OSHA Rule Would Reveal Rogue Employers

librarycongress.twolaborersThe truth of the adage that knowledge is power is evident in backlash against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed rule to publicize companies’ health and safety records.

OSHA wants to eventually create a public web site containing workplace health and safety information. Businesses already have to report this information to OSHA and this information already supposedly  is public. In reality, however, the information is not accessible.

At present, an employee has to submit a formal information request to a government bureaucrat or  an often reluctant and suspicious employer. Moreover, this needlessly arduous and time consuming process makes it is virtually impossible to compare workplaces and industries.  (e.g., Is this mining company a callous rogue or simply a representative of a dangerous industry?)

Released in November 2013, the proposed rule requires electronic submission of workplace illness and injury data information. The agency will provide a secure website for data collection and insures that any data publicized will not include employee-identifying information. In a press release,  OSHA argues that timely, establishment-specific injury and illness data “will help OSHA target its compliance assistance and enforcement resources more effectively by identifying workplaces where workers are at greater risk, and enable employers to compare their injury rates with others in the same industry.”

As usual, the opposition is led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,  fresh from its victory in defeating a proposed rule by the National Labor Relations Board  to require employers to post notices informing workers of their right to work together to improve their working conditions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

At a public meeting called by OSHA earlier this month, Baruch Fellner, a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, which represents the national chamber, argued that OSHA is not authorized by statute to create a new, publicly searchable database of workplace injury and illness records.”This is completely beyond OSHA’s mandate,” decried  Fellner. (This was the chamber’s winning argument  to defeat the NLRA posting rule.)

Opponents contend that making employers’ injury and illness data publicly available could unjustly harm an employer’s reputation because the data would not be put into context or include information about the employer workplace safety programs and improvements. They also expressed concern for the potential misuse of this data by business competitors or (gasp!) trial attorneys.

It is certainly understandable that businesses with inordinately high numbers of workplace casualties would want to keep this information under wraps. However, that same argument could be made by convicted felons and sex offenders. Which begs the question – why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce choosing to align itself with rogue businesses that create or tolerate  conditions that result in needless workplace injuries and deaths.

Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, says the  reporting rule would permit employers, employees, the government and researchers to have better access to data that will encourage earlier abatement of hazards and result in improved programs to reduce workplace hazards and prevent injuries, illnesses and fatalities. He notes that the proposal does not add any new requirement to keep records; it only modifies an employer’s obligation to transmit these records to OSHA.

It seems obvious that true public disclosure of health and safety data could change the equation for employers that now consider employee injuries and deaths to be cheaper than spending money on best practices and workplace safety.

If this is not OSHA’s mandate, what is?

The public has until Feb. 6, 2014, to submit written comments on OSHA’s proposed rule.

Under the proposed rule, initially establishments with more than 250 employees are required to electronically submit the records on a quarterly basis to OSHA. Establishments with 20 or more employees, in certain industries with high injury and illness rates, are required to submit electronically only their summary of work-related injuries and illnesses to OSHA once a year.

Roberts Tells Congress to Set Aside Politics?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has called on Congress to set aside politics when it comes to funding the federal courts.

Oh, the irony.

In his year end report, he wrote, “The United States courts owe their preeminence in no small measure to statesmen who have supported a strong, independent, and impartial judiciary as an essential element of just government and the rule of law.”

This from a Supreme Court justice who is considered to be the most pro-business, anti-worker justice since World War II.

One cannot help but wonder how the Court hopes to rally public support when it has consistently refused to allow its proceedings to be televised and has provided virtually no leadership to encourage the use social media and internet technology to  better serve the public.  The Roberts’  court has done little, if anything,  to help the public understand the importance of the judiciary is a democratic society.

The U.S. Supreme Court who?

A suggestion for Congress  – this might be a good time to encourage the Court to open its doors to television cameras.

Moreover, the Roberts’ court appears to be terribly, woefully and sadly out of touch with the masses, tuning out the little folk who pay federal judges’ hefty salaries while providing a megaphone to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Roberts is seeking $7 billion appropriation in 2014, which compares to $6.97 billion allocated last year (reduced by about  $300 million  by sequestration, after Congress gave the courts an additional $51 million in October). The Court has passed along budget cuts to federal public defender offices, clerks,  parole and probation officers.

The business of federal courts appears to be down overall.  Filings in  civil and criminal cases grew by 1 percent in 2013 but  filings in appeals courts dropped by 2 percent; filings in the Supreme Court dropped by 2.6 percent; and, filings in bankruptcy courts dropped by 12 percent.

One reason for the decline may be that  victims  of employment discrimination are foregoing the use of federal courts because of the hostility of federal judges to job discrimination claims.

A 2013 article in The Minnesota Law Review reviews some 2,000 U.S. Supreme Court decisions and ranked the 36 justices who served on the court from 1946 to 2011 by the proportion of their pro-business votes.

Roberts  and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., both appointed by GOP President George W. Bush, are the most likely to vote in favor of business interests of any of the 36 justices who has served since 1946.  And three other current conservative justices are in the top ten of most pro-business justices since 1946.  They are Justices Clarence M. Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Also on the Court are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia M. Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, all appointed by Democratic presidents.

