OSHA Wants To Post All Workplace Injury Reports Online 100
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "AP reports that federal safety regulators are proposing major changes in workplace reporting rules that would require large companies to file injury and illness reports electronically so they can be posted online and made available to the public. 'Public posting of workplace illness and injury information will nudge employers to better identify and eliminate hazards,' says OSHA head David Michaels. OSHA says the change is in line with President Barack Obama's initiative to increase public access to government data. The plan would require companies with more than 250 employees to submit the data electronically on a quarterly basis. That would cover about 38,000 American companies, says Michaels. Under current rules, employers are required to post annual summaries of injury and illness reports in a common area where they can be seen by employees. While the OSHA web site contains raw numbers about incidents at certain workplaces, it doesn't describe what the injury was or how it occurred. OSHA will hold a public meeting on the proposed rule on January 9 in Washington and is accepting public comments for 90 days, until February 6, 2014. Not everyone is enamored of the change. 'Just because you have an injury, it does not mean there was employer fault,' says Marc Freedman, executive director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 'Reporting the injury records does not tell the full story of the company.' Some company safety professionals and researchers say they are concerned that the new proposal might unintentionally create an under-reporting problem. Companies may feel pressure to report lower injury numbers if they know they will be made public."
Re: (Score:3)
ouch!
Hurt yourself laughing?
The NSA is probably only a few doors from OSHA <_<
Too easy... (Score:1)
"...require companies with more than 250 employees to submit..." Solution: Fire all but 250 of your employees.
If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"...require companies with more than 250 employees to submit..." Solution: Fire all but 250 of your employees.
If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.
Mitt! What you been up to since 2012?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny joke but the reality is that if you provide incentives for companies to reduce their full time workforce (like Obamacare) don't be surprised when they do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that only a tiny percentage of companies are right at 250 employees. Most companies are either way smaller or way larger. A 1,000 employee company is not going to lay off 75% of its workforce just to avoid a law. At best, this creates a small disincentive for companies that are approaching that line to cross it, or a small incentive for companies that are only slightly above the line to reduce their headcount by a few people.
That said, in practice, most companies hire exactly as many peop
Re: (Score:2)
But it really doesn't, at least in the bigger picture. If you, as a business owner, don't move into a new area, assuming that area has a reasonable chance of being profitable, somebody else will. And then you have two companies of 249 employees because your company didn't grow. At some point, the economies of scale resulting from combining into a smaller number of companies with more people far outweigh any disincentive that might appear to exist right at or near the limit, at which point you make the l
Re: (Score:2)
"...require companies with more than 250 employees to submit..." Solution: Fire all but 250 of your employees.
If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.
Or we could just end the gamemanship which allows companies to claim employees aren't employees if they walk and quack like a duck, just because they're farmed out only for the purpose of avoiding having to call them employees.
Get the laws written sanely (Score:2)
If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.
That potential loophole is ridiculously easy to seal with some careful phrasing of the rules. You simply have to look at beneficial ownership [thefreedictionary.com] and make companies have to report injuries from subcontractors. No, the proper way to deal with this is through getting the rules written in a sane manner in the first place. If information like this is made public then it needs to be done so in a manner that explains the context.
The notion of reporting workplace injuries is a good idea (in principle anyway) but th
Re: (Score:2)
If necessary, outsource any remaining work to 1 or more subcontractors, each of which has 250 employees or less.
That potential loophole is ridiculously easy to seal with some careful phrasing of the rules. You simply have to look at beneficial ownership [thefreedictionary.com] and make companies have to report injuries from subcontractors. No, the proper way to deal with this is through getting the rules written in a sane manner in the first place. If information like this is made public then it needs to be done so in a manner that explains the context.
The notion of reporting workplace injuries is a good idea (in principle anyway) but there are a LOT of nuances to the issue. Many workplace injuries have nothing to do with the actual performance of work at the job. Sometimes people just trip and hurt themselves in ways they could just as easily have done in their living room and which the company could not possible prevent. Should that be something the company is held responsible for? There are a LOT of people who falsely claim to have received workplace injuries in order to get workers compensation payments. Should the company be penalized by public reporting of these false claims? What about when it is unclear whether the "injury" was real or not?
It's a complicated issue and a simply reporting requirement is both a significant administrative burden and a potential source of misleading information about the safety of a given workplace.
As a member of a Safety Committee for over ten years I have a bit of insight. Pushing job safety is important. I worked in the electrical power industry. A mistake there can easily cost a life. However, when employers start putting sanctions and letters in personnel files it has a chilling effect. Accidents are no longer are reported. Near misses will never be reported. If management truly care about safety then they will want true data and push for safer working conditions, not punishment. Safety is an at
Re:Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, more like if you trip and fall down perfectly normal stairs while running down them, it's not really your employer's fault just because the stairs happened to be in their office.
