Gig economy workers typically work away from the physical premises of the company using their services, but that doesn’t mean those companies don’t bear responsibility for these workers’ safety. Gig economy workers can range from traditional independent contractors to freelancers and temporary staffing firm employees who work just a few hours a week. Some may use gig work to supplement the income they receive from a traditional job. Research shows that at least 29% rely on gig economy work as their primary source of income. Some estimates put their numbers as high as one-third of the total U.S. workforce. Although the gig workforce has grown quickly in recent years throughout the country and in a wide range of businesses and can be difficult to define, its members share certain common characteristics. These workers are typically younger and less experienced, which makes them more likely to engage in unsafe practices. In addition, gig economy jobs often lack traditional means of workplace training and supervision. Traditional labor groups dislike gig economy work and generally oppose the existence of independent contractors who because of antitrust laws cannot be organized. For years state legislatures and government regulators have sought to apply enforcement of employee laws and regulations to the gig environment. In addition, as you might well expect, tort lawyers are finding new ways to hold gig companies liable for gig worker accidents and injuries. “Safety training, culture, practices, supervision and enforcement must be adapted to meet the new economy,” declare attorneys with the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw. “Given this transformed environment, employers must address safety hazards proactively or face OSHA citations or other liability.” Specific safety issues the attorneys cite include the fact that many companies in the gig economy operate in higher-risk industries. Gig businesses have transformed passenger transportation and freight delivery services, where workers utilize the public roads and highways. Transportation accidents in general comprise nearly half of all workplace fatalities, the attorneys note. Many gig economy employers also rely on transient workforces that may not be experienced in the field or may be returning to the field after pursuing a different career. Absent proper new-hire and refresher safety training, these workers may lack the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their jobs adequately, Seyfarth Shaw say. “Safety training may be necessary to ensure gig workers can do the job safely,” the lawyers point out. “Similarly, given their independent nature, these workers may need personal protective equipment (PPE) or other traditional workplace protection designed to reduce workplace risk.” A Failure to Communicate Gig workers also may not know who to contact to report safety concerns, and they may not choose to report concerns at all. Unlike a traditional workforce where workers are taught to be the eyes and ears for their co-workers, the gig worker may choose to not communicate safety concerns to the company, encouraging the continued existence of unaddressed hazards. “As a result, gig companies may need to develop new methods for reporting safety concerns and injuries,” the attorneys suggest. Not only do the typically younger workers often have less work history and less experience with occupational safety hazards, young workers in some cases may have an unfounded sense of invincibility, which adds to their danger, the lawyers warn. “Absent an instilled safety culture, these workers may have a greater likelihood of sustaining an injury or illness.” The liability is real. In the face of the ongoing war over who is an independent contractor and who is an employee, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an opinion letter establishing that many workers in the gig economy can be considered contractors when it comes to federal wage and hour regulations. For example, DOL said the primary purpose of the unnamed business that had asked for the opinion letter is “to provide a referral system that connects service providers with consumers,” which sounds a lot like Uber and Lyft—classic exemplars of the gig economy. When it comes to using temp staffing firms, their corporate customers definitely run a risk of greater safety scrutiny. Readers may recall our coverage of the joint employer issue, a regulatory concept that has risen and fallen in a number of contexts, including labor relations enforcement by the National Labor Relations Board and other federal agencies. What you might not be aware of is that it has been settled law for a number of years now that joint employer status does attach when it comes to workplace safety. Staffing agencies and host employers are jointly responsible for maintaining a safe work environment for temporary workers, including making sure that all training requirements are met. The OSHA website clearly explains employers’ responsibilities with regard to temporary workers and safety training. In addition, keep in mind that the rise of the gig economy coincided with the rise of OSHA’s aggressive use of its General Duty Clause in response to workplace violence. The General Duty Clause establishes employer responsibility for maintaining a safe workplace, even in the absence of specific regulations regarding certain dangers. “This is one of the most well-recognized and reported safety issues in the gig economy,” according to the Seyfarth Shaw attorneys. “Indeed, gig economy companies have focused on incident investigation and risk assessments to reduce workplace violence safety concerns.” Dealing with truck owner-operators is an especially complicated challenge and involves a different legal structure than other gig workers and independent contractors operate under. Battles continue to be fought at federal and state levels over whether they are considered true independent contractors or employees. In many cases the issue boils down to how much control fleet management exerts over the driver. Supervising their training and operations too closely can trigger a successful misclassification case, but fleets are expected to require that the independent driver maintains mandated insurance and an appropriate safety rating. Companies operating in the gig economy must understand the risks their organizations face and develop procedures to meet these concerns, the lawyers stress. But as is the case with truck owner-operators, the issues can be complex. “Gig companies should consult with counsel and safety professionals to learn how to address these hazards and mitigate risks and liabilities,” Seyfarth Shaw recommends. Let's block ads! (Why?)

