Fall and Fine Could Have Been Prevented With Proper Safety Plan

 

Fell 10 Feet From Roof
 
New Zealand building company Keith Hay Homes Ltd. has been fined $22,100 after the employee of a contractor was seriously injured after falling almost 10 feet from a roof, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.
 
The Auckland District Court heard that on June 9, 2011 three employees of Metind Limited were working on a single storey Keith Hay residential home in Glen Innes, Auckland.
 
“While reaching down to secure a safe hold on the ridge of the damp roof, one of the employees slipped and fell approximately 10 feet to the ground, fracturing his lower back, several ribs and damaging shoulder tendons and ligaments,” said MBIE Labour, Northern General Manager John Howard.
 
 
Fall Could Have Been Prevented
 
The MBIE Labor investigation into the incident found that it could have been prevented if the defendant had liaised with its contractor to plan a safe approach to working at height at the Glen Innes site and put in place appropriate roof edge protection so that no employee of a contractor was harmed while doing any work the contractor was engaged to do.
 
“Preventing falls from height is a priority for MBIE and we expect everyone with staff or contractors working at height to actively manage this significant hazard,” Howard added.
 
 
Best Practices for Working at Height
 
The Best Practice Guidelines for Working at Height in New Zealand provide practical guidance about how prevent harm.
 
To complement the guidelines a series of six fact sheets have also been produced. These focus on:
 
     how to plan a safe approach to working at height
     how to select the right equipment for the job
     short duration work at height
     edge protection
     temporary work platforms
     total restraint system.
 
“All employers, contractors and employees who are required to work at height should read the guidelines and fact sheets so they take appropriate precautions to ensure the safety of those working at height. Doing nothing is not an option,” Howard concluded.
 
 

Author Michael B. Stack, CPA, Director of Operations, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. is an expert in employer communication systems and part of the Amaxx team helping companies reduce their workers compensation costs by 20% to 50%. He is a writer, speaker, and website publisher.  www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com Contact mstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com

 

 


WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT MANUAL:  www.WCManual.com

VIEW SAMPLES PAGES

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

 

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Respirators Keep Roofers Safe and Keep Comp Costs Down

Roofers seldom think of their respiratory health. Having worked closely with roofers for over 20 years, I can say with certainty that most feel that this area of OSHA compliance and heath is not on their “top ten list”.

 
 
I will address this issue from the perspective of a group of roofers I have worked with recently for a large roofing contractor.
 
 
 
I can honestly say that I am always aware of these hazards, but in the interest of overall risk management, there were always just “bigger fish to fry”. Keeping roofers from falling off a roof just seemed more important all along.
 
 
Why Now?
As a whole, roofing
has seen the highest level of improvement in safety of any part of construction. However, we all have areas we need to address. If fall protection is conquered and other critical areas of safety in your trade, but respiratory health has not been addressed, it might be a worthwhile choice. But, why a formal respirator program? The reasons are many and varied. Let us look at a sampling of some critical items.
 
 
1.  Hazards
From the first cut of a saw into concrete, the silica requirement is met. And thanks to a recent addition to the welding standard, any welding will now put us into the hexavalent chromium standard. The very act of burning the welding rods makes for sufficient H/C to put us in the action level of the standard.
 
 
2.  Adhesive hazard
It is quite easy to get into trouble with PEL’s (permissible exposure limit) of these chemicals. The exposure will be higher on low wind days. Often, a false conclusion is made that wind direction or use of local ventilation is sufficient; however, a close read of the MSDS on newer adhesives will show that “respirator protection is recommended for all days, not just windy ones!
 
 
3.  Re-roof hazards
Other hazards face us on “re-roofs”. Hazards, such as mold, bacteria and unknown particles (asbestos, fiberglass) arise when disturbed while removing old covering layers. This is critical, as many roofing situations can create sufficient dust and unknown particles to be of real concern. Total dust and particulates alone can easily become a respiratory hazard. (You may want to scream,” I QUIT!”) Not so fast, though.  A compliant respiratory program can be simple and affordable, with proper thought and implementation.
 