Re: (Score:3)
Or something I know specifically that happened. When I was younger I worked as a line cook at a restaurant. One day a dishwasher was bringing plated to the line and stacked them so high, he couldn't see in front of himself as he walked. He stepped on a dolly used to move glassware to the front of the house and fell over busting most of the plates and almost severing his middle finger on his right hand completely off. It was literally hanging by a thread of flesh.
Needless to say, they were able to re-attache
Re:Exactly! (Score:5, Informative)
That's a good way to do it, take a specific example.
IANAL but I've talked to lawyers and OSHA inspectors.
First, workplace accidents aren't personal injury cases. They're no-fault. It's like employers make a deal with employees.
When employees are injured on the job, the employer and his mandatory insurance are responsible for paying the medical costs, the lost earnings, and if there's a permanent disability, the cost of the disability in lost earnings for the rest of his life. Fault doesn't enter into it. Even if the employee was stupid and irresponsible, the employer is responsible for covering the costs of his injury.
In return, the employer doesn't have any liability to the employee for personal injury. For example, a lawyer told me about an employment case she handled where a McDonald's employee was burned severely over a large area of his skin by grease spilling on him, the first day on the job. If that were a personal injury case, the employee would have gotten a lot of money. But because it was an employment case, he was only entitled to medical expenses and lost earnings.
So not paying his medical expenses isn't an option. It doesn't matter whether he was at fault or stupid. If he was injured on the job, the employer has to pay for it. In exchange, the employee can't sue them for personal injury.
The other issue is that when you have an injury, everybody is responsible. The employee is responsible for being stupid, but the employer is responsible for not maintaining a safe workplace, which includes training and supervising their employees. But employees don't have to pay the costs of the consequences of their unsafe actions. Employers do.
Re: (Score:3)
The rest of what you said is also true, but doesn't need specifically addressed. The lawsuits I am speaking of is not a general liability type of suit, it is where a company acted illegally in ignoring safety or some other regulation which resulted in the employee's injury or death. An example might be a construction worker was ordered to go on top of a pitched roof in the middle of wint
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I didn't know about those.
Re: (Score:3)
No, more like if you trip and fall down perfectly normal stairs while running down them, it's not really your employer's fault just because the stairs happened to be in their office.
No, under OSHA regulations, and under any safe workplace policies (including policies imposed by the insurance companies), the employer has an obligation to provide a safe workplace.
That includes training and supervision.
The employer has an obligation to make sure employees aren't running down stairs. Employers can fire employees who unsafely run down stairs.
But if the employer lets an employee run down stairs on his employer's time, and the employee falls and hurts himself, the employer is responsible for
Re: (Score:2)
So, in the three seconds between when the employee started running and when they started falling down the stairs, it's the employer's obligation to make sure they're not running?
The only way to make sure that that doesn't happen is to have RFID tags monitoring the speed of people and a PA system that automatically announces "Employee #314159 - stop running".
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the employers responsibility to hire and train employees. That includes safety awareness and procedures.
If employees are unsafe, that is a reflection on the company. If there are safety incidents, that is a reflection that the company does not value safety.
The Government's Data? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or is it company data that is collected by the government?
Re: (Score:2)
"OSHA says the change is in line with President Barack Obama's initiative to increase public access to government data."
Or is it company data that is collected by the government?
It's in line with government access to public data.
I'll get me coat.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get me coat.
No need, ol' chap; This is Slashdot, not El Reg. Stick around for another pint.
Re: (Score:2)
When it's happened to Obama, they've just pretended it didn't exist and tried to wish it away. So why should we do any different when it comes to companies?
I see the opposite. (Score:3)
Rather, what employer is going to hire someone who has made a claim in the past?
Re:I see the opposite. (Score:4, Informative)
Rather, what employer is going to hire someone who has made a claim in the past?
The information will most certainly not identify individuals.
Names aren't needed to identify individuals. (Score:1)
You do realize that names don't have to be given to still make it very easy to identify a person who is named in such a report, right?
Let's say you work at a software development company. Let's say it's a larger company, and relatively well known. At the very least, all of your family knows you work there, your friends know, and you have it on your LinkedIn or Facebook pages.
Now, being a software company, severe injuries are likely quite rare. It may be typical, if not expected, for years to go by between s
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't even as convoluted as that. If a person has a claim against any company that required them to miss work, there will be a gap in their employment record. All anyone would have to do is look at the application, then search the previous company for any gaps in employment. What's this, some employees had a claim that costs 200k about the time this guy was unemployed? oh, and it is a back injury, well, I guess we will put this in the if there is no one else pile.
