The latest edition of the Labor Department’s regulatory agenda offers a mixed bag of unaddressed workplace hazards and slipped deadlines, as well as a few new topics for possible regulatory action to protect workers.
Crystalline silica, hydrofluoric acid and formaldehyde. Those are just three of the dozens of air toxic chemicals that oil companies have used thousands of times in southern California in just the past year.
Two recent incidents reminded me of what a worker said about “safety talks.”
A high-road employer and lower-wage workers spoke in the second week of public hearings on OSHA’s proposed rule to protect workers who are exposed to respirable crystalline silica.
Over the next three weeks, more than 200 individuals are scheduled to testify at OSHA’s public hearing on its proposed silica regulation. Unlike other regulatory agencies, OSHA’s rulemaking hearings are overseen by an administrative law judge. Those who testify can cross-examine and be cross-examined by other witnesses and agency officials.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have endorsed OSHA’s regulatory efforts to prevent silica-related disease.
Cancer
Economists’ flawed argument on OSHA’s “flawed” analysis of proposed rule to protect silica-exposed workers
Two economists, funded by right-wing, university-housed think tanks, say OSHA’s proposed rule to protect silica-exposed workers is flawed, sloppy, weak and unsubstantiated. I can say the same for their analyses of OSHA’s work.
At least 1.7 million US workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica each year, this according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These exposures occur in a variety of industries, among them construction, sandblasting, mining, masonry, stone and quarry work, and in the rapidly expanding method of oil and gas extraction […]
Will President Obama’s new regulatory czar make good on his promise to conduct reviews of agency rules in a timely manner? The 90-day deadline will expire this week for the office’s review of the Labor Department’s final rule to protect coal miners from black lung disease.
The scheming by Jackson Kelly attorneys to deny coal miners with black lung disease modest compensation is immoral. If coal companies are sincere about their workers being their “most precious resource,” they should dump the law firm.