 
Costs
First, who gets selected to be the respirator users? Cost is a considerable factor, here, so it is not advisable to use new employees. Can you say, “increased turnover costs”?
 
The costs are real. First, the employee(s) chosen are sent to a doctor, who performs respiratory testing including spirometry ( Read more about spirometry from Lowerwc.com here). OSHA requires employees be tested to see if their health is sufficient to use a respirator. Working, while breathing through a respirator, is harder than one might think. It is important to choose employees in excellent health preferably non-smokers, when possible.
 

Cost at an occupational medical center should be about $125 for first check and somewhere between $75 and $125 each year thereafter for OSHA required annual follow up. This is another reason why it is important to choose employees looking toward longevity.
 
 
Quality counts
Next, purchase “quality protection”. N-95 dust masks will suffice for exposure other than just that dust mold, and particulates in low levels.  We recommend a quality half-mask respirator, around $90, with interchangeable cartridges ($50 per exposure). This way, one mask can serve welding, adhesives and particulates, by changing the filter cartridge for the task at hand.
 
 
Training
Now the employee will need to be trained and fit-tested for the respirator. Cost?  $125, tops. So, that is around $500-$650 per trained and certified employee per year. This is a pittance compared to even the first medical claim or OSHA violation!

 
The OSHA Inspection
It makes for a compelling risk assessment; even if in your area (large city as opposed to rural costs) you find it on the high side of these estimates. But, make no mistake about it—YES the OSHA inspector will ask even a roofer about compliance with this standard, especially if the roofer is using the concrete saw or adhesives at the time the inspector is on site.
 
 
Summary
Now that the fall protection and other threatening safety “dragons” are slain, it may be time to look at the respiratory health and compliance in your company. [WCx]
 
 
The roofing industry is more aware of risk and compliance  as time passes . Also we are learning that some of our worst fears about compliance were unfounded and can actually make for good business. Stay safe!!
 
 
Brian Hill is owner of OshaSure in Birmingham Alabama and has over 20 years as a workplace safety and risk consultant. Brian was previously a pilot for a major US airline and member of the company’s interdepartmental safety committee. He found his new career in safety after the closing of the airline in 1991. Brian has found the same passion he had for flying in assisting companies with safety, heath and risk issues. Contact Brian by email at:  oshasurebh@aol.com  For more information click on www.oshasure.com  or call 205-296-0601
 

 


WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT MANUAL:  www.WCManual.com

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

 

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Can There Be TOO MUCH SAFETY

 For roofers and safety professionals, I am about to touch that third rail of safety. Is there such a thing as too much safety? As a 20 year plus safety professional I never thought I would answer this with a resounding YES! But here goes.

 
 
Increasing compliance
I have been watching as OSHA has incrementally increased requirements, with an eye on the changes and how they affect daily operations. Up to now I have been able to live with the changes in our workplace and the added paperwork and responsibility and so have workers. [WCx]
 
 
Thoughtful preparation
I have no problem with the added OSHA requirements as they have proven to my watchful eye to have merit. With thoughtful preparation and combining of the standard morning briefing and with minimal documentation, we have managed to meet and even exceed the individual site pre-task planning and hazard analysis.
 
 
Documentation
In conjunction with a larger roofing contractor, we have come up with a single form (two pages) that covers all the requirements. Some creative additions to this form to have the added benefit of a 5 day term which in turn lowers annual paperwork.
 
 
We have a brief meeting of the minds each morning where we cover the day’s work to come and any new hazards. Add to this a forward looking checklist of potential hazards with a check off list, and we have a compliant situation.
 
 
 It sounds like we have it all covered, right? Well, not so fast.  
The roofing company I have just mentioned has been faced with two cases lately that ask for more, WAY MORE! How can this be?
 