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is appealing a federal district court judge’s decision striking down the regulations that had substantially widened access to association health plans (AHPs) for small and large employers. The Labor Department also issued a policy statement providing interim relief for those employers who already had obtained health coverage from AHPs under the same DOL regulations before the judge handed down his decision on March 28. DOL declared that it is committed to taking all appropriate action within its legal authority to minimize undue consequences on employees and their families. It said employers participating in insured AHPs can generally maintain that coverage through the end of the plan year or, if later, the contract term. During this time, DOL said, it will not pursue enforcement actions involving AHP that had relied on DOL’s rules. DOL stated, “The department is committed to taking all appropriate action within its legal authority to minimize undue consequences on employees and their families.” Abruptly terminating coverage from an AHP would cause significant disruption, according to DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). “For example, new coverage would impose new deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums without giving credit for prior participant out-of-pocket expenses paid,” EBSA argued. “Moreover, switching insurance can cause gaps in coverage, leaving individuals without much needed benefits for chronic diseases and emergency care until the new insurance becomes effective.” About 30 new associations had been formed based on the rules change before the court’s reversal was announced, notes attorney Jeff Belfiglio of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine. For example, local chambers of commerce in Nevada had joined with the Anthem insurance company to offer coverage for small employers. More employers may have chosen to join AHPs except that their states used their regulatory authority to effectively stop AHPs from being formed under the new Trump DOL rules, and few are likely to proceed with more AHPs unless the district court ruling is overturned, Belfiglio points out. However, AHPs can and still are forming under the narrower federal guidelines that were in existence before the newer rules, and which both the AHP rule and the court decision left intact. The Political Game Before Trump’s DOL wrote the new rules, federal law had long allowed AHPs to be created and operate in a more limited form under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The main difference was that the older rules required much more narrowly defined commonality of interests for employers to be able to join an AHP. Belfiglio adds that the court decision also could impact a proposed regulation allowing employers to band together more easily in Association Retirement Plans (ARPs) or Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs). Last year, DOL issued proposed regulations designed to allow multiple employers to join in an ARP or a plan sponsored by a Professional Employer Organization (PEO). The AHP rules were seen as an attempt to weaken Obamacare because such plans were allowed to deny coverage for a number of treatments that had been required under the legislation, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, certain kinds of maternity care and ambulance rides. The judge whose decision struck down the Trump program described it as “clearly an end-run around” Obamacare. The lawsuit to block the AHP rules was filed by Democrat attorneys general of 11 states. The judge ruled that the membership criteria for the new AHPs were too broad and stated that the portion of the program that allowed the self-employed and partnerships to join such plans was nothing short of absurd. “At this point small employers in some states (especially Washington) can still find opportunities to join AHPs that have been approved under the old DOL guidance,” explains Belfiglio. “Employers in other states, and working owners everywhere, will have to await a judicial or legislative resolution of what ‘employer’ really means under ERISA.” DOL announced that it is interested in learning about any problems that AHPs and their member employers and sole proprietors may have encountered after the district court's decision. To request information or assistance, members of the public may contact EBSA at www.askebsa.dol.gov or toll free at 866-444-3272. The agency also said it will update its website at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa as more information becomes available. Let's block ads! (Why?)

