OSHA's public hearing on its proposed regulation on respirable crystalline silica concluded last week. Some of the final witnesses included the American Petroleum Institute and the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund.
A few highlights (and low lights) from the first week of public hearings on OSHA’s proposed rule to protect workers who are exposed to respirable crystalline silica.
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.
A construction industry trade association in British Columbia urged the province's regulatory body to issue a proposed rule to protect silica-exposed workers. The proposal was issued this month. Where's the U.S. equivalent of a group of high-road construction employers insisting on rules to protect workers' health and safety?
Imagine an organization that is given 90 days to complete a task, but after two years still hasn't finished the job. When you ask them 'when we'll you be done?' they respond with 'no comment.' That's what's happening with a Labor Dept rule to protect workers from respirable silica.
Now that the Presidential election is over, it's time for the Labor Department to kick into high gear expand workers' rights and ensuring workers' lives and health are protected. Here's my wish list of tasks for the Labor Department to accomplish in the next 6 months:
More than 425 days—-that’s 14 months—-have passed [...]
“What’s taking so long?” might be uttered [...]
A group of 300 scientists, physicians and [...]
Before too long the US Department of [...]