 
Added requirements
First, I will relate one new contract with a large national general contractor. The requirements this company has added are, in my experience, nothing short of make work. They have added a requirement for a dedicated safety professional with at least an OSHA 500 card to be on site at any time work is under way. This for a crew of 6-10 that already has a supervisor with a 30 hour card and most team members hold 10 hour cards. As well, we are required to follow and document additional steps that I will not detail here to avoid “outing” the GC. These steps each require several daily forms.
 
 
Over tasked supervisors
We have an excellent team with an excellent safety attitude and culture. However all this added paperwork and over supervision is causing hard feelings among our supervisors. I fear that this will affect our existing safety culture and team sprit as it seems any real input from the team is no longer necessary or wanted, just the forms!  Additionally, the negative attitude growing among our crew is palatable.

 

 
Team Spirit trouble
My greatest fear is that this perception has trickled down through the ranks and has eroded a safety culture many years in the making. The barrage of forms and make work have my supervisors grumbling, and it comes off to the crew as being negative about safety in general. I ask, will this apathy lead to a team member not doing some basic safety requirement that will get them hurt? I say it is likely and fear the end result.
 
 
EM-385
The next situation is very similar yet involves work on a military base. This brings in a new set of requirements that is also troubling. If anyone out there has dealt with EM-385, then this concern is understood I do not need to detail here all of the steps and requirements past the daily JHA (job hazard analysis) of each work step every day. This of course requires a dedicated safety professional following the workers through the day completing mountains of paperwork. Not only will this add the risk of another person on the roof, it can create a distraction negative to our goals and contrary to our existing safety culture.

 

 
Over commitment
Is this trend a result of an over commitment to safety? Is this possible? In a world where we have finally started to see some positive safety cultures develop across the roofing trades, are some clients asking more than is sensible? Should well meaning general contractors add on steps and require them as part of the contract? I say no. We should use the OSHA guidelines as a measure and add what works is needed to develop individual safety cultures that fit with our tasks. A safe workplace is not a factor of the amount of paperwork generated, but by the compliance, attitude, and culture a good team develops and lives by.

 

Possible Solutions
Be sure to do all that is needed to have the safest possible workplace. If that includes recognizing and dealing with unnecessary safety protocols added on by well meaning General Contractors or clients, do not stay silent. If this is the case, I suggest bringing it up before the start date. If there are not agreeable terms, ask for a review by an outside and unbiased professional. Having a proper balance of safety and compliance and documentation is an important and fragile thing that can be overdone if the entire process is not understood. At times, a new view from above may be the best course of action.
 
 
In Summary
Is this actually over commitment or is it our old nemesis—communication? I say the latter. No one intends to overwhelm with minutia or mountains of paperwork. The GC is doing all the right things; they may not be aware of the current status of all subcontractors programs. When they see a compliant situation many of these duplications may just fall away. [WCx]
 
 
Brian Hill is owner of OshaSure in Birmingham Alabama and has over 20 years as a workplace safety and risk consultant. Brian was previously a pilot for a major US airline and member of the company’s interdepartmental safety committee. He found his new career in safety after the closing of the airline in 1991. Brian has found the same passion he had for flying in assisting companies with safety, heath and risk issues. oshasurebh@aol.com
For more information click on www.oshasure.com  or call 205-296-0601 

 


WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT MANUAL:  www.WCManual.com

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

 

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

California Roofing Contractor Gets Year in Jail, Must Pay Restitution

A California roofing contractor was sentenced recently to one year in jail and was ordered to pay $510,000 in restitution for failing to provide workers compensation insurance for an injured employee and failing to pay insurance premiums for unclaimed employees, who were paid in cash.