A new study urges state and federal governments to take stronger actions to improve the ability of law enforcement to seeks to identify and deter the growing danger of marijuana-impaired driving. A study of our current state of knowledge about the topic was recently published by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), the nonprofit research arm of American Trucking Associations. The growing trend of more states choosing to allow both the medical and recreational use of the drug has not been accompanied by advances in methods for effectively addressing marijuana-impaired driving. As a result, this topic is a top-of-mind concern for many truckers, the institute notes. In fact, last year the subject was identified as a top safety research priority by ATRI’s Research Advisory Committee (RAC), made up of industry safety experts. “While increased access to marijuana has not directly impacted the trucking industry in terms of truck drivers testing positive for marijuana, the increased frequency of marijuana-positive drivers operating on the same roadways as trucks makes marijuana-impaired driving a critical safety issue for the trucking industry,” ATRI’s report points out. Mike Card, president of Combined Transport Inc., agrees. “It is extremely concerning to motor carriers and our drivers that recreational marijuana is legal in so many states, yet as the ATRI report documents, a valid and widely accepted breathalyzer-type test is not available to law enforcement. ATRI’s study clearly defines a role for federal and state leaders to support law enforcement and others in keeping the roadways safe from those who choose to drive high.” In particular, the report highlights the importance of training law enforcement in how to identify and collect evidence of marijuana-impaired driving, particularly through the development of more well-trained drug recognition experts (DREs). “As ATRI’s research identifies, a key tool for combating drugged drivers is deploying additional drug recognition experts,” says Mark Savage, deputy chief of the Colorado State Patrol. “A DRE can bring critical evidence to prosecutors that other tests simply cannot measure.” Test Methods Inadequate Although drunk driving can be prosecuted using accurate testing tools, widely-tested and accepted tools and methods are not currently available for marijuana impairment testing, according to the researchers. “As a result, truck drivers in many states now face the significant risk of having legal marijuana users drive impaired (and illegally) alongside their trucks.” When it comes to alcohol and driving, in recent decades tightened laws and development of accurate testing technology aimed at combatting driving under the influence (DUI) are credited with contributing to an approximately 50% decrease in annual alcohol-related traffic deaths currently versus the 1980s. Several states that have approved medical or recreational marijuana use also have codified legal protections that prevent employers from taking adverse action against employees for their use of the drug anywhere except when at work. Of course, it is well established that even the most generous of the state marijuana legalization laws do not protect workers in professions where it is banned for safety reasons, such as commercial drivers, train operators and pilots. Because marijuana is processed by the body differently than alcohol, existing drug testing mechanisms can easily identify past marijuana use by measuring metabolites, but they cannot measure a current state of intoxication. Although not generally indicative of current state of intoxication, a positive test for past marijuana use can allow for employee termination by many employers, particularly those with strict anti-drug policies or those who employ safety-sensitive transportation workers. Thus, a simple blood or breathalyzer test—commonly employed by law enforcement when alcohol impairment is suspected—is not ideal for identifying drivers operating under the influence of marijuana. This is due to the body’s mechanisms for processing marijuana’s intoxicant agent, THC. Of the states that have legalized recreational marijuana, most have set limits on the amount of acceptable THC in blood tests when testing for driver impairment. However, there are several issues related to such tests. Some state laws allow a DUI charge if following an arrest the driver tests positive for THC derivatives in urine, which indicates marijuana use in the previous 30 days but not necessarily recent marijuana use. Testing Driver Behavior Identifying, documenting and prosecuting marijuana-impaired drivers depends on each state’s laws, but can be achieved through: observation and documentation of behavior; physical evidence; and drug testing in states where there are THC limits or zero tolerance laws. Police officers are extensively trained in how to identify impaired driving while observing how a vehicle is being operated, or after an accident on how the driver is behaving. In most cases the officer first conducts a standard field sobriety test (SFST), which involves asking the driver to stand on one leg, walk and turn, and moving an object like a pen or light in front of the driver’s face to see if their eyes jerk. The Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) program, developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), seeks to bridge the gap between SFST and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluations of impairment. However, only 17 states have more than 20% of officers trained in ARIDE. DRE’s are specially trained law enforcement officers certified in recognizing and assessing individuals who are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. DREs are a key method that many states, Canada and the European Union use to determine marijuana impairment. DRE impairment determinations are supported by drug tests, which include oral or saliva swabs, urine testing and blood sample testing. In 2017, there were 8,606 DREs operating in the U.S. who conducted a total of 30,989 enforcement examinations, the researchers found. Marijuana was the most frequently identified substance in these examinations. The ATRI study also recommends that a number of other steps be taken to deal with the growing problem. These include increased data collection on the frequency and impacts of marijuana-impaired driving; public education and information be widely disseminated concerning the risks of impaired driving; better equipping law enforcement and the court system to intercept and ultimately prosecute impaired drivers; and targeting tax revenue generated from marijuana sales to fund these activities. “Educating the public on the dangers of marijuana-impaired driving, and of the legal consequences, is critical to preventing drugged driving,” the ATRI researchers stress. “Marijuana users—particularly younger users—do not perceive marijuana as having an impact on driving safety, and in a smaller number of cases, they may believe that marijuana improves driving safety. These beliefs are in direct contrast to the documented effects that marijuana has on driving-critical cognitive functions.” Let's block ads! (Why?)