The study was prepared by Lee Epstein, a law professor at the University of Southern California; William M. Landes, an economist at the University of Chicago; and Judge Richard A. Posner, of the federal appeals court in Chicago, who teaches law at the University of Chicago.

 

NLRB Poster Rule Down for the Count

 Employers  may have won the battle to keep American workers ignorant of rights they have held for 70 years ago under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in South Carolina recently ruled  the National Labor Relations Board lacks the authority to require employers to post notices either electronically or  physically “in a conspicuous place” informing workers of their rights under the NLRA.   

This holding follows an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the poster rule violated employers free speech rights.

The NLRB contends that American workers are largely ignorant of their rights under the NLRA, adding that the poster rule is particularly important for non-union workers who lack a designated bargaining representative. The NLRA can come into play for non-union employees when, for example, an employer fires a non-union worker for discussing a safety concern or other concerns about working conditions. 

 The poster informed employees that they have a  right to form and join unions, collectively bargain with representation, discuss the terms of their employment and take action to improve working conditions.  

 The poster rule elicited immediate opposition from a broad coalition of national  business groups after it was approved by the NLRB in  2011.

 Interestingly, 21 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined with the chamber to oppose the poster rule, including John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce

 The  South Carolina appeals court ruled the NLRB is not charged with informing employees of their rights under the NLRA and “ we find no indication in the plain language of the Act that Congress intended to grant the Board the authority to promulgate such a requirement.”

 Earlier, the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit  held  the notice-posting rule violated Section 8(c) of the NLRA, which prohibits the board from finding employer speech that is not coercive to be an unfair labor practice.   

In addition to Kline, the following members of the U.S. Congress House of Representatives signed on to an amicus brief opposing the NLRB  rule requiring that employers post a notice  advising workers of their rights: 

  • JOE WILSON, R-SC.;
  •  RODNEY ALEXANDER, R- LA;
  • STEVE PEARCE, R-NM;
  •  GREGG HARPER, R-MS;
  •  PHIL ROE, R-TN;
  • GLENN THOMPSON, R-PA;
  • TIM WALBERG, R-MI;
  • LOU BARLETTA, R-PA;
  •  LARRY BUCSHON, R-IN;
  • SCOTT DESJARLAIS, R-TN;
  • TREY GOWDY, R-SC;
  • JOE HECK, R-NV;
  •  BILL HUIZENGA, R-MI;
  •  MIKE KELLY, R-PA;
  • JAMES LANKFORD, R-OK;
  • ; KRISTI NOEM, R-SD;
  • ; ALAN NUNNELEE, R-Miss;
  • ; REID RIBBLE, R-WS; 
  • TODD ROKITA, R-IN;
  • and DANIEL WEBSTER, R-FL.

Business Opposes the NLRB ‘Poster Rule’

What They Don’t Want You to Know …

A melodrama is being played out in federal court about whether American workers should be informed of rights that they have possessed for 70 years under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Most workers think the NLRA pertains only to union organizing but it provides most workers the right to join together to improve their wages and working conditions with or without a union. The NLRA can come into play, for example, when an employer fires a non-union employee(s) for discussing a safety concern or other concerns about working conditions.

Employers are spending millions to prevent workers from knowing their rights!

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a rule last summer that would have required most private sector employers to post a notice on Nov. 14, 2011 informing all workers of their rights under the NLRA.  This is called the NLRB “Poster Rule.” There was an immediate outcry from business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and Associated Builders and Contractors (all of which filed lawsuits to block the rule).

Twice delayed, the rule was scheduled to go into effect on April 30, 2012. That’s not going to happen now because of recent federal court rulings in multiple lawsuits. Here are the legal developments:

  • The  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2012 issued a temporary injunction prohibiting implementation of the rule, pending appeal.
  • U.S. District Judge David Norton of South Carolina ruled on April 13, 2012 that the labor board went beyond its legal authority when issuing the rule.
  • U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington, D.C., on March 2, 2012 ruled that the NLRB had the authority to adopt the poster rule, though she said the NLRB exceeded its authority with respect to certain penalty penalties for failing to comply with the rule.

The NLRB says the notice is needed because “many employees protected by the NLRA are unaware of their rights under the statute.”   Requiring employers to post the notice would, according to the NLRB, “increase knowledge of the NLRA among employees, in order to better enable the exercise of rights under the statute.”

Most union workers are aware that the NLRA protects their right to organize but non-union workers may have no idea that the NLRA also protects them,  whether they want to join a union or not. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to engage in “concerted activities” not only for self-organization but also “for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection. . . .”

The broad protection of Section 7 applies with particular force to unorganized employees who, because they have no designated bargaining representative, must “speak for themselves as best they [can].”  NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 14, 82 S.Ct. 1099, 8 L.Ed.2d 298 (1962).

At this point, it is anyone’s guess whether  the NLRA posters will ever see the fluorescent light of break rooms in businesses and factories around the country.  I suggest workers print out this article or an equivalent and (anonymously) post it on their employee bulletin board.