b'SAFETY CULTURE AND THE ENTREPRENEUR OSHA UPDATEGarys CornerupdateGary Auman, MRCA Legal CounselT he focus of this article is your safetycontractor had been cited as a serial violator in program and its enforcement. But, beforeConcord, NH. The company, High & Dry Roofing I get into that I would like to revisithad been inspected by OSHA and found to be in something I have mentioned previously as theviolation of the fall protection standards for failure impact of it has changed. I have reported in theto provide fall protection to employees working at past that OSHA has issued a letter of interpretationheights over 20-feet. OSHA returned to the jobsite (LOI) regarding the use of extension cords. When Itwo days later and found the same hazards. As a discussed this with some clients their reaction wasresult High & Dry was issued two willful violations to wait and see. They took this approach becauseof workplace safety standards. According to the they viewed the LOI as a narrow document thatarticle, High & Dry now faces $152,460 in fines. would be limited to the company that requestedThis appears to have been a jobsite wall to wall the interpretation. Well, OSHA has spoken withinspection. In addition to the fall protection actions, not words. I have been advised that theviolations citations were also issued for (1) a lack of Columbus Area Office of OSHA has recently issuedhard hats and safety glasses for workers; (2) failing citations to an Indiana subcontractor and an Ohioto guard the operating parts of a compressor from contractor for violations of 29 CFR 1926.403(b)(2).contact; (3) having a scaffold too close to a 240-volt This section requires that all electrical equipmentline; (4) using ladders on scaffold platforms; and (5) shall be used in accordance with all labels. If youfailing to provide fall protection training. These are will recall the LOI stated that if extension cordsnot all of the items, but they do represent the range were labeled so as to prohibit their being used inof items included in the citations.series with other extension cords, OSHA would citeI bring this to your attention because you need employers for not complying with those labelingto be aware of the exposures you face as a roofing requirements. So, I believe we now have evidencecontractor. Think about how many jobs you would that OSHA is not restricting enforcement of thisneed to complete to secure the profits necessary to standard and/or the LOI to just the company thatoffset these fines. I know you are thinking, well I asked the question, but to all employers. can negotiate the numbers down.That may well There is one other point of clarification arisingbe possible, but remember, there is always a point out of the preceding paragraph; some employersbelow which the enforcement agency will not go. believe, for some reason, that if they are based in aIn addition, remember, after August 1st of this year state controlled OSHA state, they cannot be cited by federal OSHA, even if they travel to work to aafter August 1st of this federal OSHA state. This is NOT true. You, as an employer, fall under the jurisdiction of the state inyear fines go up by 82%which you are working. So, if you are in Indiana, as state OSHA state, and travel to Kentucky, anotherfines go up by 82%; so if issued after August 1st state OSHA state, you fall under the jurisdictionthese fines would be $277,477. In addition, there of Kentucky OSHA while working in Kentucky. Theare other costs which may be in play in such a same is true if you travel to a state in which federalsituation. Unfortunately, in our industry this is not OSHA has jurisdiction. an exceptional situation. I see high fines issued to In the January 15, 2016 issue of the OSHAroofing contractors much more than I do in any Newsletter, OSHA reported that a roofingother industry.6 www.mrca.orgMidwest Roofer'