A high-profile snafu in space has brought new focus on personal protective equipment (PPE) and the obligation of employers to make sure that it fits all the members of an increasingly diverse workforce who are expected to wear it. This was brought home most vividly in late March when NASA was forced to cancel the first-ever space walk by two women at the International Space Station because only one of the appropriate space suits on board would properly fit a woman. Astronauts Anne McClain and Christina Koch had been slated to make the historic walk together in space, but Koch had to pair off with male astronaut Nick Hague and the chance for the two women to make history was lost. Hague and McClain also had completed a spacewalk earlier in March, but that was not enough to blunt some of the public accusations that McLain had been cut from the later spacewalk because she is a lesbian. According to NASA, the astronauts trained with various sized spacesuits, but the effect of microgravity changed the sizing preferences once in space. An ill-fitting spacesuit would make the job more difficult, and also, as you might well imagine, could present safety concerns. NASA spokeswoman Stephanie Schierholz explained that spacesuits come in different sizes and configurations. “Working in a pressurized spacesuit requires physical strength and endurance, and it is essential that the spacesuit fits as well as possible,” she revealed. “An optimally fitted spacesuit improves an astronaut’s ability to accomplish the tasks.” She explained, “We do our best to anticipate the spacesuit sizes that each astronaut will need, based on the spacesuit size they wore in training on the ground, and in some cases astronauts train in multiple sizes. However, the sizing needs of crew members may change when they are in orbit, in response to the changes living in microgravity can bring about in a body.” That did nothing to blunt the criticism. Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Make another suit,” which failed to recognize the difficulty of making modifications to the suit in the space station without taking needed time away from other essential missions assigned to the crew. Other outraged critics also seemed to be unaware of some of the subtleties and complexities inherent in such a highly technical and complex operating environment. McClain, who is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army and a decorated combat pilot and engineer, said it was her decision not to participate in the spacewalk. “This decision was based on my recommendation,” she declared. “Leaders must make tough calls, and I am fortunate to work with a team who trusts my judgement.” Down Here on Earth No sooner did the space station incident hit newspaper headlines and network news than social media erupted with the anger of many women who said they had faced similar issues they felt amounted to discrimination against women employees by ignorant or deliberately callous employers. They cited incidents when equipment was so ill-fitting that it created dangers or simply made it extremely difficult to accomplish the tasks expected of them. The ill-fitting equipment and clothing they described included bullet-proof vests, oversized work boots, hazmat suits, gloves and PPE equipment at construction sites—all designed to be worn only by an average-sized man. Adding to their anger was the fact that some employers regarded different-sized equipment for women as something that was not their responsibility and that in many cases the woman was expected to purchase it herself. Your business may not operate in outer space, but under federal law employers are required to consider these issues when determining required PPE for their workplaces, and must make sure that the PPE properly fits the employee to ensure it provides the intended protection, says attorney Todd Logsdon of law firm Fisher Phillips. “A diverse workforce can include employees of various sizes,” he adds. “An employer must not only ensure it has the proper PPE for the hazards of the workplace, but also that the PPE fits each of the employees who may need to use it.” This individual employer responsibility is recognized and written into federal workplace safety law and regulations, Logsdon points out. To begin with, employers are required to conduct an assessment of the workplace to determine what hazards are present that necessitate the use of PPE. Then the employer must select the appropriate PPE to address the hazards, communicate that decision to the affected employees, and “select PPE that properly fits each affected employee,” federal regulations state. Logsdon notes, “The reasons for having properly-sized PPE are obvious. Gloves that are too big may make it difficult for employees to grip or manipulate tools; chemical boots that are too big could create a trip hazard, and respirators that are too big will not have the proper seal to prevent contaminants from entering the facemask.” Employers also should keep in mind that the employer is required to train the affected employees on when PPE is necessary, how to don, doff, adjust and wear the PPE, the limitations of the PPE, as well as the proper care and maintenance of the PPE, Logsdon warns. In general, employers must provide the required PPE at no cost to the employee with a few exceptions. For example, the employer is not required to pay for general, non-specialty safety footwear and prescription eyewear that the employer allows workers to wear off-site. Finally, the employer must remember to document and “certify” the hazard assessment, Logsdon stresses. Not doing so has proven costly for many employers. “Failing to be able to produce the certified hazard assessment is a common citation by OSHA.” Let's block ads! (Why?)