 
 
According to the Orange County District Attorney’s office, Michael Amzie Holley, 43, Murrieta, pleaded guilty to a court offer to two felony counts of perjury by declaration, two felony counts of recording false and forged instruments, one felony count of misrepresenting facts to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), seven felony counts of making a fraudulent statement, one felony count of presenting a fraudulent material statement to obtain compensation, one felony count of making a false statement to discourage an injured worker from claiming benefits, one felony count of willfully failing to pay taxes, one felony count of failing to file a return with the intent to evade taxes, and a sentencing enhancement for aggravated white collar crime over $500,000. [WCx]
 
 

At the time
of the crime, Holley was a roofing contractor and owner of So Cal Roofing. The defendant purchased a minimum workers compensation policy from SCIF and failed to state that he employed subcontractors, paid workers in cash, hired unlicensed employees, and leased employees from other companies. Holley paid his employees in cash to hide the fact that So Cal Roofing had workers. He received insurance based on his false declaration and entered into a contract requiring SCIF to cover all workers employed by Holley, even those employees unknown to the insurance company. Holley submitted inaccurate payroll reports to SCIF, resulting in underpayment of insurance premiums. To hide the fraud, Holley failed to file an accurate tax return to avoid paying taxes to the State on the cash payments made to his employees.
 
 
One of Holley’s employees was injured when he fell off a roof, and subsequently filed a workers comp insurance claim. Holley denied that the injured employee worked for him, thus denying the injured employee his workers comp insurance benefits. Subsequently, Holley fraudulently signed under penalty of perjury that he had no employees at So Cal Roofing and filed these documents with the California State Contractor’s Licensing Board to make him exempt from securing workers comp insurance.
 
 
California law requires that all employers maintain workers comp insurance for their employees. Payroll records showing the number of employees and their income must be submitted to both the workers comp insurance company and EDD, who oversee the collection of payroll taxes. [WCx]
 
 
Workers comp insurance rates are determined by a formula, which takes into consideration the number and type of employees and the company’s history of injury claims.
 
 

Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He is an editor and contributor to Workers Compensation Management Program: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

 

 

WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT MANUAL:  www.WCManual.com

VIEW SAMPLES PAGES

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

 

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

OSHA Extends Temporary Enforcement Actions in Residential Construction

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently reported it will extend for six months its temporary enforcement measures in residential construction.

 

The measures, extended through Sept. 15, include priority, free on-site compliance assistance, penalty reductions, extended abatement dates, measures to ensure consistency and increased outreach. Fatalities from falls are the No. 1 cause of workplace death in construction.

The National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) previously had voiced its opposition to OSHA's regulatory directive, believing it will hinder rather than improve workplace safety and make it more difficult for roofing contractors to operate their businesses.


 
NRCA also had urged OSHA officials to delay enforcement of the directive indefinitely while it works with the roofing industry to resolve roofing contractors' many concerns. To view a Special Report regarding NRCA's opposition to the directive, visit http://tinyurl.com/6qdeoav.


During the past year, OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions across the U.S. to help employers comply with the new directive. OSHA will continue to work with employers to ensure a clear understanding of the new policy and facilitate compliance. [WCx]


A variety of educational and training materials to help employers with compliance can be found at www.osha.gov.


Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He is an editor and contributor to Workers Compensation Management Program: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

 

 



WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT MANUAL:  www.WCManual.com

VIEW SAMPLES PAGES

MODIFIED DUTY CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php

 

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

 

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Massachusetts Roofing Company, Owners Arraigned in Scam

A Watertown, Massachusetts roofing company and its owners have been arraigned on charges they allegedly failed to disclose millions of dollars in misclassified subcontractor payroll and failed to pay the prevailing wage, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office announced.


Shaun Bryan and Antoinette Capurso-Bryan, of Newton, and their company, Newton Contracting Company, Inc., of Watertown, were arraigned on the following charges:(WCxKit)


Shaun Bryan, 47, of Newton
Workers Compensation Premium Evasion (4 counts)
Unemployment Contribution Evasion (12 counts)
Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors (4 counts)
Failure to Pay the Prevailing Wage


Newton Contracting Company Inc., of Watertown
Workers Compensation Premium Evasion (4 counts)
Unemployment Contribution Evasion (12 counts)
Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors (4 counts)
Failure to Pay the Prevailing Wage


Antoinette Capurso-Bryan, 47, of Newton
Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors (4 counts)
Failure to Pay the Prevailing Wage


Authorities began an investigation into the Bryans and their company in late 2008, after the JTF received complaints that Newton Contracting was misclassifying part of its workforce. The Attorney General’s Office also received a complaint that Newton Contracting had misclassified its roofing employees as laborers at the Suffolk County Jail Project and consequently failed to pay their employees the prevailing wage rate.