It doesn't even need to identify them. Ju
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it strange that you act as if I know nothing but then go ahead and run to prove what I mentioned. Obviously if you cut your finger and take a day off, you are not going to have any gaps in employment. But when "Simply put, your genitals have been turned to jelly. The doctors do what they can to save your manhood, but it's a lost cause." as the GP mentioned happens, there will likely be a gap in em
Re: (Score:2)
Well I found it strange that you asserted knowledge that I could clearly invalidate. I don't see where I proved any of your point but perspective is perspective. I'll clarify.
So you were laid off after the claim was over evidently (that "after" you stated isn't clear enough). My statement was that you aren't laid off while the case is open ("on workman's comp") or on FMLA or long term insurance plans. Once the claim is closed, a
Re: (Score:2)
IS reading comprehension not a strong trait of yours? I specifically quoted what you said that validated my claim. "until you accept Gov disability or your long term disability plan runs out or you guys make a settlement." You said it right?
Re: (Score:2)
I can read and write quite well, thanks. I proved nothing you said at all in the least-- I even clarified the statement for you. I made a list of all four of those scenarios and WHY YOUR POINT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER but YOU are too stupid to see it. You are freaking out about what-ifs and all the usual "er mah gerd shit is changing and I don't like it!" If you are healed then you still ha
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. you made a point about what you think but aren't actually correct so your point is useless. As I already said, you were wrong. You being wrong and me pointing it out does not need to result in you blowing a gasket. Of course I am dealing with what ifs because they are the exception to your rule that makes you incorrect.
BTW, you are still wrong and it seems you failed to comprehend what I said again, I have never been on Gov disability just off on WC due to injury and when I had my two surgeries.
Now he
Re: (Score:2)
"Now everyone knows you basically have no penis and scrotum any longer. That's embarrassing!"
Wow. That's a pretty graphic example. But you make it sound very believable. Almost as though you were actually there!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it won't. Just like all H1-B visa salaries get posted online, but "the information will most certainly not identify individuals". And yet, with a bit of work you can reliably determine how much each of your H1-B co-workers make, because enough information is published to data-mine.
Except in this case background-check companies will likely sell this as a service.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case background-check companies will likely sell this as a service.
HIPAA, medical privacy, case closed.
HIPAA - population size issue (Score:3)
I've done reporting work at a state health department. In general, information was suppressed if it was to small of a population (incident population or rate population). In general, a population under 50 is considered too small to report publicly without exposing protected health information (PHI). With accident records, you population is employees. Suppressing site information may help, but it also reduces the effectiveness. It's also likely that most small businesses would never have a large enough popul
Re: (Score:1)
I am interested in building a service that would compile this public record information with other information, that I may come from other sources, like the social media, maybe some private company records, etc. and I would sell this information to the willing employers for a subscription fee. If there is a way to identify the employees that file claims against employers, this information needs to be provided to the employers that are interested in figuring out if they are hiring somebody who is more likely to sue them and then it's their choice to take or not to take this risk.
So you're saying you want to build a service that makes a blacklist of people who employers would not want to hire, so that employers can reject them out-of-hand based on what might or might not even be accurate or relevant information. You would, of course, not make this information accessible to the employees themselves, as it would not be in your interest (as the seller of said service) to allow them the opportunity to know what information is available about them or give them a chance to respond to it
transparency is not what it looks like (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:easy and shady solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Corrective actions taken is entirely proper. OSHA and MSHA do not exist to penalize companies but to implement and enforce a standard that makes working there relatively safe. If a boss orders you to do something that is against OSHA policies, you have the ability to personally sue them. OSHA has the ability to ensure they do not do it again which can mean corrective action like retraining employees and supervisors or using different safety equipment.
Cash settlements and fines should be reserved for repetitive violations. And remember, regardless of OSHA fines or action, the employee retains a right to recover damages independent of OSHA. In fact, OSHA makes it easier because their regulation is the de facto industry minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
Corrective actions taken is entirely proper. OSHA and MSHA do not exist to penalize companies but to implement and enforce a standard that makes working there relatively safe. If a boss orders you to do something that is against OSHA policies, you have the ability to personally sue them. OSHA has the ability to ensure they do not do it again which can mean corrective action like retraining employees and supervisors or using different safety equipment.
Cash settlements and fines should be reserved for repetitive violations. And remember, regardless of OSHA fines or action, the employee retains a right to recover damages independent of OSHA. In fact, OSHA makes it easier because their regulation is the de facto industry minimum.
Much like the highway patrol is there to improve safety? No, OSHA and MSHA lately have been more interested in their own budget instead of real safety. Look at their VPP program where companies can now pay for the privilege of getting inspected less frequently. The VPP inspection is a joke, consisting of nothing more than a single site inspection and no recent reported injuries (not that companies voluntarily report any way).
Re:easy and shady solution (Score:4, Interesting)
And even then, there is rampant "You're not an employee, you're contractor, and don't even think about employment insurance or contributions to your pension."