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) doesn’t often do mulligans. Even if an employer later discovers that it filed an injury report by mistake, they shouldn’t expect the agency to cancel a follow-up onsite inspection. “It is our experience that once the horse is out of the barn—that an accident has occurred, regardless of severity—OSHA is unlikely to agree not to inspect the workplace,” say attorneys David Klass and Travis W. Vance of law firm Fisher Phillips “That is because, while the severity of the injury may affect how a citation is classified (serious, other-than-serious, etc.), whether a violation may exist is based on the fact of injury itself as well as what else the company has reported to OSHA regarding the cause of the injury.” They cite the example of news of an injury making its way up the chain of command to the safety director, who has been erroneously informed that an employee’s finger was amputated. In trying to adhere to the 24-hour deadline required for filing a report of an amputation with OSHA, the director sends the report, only to learn hours or days later that there was no amputation. An OSHA inspector then shows up demanding to inspect the worksite. Can you stop the inspection? Probably not, according to Klass and Vance. Under OSHA regulations, when a fatality occurs, the company must report the fatality to OSHA within eight hours of becoming aware of the fatality. When an employee suffers an amputation or a loss of an eye, or is admitted to in-patient hospitalization, the employer must report the injury to OSHA within 24 hours of becoming aware that the injury is reportable. In order to report such a serious injury, a company can either call OSHA or report the injury on the agency’s website. Under federal law, OSHA is authorized to conduct two types of workplace inspections. First, OSHA can conduct a programmed inspection following a general administrative plan based on neutral criteria. Second, it can conduct an unprogrammed inspection any time it believes there is specific evidence of a possible existing violation. However, courts have held that OSHA must be able to show it has reasonable grounds for believing that a safety and health hazard may exist, or that there exists an imminent danger of death or serious injury. A serious injury report supplies those grounds. OSHA’s Judgment Call OSHA does not investigate all reportable injuries. It makes a judgment based upon the information reported to determine whether a violation of federal safety law may exist and an inspection is warranted. “If an OSHA inspector shows up at your worksite after reporting an injury, OSHA has decided it has reasonable grounds to believe a violation may exist,” Klass and Vance point out. As a result, they say, if a company knows at the time the OSHA inspector shows up that the initial report of injury was incorrect—and that the employee did not receive an amputation or was not admitted to a hospital as an in-patient, for example—it will still be very difficult to prevent OSHA from conducting an inspection to investigate the cause of the injury. The best defense is to take timely precautions before the chain of events begins to unspool. Companies should take precautionary steps to prevent erroneous reports from occurring in the first place, the lawyers urge. Remember that companies have 24 hours from the time they know that the injury is reportable to file their report with OSHA. As a result, the clock does not begin to run once the injury occurs, but only once the employer knows that it is reportable. “Companies should take the time to confirm the nature of the injury before trying to report the injury hastily to OSHA,” Klass and Vance recommend. “If a company patiently waits to have the status of the injury confirmed before reporting the event to OSHA, chances are good the report will be accurate.” They also stress the importance of employers calling their legal counsel once a potentially reportable injury has occurred. “Experienced legal counsel can guide companies through the process of reporting to OSHA and ensure that the report, if necessary and is done in a way to minimize the chances of an inspection,” they say. As was explained earlier, OSHA does not investigate every report of injury but will make its determination based on what is said in the report regarding the injury’s cause and circumstances, Klass and Vance note. “Experienced legal counsel can assist companies regarding what information is reported to OSHA.” Let's block ads! (Why?)