The EOLWD’s Division of Unemployment Assistance (EOLWD\DUA) conducted a compliance audit of Newton Contracting’s payroll records in early 2009. The EOLWD\DUA determined that Newton Contracting misclassified multiple employees as independent contractors and consequently failed to disclose to the EOLWD\DUA more than $2.4 million in misclassified subcontractor payroll for each quarter during 2006 through 2008. The EOLWD\DUA assessed more than $52,000 in additional unemployment contributions, including interest, against Newton Contracting.


During this time the IFB began an investigation of four of Newton Contracting’s worker’s compensation policies covering July 1, 2005, through July 1, 2009. The IFB discovered that the company allegedly misclassified half of its workforce as subcontractors. The IFB’s investigation further revealed that during its annual workers comp audits, Shaun Bryan allegedly failed to disclose to the auditor more than $3.4 million of Newton Contracting’s misclassified subcontractor payroll over the course of four policy periods.


The AG’s Fair Labor Division received a complaint that in 2009 Newton Contracting’s employees performing roofing work at the Suffolk County Jail Project were misclassified as laborers. The prevailing wage rate for roofing work was $53.86. Newton Contracting paid the workers $44.10 hour. In 2010, Newton Contracting paid two employees more than $5,000 in restitution for the misclassification and consequent failure to pay the prevailing wage violation.


A Suffolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against all three defendants on Dec. 19. The defendants were arraigned in Suffolk Superior Court where each pleaded not guilty and were released on personal recognizance.(WCxKit)


The defendants were to be in court Jan. 6, 2012 for further proceedings.


Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He is an editor and contributor to Workers Compensation Management Program: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

WORKERS COMP MANAGEMENT GUIDEBOOK:  www.WCManual.com

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

©2012 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Self-Employed Contractor Gets Suspended Prison Term in Death of Friend

The Health and Safety Executive reports a self-employed roofing contractor of Essex, Great Britain has been given a suspended prison sentence in the death of a friend. The contractor's friend fell through the room of a residential garage and later died of his injuries.

 
Steve Mason was contracted to replace a flat roof on a double garage at a house in Well Lane, Stock, near Chelmsford, and brought James Waughman with him. While on site,Waughman, 58, of Perry Road, Tiptree, suffered a stroke and multiple injuries after falling to the garage floor through a gap in the rafters. He died three weeks after the incident in July of 2009. (WCxKit)
 
The contractor, Steve Mason, also 58 of Perry Road, Tiptree, received an eight-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay $820.00 (£500 costs) recently at Chelmsford Crown Court after admitting breaching section 3 (2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
 
HSE Inspector Lesley Balkham noted, “This sends out a powerful message to roofing contractors. Steve Mason failed to properly consider the risks of the job and act to limit the chances of injury or even death. He should have put guard-rails around the edge of the roof and taken measures to prevent anyone falling through it, but he chose not to.”
 
No matter what size the business, everyone in the construction industry should be very familiar with the risks of working at height and appreciate the importance of ensuring that the right precautions are put in place, however small the job. Falls from height remain one of the biggest causes of workplace deaths in the UK.”
 
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.


Our WORKERS COMP BOOK:
www.wcmanual.com

WORK COMP CALCULATOR:  www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php
 
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
 
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Roofing and Construction Injuries Top List of British Columbia Workplace Safety Fines

In 2010, WorkSafeBC (British Columbia) imposed 256 penalties, totaling $3,163,898 against employers for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation and theWorkers Compensation Act.
 
