Saturday, October 22, 2011

Bureaucrats Gone Wild

Obama snarkily asked, “The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations… Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?”

Yes! And here's an example of another Obama agency enthusiastically destroying jobs with ridiculous interpretations of the law. 
Known as the "General Duty Clause," this provision requires employers to keep their workplaces "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm" to employees.

Congress intended for this clause to be used only as a temporary measure, until OSHA could draft rules regarding specific hazards that had the agency had not yet addressed. It was not intended to be used as a means for OSHA to issue citations for anything under the sun.

Yet in the past several years, OSHA has used the General Duty Clause to cite companies for issues as varied as crowd control, heat stress, and even the use of killer whales in SeaWorld shows.

Now, OSHA seeks to take the General Duty Clause one step further, and to use it to hold employers liable for actions taken by people who are not their employees. This is troublesome for two reasons.

First, it is incredible to hold companies liable for the actions of the general public. By that standard, every time an unruly bar patron takes a swing at a bouncer, or every time a criminal holds up a convenience store, it's the employer's fault for placing employees in that situation.

Indeed, employees in the security industry by definition place themselves at risk of assault by the general public. What is to become of them?

Second, the directive provides employers no clue about what to do to avoid a citation. Will a grocery store or bank be liable if employees are shot during a robbery? OSHA's answer to this question is an emphatic "maybe," and depends in part on what measures a security expert may recommend to the employer. But employers should not have to hire an expert to find out what the law requires.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home