With workplace violence on the rise, one out of seven employees don’t feel safe at work, and neither they nor human resources personnel know how to respond if an incident occurs, according to recent research conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management. Nearly half of HR professionals say their organization had at some point experienced a workplace violence incident at some level—up from 36% in 2012. Of those who reported having experienced workplace violence, more than half said their organization had experienced an incident in the last year. “Companies and HR should and must do more to make employees feel safe at work,” says SHRM president Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. “This data shows we have a lot of work to do in terms of security, prevention, training and response.” Just last February, after being informed that he was being terminated, an employee opened fire at an Aurora, Ill., warehouse facility operated by manufacturer Henry Pratt Co., leaving five people dead, including an HR manager, and several police officers injured. That made national news, as did other fatal workplace shootings that took place at a newspaper in Annapolis, Md., and the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. Although not workplace-related, the recent horrific killings at two mosques in New Zealand are bound to have ratcheted up some workers’ anxiety levels. Unfortunately, when it comes to workplace violence in this country, SHRM finds that nearly one-third of U.S. employees and nearly one out of five HR professionals are currently unsure or don’t know what to do if they witness or are involved in a workplace violence incident. “The goal for employers is making your workplace a ‘difficult’ target for violent offenders and being prepared to react quickly,” Taylor explains. “If you make the investment in security and preparation, your employees will feel safer and respect you for valuing their safety.” Although a majority of HR professionals say their organizations already provide training to employees on how to respond to an act of workplace violence, more than one-third do not provide such training to employees. While almost all say their company has a process for identifying employees with a history of violence, over half are unsure whether they have a workplace violence prevention program. Of those responding to the survey, 48% say their organizations have experienced an incident of workplace violence at some point, up from the 36% who reported this during a similar survey that was conducted in 2012. Although those surveyed this year were not asked to speculate on differences, SHRM notes that a possible explanation for the rise in reported incidents may be due to changing attitudes towards workplace behavior. “With the rise of the #MeToo movement, as well as organizations’ growing focus on inclusivity, it is likely that in the last seven years, HR professionals have come to view more types of behavior as problematic and indicative of future workplace violence,” SHRM adds. Less Zero Tolerance The research also found that the kind of reaction to workplace violence often varies depending on specific aspects of the incident. Zero tolerance policies seem to be losing favor among organizations, with many opting to consider each incident in context, this year’s research finds. In 2012, 47% said their company had a policy of zero tolerance while only 39% in this year’s survey say their organization has zero tolerance for workplace violence and would immediately terminate the employee. Of those polled, 72% said their organization’s response to an incident would depend on the specific circumstances, compared to 61% in 2012. “Overall, 71% of workers say their workplace is safe. But those who are employed by organizations with programs to deal with workplace violence feel slightly more secure,” SHRM notes. In addition, 86% of employees who are unaware of any past incidents of workplace violence at their company say they feel very safe or safe. In comparison, 64% of those who say there has been an instance of workplace violence at their organization within the past year say they feel secure. According to SHRM’s research, workers understandably feel more safe when their employers provide prevention and training response programs. Another important benefit is that more employees know how to react to an incident when their employers already have workplace violence prevention and employee response training programs in place. “Education has to start from the top down, and often that starts with HR,” Taylor stresses. “There’s naturally a lot of fear when people think of workplace violence. But preparing and providing employees with hands-on training helps empower them to react and take action in the event of a worst-case scenario.” Of the more than 2,000 who responded to the SHRM research—which included separate surveys of both HR managers and line employees conducted in late February—90% of the HR professionals say their organizations have processes for identifying potential or current employees with a history of violence, mainly through background checks and employment or personal reference checks. While this type of screening is common, according to both surveys, organizations are less likely to have programs to prevent workplace violence or train workers on how to respond to such incidents. Although most workers consider themselves capable of dealing with workplace violence, 30% of employees and 19% of HR professionals say they feel ill-equipped to deal with violence in the workplace. SHRM recently introduced an online toolkit called Understanding Workplace Violence Prevention and Response, containing information and resources for addressing workplace violence. Available to members of SHRM, the kit includes instructions on how to create a prevention plan; define and identify workplace violence; recognize warning signs; create a response team; and respond to a workplace violence incident. Let's block ads! (Why?)