 
The 256 penalties issued in 2010 were imposed against 232 individual employers, with penalty amounts ranging from $1,000 to $145,046.98. A total of 12 incidents in which an employer was penalized involved a fatality. (WCxKit)
 
 
WorkSafeBC penalizes employers who have not been motivated by other means to comply with their responsibility to ensure their workplaces are healthy and safe,” said Donna Wilson, vice president of the Industry Services & Sustainability Division of WorkSafeBC. “A penalty is not imposed if an employer is found to have taken all reasonable steps to prevent circumstances that involve violations that can lead to serious injury or death.”
 
 
Employers from 58 industry classifications received penalties in 2010. Companies in five construction-related classifications accounted for 65% (168) of the penalties imposed. Those companies were in the following industry classifications:
 

1.      Steep Slope Roofing – 34.7% 89)

2.      House or Other Wood Frame General Contracting, Construction or Renovation Work – 11.3% (29)

3.      Framing or Residential Forming – 10.9% (28)

4.      Low Slope Roofing – 4.68% (12)

5.      Industrial, Commercial, Institutional or Highrise Residential General Contracting or Construction – 3.9% (10)

 
Administrative penalties are not the only means to motivate an employer to comply with the Regulation and the Act. Following is a list of WorkSafeBCs enforcement activities in 2010:
 

1.      41,813 inspection reports issued

2.      74,565 orders written

3.      143 investigations completed (includes fatal and serious injury investigations only).(WCxKit)

 
 
WorkSafeBC has prioritized enforcement in recent years, significantly increasing the number of compliance and safety officers: to 247 in 2010 from 185 in 2004 to a 33% increase.
 
 
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker, and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality, and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
 
 
 
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
 
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

OSHA Takes Steps to Protect Roofers

OSHA recently announced a new directive that withdraws an earlier one allowing residential builders to bypass fall protection requirements.
 
 
The 1995 policy was initially intended to be temporary. It was the result of concerns about the feasibility of fall protection in residential building construction. (WCxKit)
 
 
However, OSHA says there continues to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction and believes that feasibility is no longer an issue.
 
 
The recent action requires all residential construction employers to comply with 29 CFR 1926.501(b) (13).
 
 
Construction and roofing companies will have up to 6 months to comply with the new policy.
 
 
OSHA has developed training and compliance material for small employers and will host a webinar for those interested in learning more about compliance.
 
 
Resources are available on the agency Web site at: http://www.osha.gov/doc/residential_fall_protection.html.
 
 
Fatalities from falls are the number one cause of workplace deaths in construction,” said OSHA Chief Dr. David Michaels. “We cannot tolerate workers getting killed in residential construction when effective means are readily available to prevent those deaths,” Michaels added.
 
 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an average of 40 workers are killed each year as a result of falls from residential roofs. (WCxKit)
 
 
OSHA points out that a third of those are Latino workers who often lack sufficient access to safety information and protections.


Author Robert Elliott
, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information.  Contact:  Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-553-6604.
 
WORK COMP CALCULATOR:   http://www.LowerWC.com/calculator.php
 
WC GROUP:  http://www.linkedin.com/groups?homeNewMember=&gid=1922050/
SUBSCRIBE: 
Workers Comp Resource Center Newsletter
WC IQ TEST:  http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.

©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact
Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.

Professional Development Resource

Learn How to Reduce Workers Comp Costs 20% to 50%"Workers Compensation Management Program: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%"
Lower your workers compensation expense by using the
guidebook from Advisen and the Workers Comp Resource Center.
Perfect for promotional distribution by brokers and agents!
Learn More

Please don't print this Website

Unnecessary printing not only means unnecessary cost of paper and inks, but also avoidable environmental impact on producing and shipping these supplies. Reducing printing can make a small but a significant impact.

Instead use the PDF download option, provided on the page you tried to print.

Powered by "Unprintable Blog" for Wordpress - www.greencp.de