OSHA chief: Let’s get real about fines

By: David LaHoda March 22nd, 2010

Looks like OSHA fines have been a bargain, given that they haven’t increased in 40 years.

That may be a cynical take on occupational safety and health concerns, but it was one piece of information Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels provided in testimony last week before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections in support of the Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA).

Workplaces have changed significantly since the OSH Act was enacted in 1970, but the act itself, at least with regard to the amount of penalties OSHA can impose per fine, has not changed, explained Michaels.

At best OSHA can visit only a limited number of workplaces each year through planned inspections, and Michael’s advocates for stiffer penalties to leverage the agency’s resources.

“Swift, certain and meaningful penalties provide an important incentive to ‘do the right thing.’ However, OSHA’s current penalties are not large enough to provide adequate incentives,” says Michaels.

Current penalties call for a maximum civil penalty of $7,000 for a serious violation. (Bloodborne pathogens fines, which are the most common in healthcare facilities, are considered serious violations. See editor’s note below) OSHA defines serious violations as those posing substantial probability of death or serious physical harm to workers. Going up in scale, willful and repeated violations carry a maximum penalty of $70,000.

The average OSHA fine is approximately $1,000, “while the median initial penalty proposed for all investigations in cases where a worker was killed conducted in FY 2007 was just $5,900,” according to Michaels.

“Unscrupulous employers often consider it more cost effective to pay the minimal OSHA penalty and continue to operate an unsafe workplace than to correct the underlying health and safety problem. The current penalties do not provide an adequate deterrent. This is apparent when compared to penalties that other agencies are allowed to assess,” says Michaels and offers as examples:

The Department of Agriculture, $130,000 on milk processors for willful violations of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act
The Federal Communications Commission, $325,000 on TV or radio stations for indecent content
The EPA, $270,000 for violations of the Clean Air Act and a penalty of $1 million for attempting to tamper with a public water system

Passage of the PAWA would increase civil and criminal penalties for every type of violation of the OSH Act, including upping the penalty willful for repeat violations involving a fatality to as much as $250,000, says Michaels. “We need to make employers who ignore real hazards to their workers’ safety and health think again. We need to bring OSHA into the 21st century.”

Editor’s note: To see what common OSHA fines were for physician practices, download OSHA Fines for Physician Practices from the Tools page.

Comments(4) Featured, OSHA - Citations & Fines

Comments

By Bruce on March 23rd, 2010 at 9:25 am

We have had some good discussions on another web site relating to this topic. Fines are but a part of the cost of business. I support an OSHA system that assists an employer in correcting issues and then uses heavy fines if they are not correcting the problem.

Real issue with increasing fines is to scare employers into compliance. That is a poor approach to safety. We have seen injuries and fatalities drop significantly which has to show that safety is getting across to much of the workplaces.

Are there employers who take short cuts and put production ahead of safety? Absolutely. But there are also employers trying their darndest to have a safe workplace and they still cannot get employees to follow the rules.

I manage 50 facilities and trying to get every employee to use the PPE that they are required to use would require that I have someone watching each employeee every day. OSHA has already fined us because an employee complained that we were not providing PPE. The OSHA inspector saw that every employee but him was using PPE and still fined us.

Section 5 of the OSHA act states

(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

So why is OSHA not proposing fines for the employees?

By Denise on March 23rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Bruce,
As part of our new employee orientation and annual OSHA/Safety training we have every employee sign an OSHA compliance agreement in which they agree to abide by OSHA regulation relating to their job at 100%. It also states that there is a progressive disciplinary action for non-compliance, ultimately resulting in dismissal for repeated offenses. Our company policy manual states what the steps leading up to dismissal are so that the employee should have no questions about the consequences of his/her actions. We have, on a few occasions, had to dismiss an employee for OSHA violations but have had no backlash from the employees afterward because the policies were clearly stated in our policy manual and the appropriate steps (following policy guidelines) had been taken. Maybe such a document would be helpful for your company as well.

By suzanne reilly,RDH on March 24th, 2010 at 11:39 am

hello
please state the regulation on removing a chemical/medicament from it’s original container and placing it into another “unmarked” container for a “small” amount of time and then using it. What defines a “small” amount of time?

By David LaHoda on March 24th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

First of all the OSHA regulation you allude to is only for hazardous chemicals. I know of none for unlabeled medications, as would be expected.

Section 1910.1200(f)(7) of the Hazard Communication standard addresses label requirements for transferring into secondary containers.

As I explain in an earlier post, “Ask the expert: Hazardous substances in unmarked containers,” OSHA defines immediate use as:

“The time during which the hazardous chemical is under the control of and in use only by the person transferring it from a labeled container and only within the work shift in which it is transferred.”

This post also has a link to an attention-getting unlabeled container hazards poster.