The end result is stuff like guys working three stories up, on the roof, in the rain, with no safety gear of any sort.
Workers won't file a complaint because they would be fired immediately. Or more to the point, their "not an employee" contract would be ended immediately. The company knows full well that without a complaint there is zero chance that any inspector will visit the job site. Especially after years of cut-backs which eliminated half of the people who used to do that job.
The bottom line with safety has to be frequent inspections, big fat fines, and a rapid escalation of fines for repeated violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Employees get worker's compensation, which is limited to lost wages, and much less than they would get from a personal injury case.
Contractors can sue for personal injury, which is a lot more.
For example, if you as a programmer lost your penis and scrotum changing a light bulb, then under worker's comp you would be entitled to any lost wages for the time you were in the hospital or recuperating, but that's all. Losing your penis and scrotum wouldn't affect your future earning capacity as a programmer.
As a c
Doesn't work like that (Score:2)
start reporting your employees as independent contractors.
Doesn't get you a thing. Businesses are responsible for people working on their behalf whether or not they receive a W2.
the fact is OSHA has been a toothless entity for a decade or so anyhow.
Toothless? Hardly. They might be underfunded but they can easily shut a business down on a whim. They can even lie about "findings" and fine you as a result. If OSHA visits your facility you are almost certain to be fined for something. It's virtually impossible to be perfectly compliant with every rule. In my state they even send out offers to "inspect" your place to make suggestio
We need health inspection reports posted (Score:2)
Every restaurant should have to post their inspection results on their website and in their window. They should be color-coded. That would be of immensely more public value than this
Re: (Score:2)
We have this in Michigan. You can see how many critical and non-critical violations each restaurant in the state had at the last semi-annual health inspection. It sucks for the restaurants though, since silly things are "critical", like having a dumpster lid (outdoors) open from the wind, or a completely shaved-bald man not wearing a hairnet, or cutting a milk dispenser bag nipple at a 30deg angle instead of 45deg, or using a steamtable rated for reheating food instead of a double boiler or the oven. The la
Re: (Score:2)
Most are required to post the inspection prominently now, just not on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's more likely that shitty employers will punish employees for reporting safety concerns; in a crappy job economy, it's more likely that workers would take more risks than they would prefer because they're so afraid of losing their job and knowing how difficult it is to find another one, especially if you are unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is already misleading. You do not currently need to report injuries that do not result in 3 or more employees being hospitalized to OSHA.
https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/index.html [osha.gov]
In the past, all you needed to do was keep records within your office of workplace injuries that do not need to be reported and post summaries once a year so employees could see them. The problem is, a guy shows up to work feeling bad and has a heart attack on the production floor. Is that a workplace injury or is that just
Re: (Score:2)
"Not every injury is the employer's fault" Yeah, so what? Most of them are.
Do you have a source for that? Because it doesn't fit in any way with my anecdotal evidence. I am on the "safety committee" where I work. Not because my job has anything to do with safety or that I'm even management, just that every business unit needs to send a representative and I drew the IT short straw. Anyway, this means that for almost a decade now I have read the reports on every injury in our facility. This is an large factory operation with thousands of employees. I can't recall the last time an i
Re: (Score:2)
That's odd, because every one of the incidents you listed (they are not accidents) was the employers fault. They may have also been the employees fault.
Here's the deal, if you have lazy employees, those who don't wear PPE, take shortcuts, etc., then what is the employer doing about it? If the answer is "nothing" or the equivalent, then the employer does not value safety. I've worked at places where those things will result in termination or significant discipline and where they won't. Guess which places
Re: (Score:2)
What about medical error injuries (Score:2)
Is this going to include medical error injuries? That's what really needs to be publicly reported.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean Malpractice? That's down the hall over at the AMA with supposed oversight by HHS but they're a little busy right now fixing a website.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean Malpractice
Not necessarily but that too needs to be publicly available. Not all medical mistakes are elevated to the level of malpractice. That's one of the biggest problems with the system. You remove the wrong body part or leave something you weren't supposed to inside someone, yeah, that's probably malpractice. But a misdiagnosis or even given someone the wrong medication doesn't always rise to that level. I would argue they are more often systematic or process problems. The fact that in general they are almost alw
Law of unintended consequences (Score:2)
The result will be more robots or shipping jobs overseas.
Already done (Score:2)
Just hop over to /b/ on 4chan.
Why haven't they done this before? (Score:2)
It seems strange that this kind of data isn't already publicly available. Putting it on a website is certainly more efficient... wait, HealthCare.gov.. well, maybe it'll be more efficient, it's a different department. But what bothers me is the illness portion of it, are they talking flu or incidents of cancer? If it's the latter then they need to first publish the information about the TSA employees in Boston and possible radiation exposure due to nudeo scanners. [time.com] Of course the TSA says "uh huh" and say [tsa.gov]