is administered and enforced at the national level by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a division of the US Department of Labor. The application of the OSH Act in the current employment climate will be discussed as it applies to a variety of industries; considerations that are most applicable to the specific type of industry will be discussed initially, and those that are equally important regardless of the type of business will complete the section. Finally, this paper will discuss how the

The OSH Act of 1970 came about following a congressional finding that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a “substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments”. Congress declared it to be within its rights, by virtue of its power to regulate commerce, to assure all people safe and healthy working conditions and to preserve human resources.

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

With the area director allowing for an informal meeting to take place, it is up to me to make sure that I come prepared to this meeting. Making sure that I have all of the facts on why I believe that OSHA should lower penalties and decrease the severity level of some of the citations. I will be bringing with me to the meeting my newly hired Industrial Hygienist and the new Manager of Plant Safety (MPS) to speak in depth about the new safety measures that have been put in place. Before bringing up individual citations I am going to bring up OSHA's own rules on lowering fines based on certain facts about the company in which the citation was levied.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) was developed and approved because of the escalating costs of accidents and illnesses in the workplace. According to Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, and Cardy (2010), OSHA is a national law that requires organizations to offer a safe and healthy workplace, to conform with particular occupational and health standards, and to document job-related injuries and diseases.

Current events that surround safety and involvement in these unsafe related subjects seen as oversight in the area personal protective equipment. In the OSHA news release dated 02/24/2016 OSHA reported that the company “OSHA cited Heritage Thermal Services for failing to: Monitor work areas and evaluate the effectiveness of respirators. Implement a decontamination procedure. Provide adequate personal protective equipment and ensure it was used by employees” (OSHA, 2016). In the article it is clear that this company has violated the “General Duty Clause” that OSHA has prescribed as a mandate to follow. Based on this report OSHA goes on to say that “CLEVELAND - Federal inspectors found toxic exposure to aniline that sent a 56-year-old service

1910.334(a)(1) Handling of the equipment. Bonnie ran an extension cord across to an outlet which could be hazardous in the workplace. Someone could trip over the cord and depending if it was the appropriate length to reach the outlet it could damage the socket if being stretched causing damage to the outlet. Also 1910.334(a)(2) Visual Inspection. The equipment was not inspected before use.

Facts: On October 17, 2013, Ronnie Lopez, a previous U.S. Utility worker, received injuries at a worksite. Several months earlier, U.S. Utility denied Ronnie Lopez worker’s compensation claim. Consequently, Ronnie Lopez filed an OSHA hazard complaint against U.S. Utility. U.S. Utility denied Lopez worker’s compensation claim due to no potential for electrical damage on October 17, 2013. U.S. Utility’s investigation concluded no evidence of burns on Lopez’s body, tools, or toolbox. Moreover,

Throughout this paper you will get a brief summary over Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Through professional experiences I have ran into many violations regarding unsafe work environments, retaliation, and not receiving the correct pay. Title VII, as well as OSHA prohibits retaliation against any employee, who has filed a complaint. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 gives employees the chance to file a complaint of unfair pay, in hopes to receive their lost wages. As one may recognize these violations come with many ethical issues such as, not putting employee’s safety first, not paying employees, and leading people to find the company as being untrustworthy.

The effectiveness of the rule depends on compliance by U.S. industries, which has been dismal in the past. Fortunately, the rule also requires employers to regularly monitor the level of silica exposure in their workplaces, and to monitor the health of their employees. Hopefully this will give the silica rule the effectiveness it never had in the past, acting both as an accountability buddy and as potential evidence of dangerous workplace conditions should the industry fail to meet OSHA standards. Time will tell whether it will make a difference. You can read the final rule in its entirety

The federal government established multiple organizations, including OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency, to protect workers from dangerous occupational conditions such as asbestos exposure. An estimated five million workers in America are required to wear respirators at work because of OSHA regulations. Frequently cited OSHA standard violation is respiratory protection, which involves harmful dusts, gases and vapors, and more specifically, microscopic asbestos