A large-scale federal plan to address the regulatory issues surrounding Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) has drawn both praise and criticism in nearly equal measure. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its PFAS Action Plan earlier this month in the face of accusations that it had done little previously to stem release of the chemicals into the environment. So far, the issue has been addressed largely through a combination of state actions and civil litigation. “The PFAS Action Plan is the most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken by EPA,” said Andrew Wheeler, EPA acting administrator. “For the first time in EPA history, we utilized all of our program offices to construct an all-encompassing plan to help states and local communities address PFAS and protect our nation’s drinking water.” The PFAS family of toxic chemicals are believed to cause certain kinds of cancer. Initially believed to be non-toxic, they have been used in a broad range of products until recent years, when manufacturers withdrew them from production in the United States. Among the most widespread uses were in the manufacture of Teflon coatings, firefighting foam, waterproofing clothing, carpet treatments, and popcorn and pizza boxes. Although imports are essentially unregulated and remain an ongoing concern. PFAS also are found throughout the country in drinking water as the result of manufacturing process discharges. EPA said it has identified several industries that are likely to be discharging PFAS in their wastewater and will begin a more detailed study to evaluate the potential for PFAS presence in these wastewater discharges. As part of this study, EPA plans to gather more detailed information for the following point-source categories: organic chemicals, plastics, synthetic fibers, pulp and paper, textiles and airports. The EPA plan includes steps that the agency already had announced in May 2018, along with certain other short-term solutions (defined as taking less than two years) and long-term strategies (defined as taking two years or longer). Announced last year were initiation of steps to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS); beginning the necessary steps to propose designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” through one of the available federal statutory mechanisms; developing groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS at contaminated sites; and developing toxicity values or oral reference doses (RfDs) for GenX chemicals and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). New short-term steps announced by EPA are developing new analytical methods and tools for understanding and managing PFAS risk; promulgating Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) that require EPA notification before chemicals are used in new ways that may create human health and ecological concerns; and using enforcement actions to help manage PFAS risk, where found to be appropriate. Long-term regulatory and research approaches EPA said it will pursue include reducing exposures and seeking better understanding of the potential human health and environmental risks associated with PFAS. It added that some long-term actions may result in intermediate steps and products that can help to reduce PFAS exposures and protect public health. “Ecological risks are of great concern to many stakeholders due to the widespread distribution and persistence of PFAS in the environment and the wide variety of PFAS chemicals for which environmental fate and transport is currently uncharacterized,” the agency said. “While this Action Plan focuses mainly on human health, characterizing potential ecological impacts and risks are important areas of work for the EPA.” Among the other federal agencies EPA intends to work with are the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences National Toxicology Program, the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Defense. To support states in managing their water quality, EPA says it will evaluate development of ambient water quality criteria. Based on the very limited amount of data available, EPA points out that it has identified several industries likely to be discharging PFAS in their wastewater and will begin a more detailed study of the potential for PFAS presence in their discharges. As part of this study, the EPA said it plans to gather more detailed information for the point-source categories including organic chemicals, plastics, synthetic fibers, pulp and paper, textiles and airports. The chemical industry likes the new plan. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it supports inclusion of initiatives that can be implemented quickly that are based on the best-available science. “It is also essential that EPA communicate effectively to the public to build confidence, transparency and credibility in the actions it is taking,” ACC stressed. “A science-based management plan will help states by providing access to a broader range of resources; ensuring uniform standards across the country to enable straightforward compliance; and minimizing the burden on states that are already short on resources.” Not so happy are state agencies and environmental advocacy groups. New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection accused the EPA of “leaving millions of Americans exposed to harmful chemicals for too long by choosing a drawn-out process.” EPA countered: “This is not a delay. This process will provide regulatory certainty, while ensuring the legal defensibility of EPA’s regulatory actions,” adding that it expects to issue a proposed regulatory determination by the end of the year. “This is an action plan with no action,” declared Suzanne Novak, an attorney for Earthjustice. She described the announced plan as “a long list of initiating steps that EPA should have been doing for the past few years, but no concrete actions. Meanwhile, PFAS are linked to chronic health issues, even death, and are highly unregulated despite a national emergency affecting entire towns.” The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) asserted: “The EPA just kicked the can down the road again,” adding that the plan “pushes enforceable standards, if they come at all, five to 10 years down the line.” Erik Olson, senior director for Health & Food at NRDC, offered, “While the agency fumbles with this ‘mis-management plan,’ millions of people will be exposed to highly toxic PFAS from drinking contaminated water.”