Essay on Problems for Young, American Owners of Dynamic Duo, Inc.

proactive measures I have instructed all the leads onsite to discuss safety with OSHA (See pic #5

All employees of Robinson’s Excavation are valued members of the organization which is why safety must always come first. The construction industry is traditionally a hazardous work environment, but with vigilance, dedication, and training, the dangers can be significantly reduced. In order to provide the employees of Robinson’s Excavation with a safe work environment, all employees, regardless of status, are required to follow and enforce all safety procedures, which are not all inclusive. Additionally, the following protocol is in compliance with all state and federal OHSA regulations.

Primarily, I would recommend that Dynamic Duo seek legal advice and contact an attorney to advise them of the situation at hand. All the more, I would highly recommend that Dynamic Duo consult with an attorney who regularly practices OSHA law regarding their rights and defenses when an OSHA citation has been received. Therefore, by implementing a lawyer that regularly practices OSHA law would help counsel and contest or challenge proposed citations and penalties. Furthermore, experienced OSHA lawyers understand the detailed regulations and OSHA’s practices and can often negotiate lower penalties and much better abatement terms for the employer. I would also immediately record any and all injuries up to this point that many employees have received. I would then immediately take care of any violations listed by OSHA.

In addition, Williams violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.651(k) (1) for failing to designate a “competent person” with sufficient training and knowledge to identify and correct existing and predictable hazards (www.dol.gov). No supervisor at the Company was familiar with the basic standards applicable to the worksite or otherwise “capable of identifying and correcting existing and predictable hazards in their surroundings.” The court disagreed that the Company discharged its OSHA duties merely by relying on the general work experience of Dzamba and J.P. Williams or “common sense.”

Cornelius, I agree that OSHA is a need for medical facilities. They made the laws for a reason, and they have proven time and time again that the laws and requirements are needed. The safety training it provides for employees can even benefit them when they are not in the office. They will know what is right and wrong, and they would probably stick by that to prevent their families and close friends from getting sick.

In order for the company to take advantage of increases in demand and achieve high operational standards, the building needs a complete renovation. For example, the offices and the plant must be separated and more space given to production areas, since joined areas are cluttered and unsafe. They must Adopt a new layout. A modern plant design and safer working environments will permit faster production. Additionally, the enhancement of safety will reduce cases of potential work injuries, which could be very costly indeed. (O’Toole & Mackenzie, 2011).

R. Williams Construction Company v. OSHRC is a case regarding the rules and regulations of OSHA verse the practices of a construction company. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is a government regulated organization that was created to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. The regulations of OSHA have been put in place to eliminate and/or reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. Therefore, legal issue of this case is whether or not the courts should hold the construction company responsible for specific violations of OSHA standard regulations. Yet, in the case of Williams Construction the company was put under investigation by OSHA after a trench

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

In contradiction to the downgrading tone presented in the previous discussion towards OSHA and its involvement in the meatpacking industry, the implementation of OSHA had some uplifting attributes even though it had minute significance to the cause as presented by the scholarly individual, Dr. Sears, and the two notable muckraker, Eric Schlosser and Upton Sinclair. In cohesion to the upbringing of change due to OSHA, Claire Epstein’s article, “Keeping OSHA Records” enhances the awareness of the regulatory incorporation’s care for the workers safety and documentation by stating “Employers with more than 11 employees who are not in partially exempt industries are required to keep OSHA recordkeeping logs to track information on OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses” (Epstein). But not only did OSHA begin collecting records of the employees, but in “OSHA Updates Guide on Training Requirements” by Professional Safety, OSHA supplies workers with news occurring to fellow members of the country-wide workforce, and in this case is an injury pertaining to “Harco” and his personal negligence and misunderstanding of faulty hardware in order to prevent similar injuries and to analyze the faults and fabricate new directions to have a safer time when in the workplace (Professional Safety). In addition to the article, Professional Safety provides a handbook for workers that may/may not suppress the confusion, but is a sole act of generosity. In comparison, The United States Department of

In 2008, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. have failed to ensure a sustainable safety environment, put in place a health program, and maintain adequate record keeping on work-related injury and illnesses claims for certain locations in the state of Ohio. This employer has been made aware of OSHA requirements for its industry and has been cited many times for similar infractions. OSHA regulators have imposed stiff penalty fines that have cost Lowe’s Companies Inc. thousands of dollars. The record-keeping violations at the

Instead of these managers looking out for their workers, they try to hide the injuries, and will give injured employees easier jobs until they are healed, if they agree to not visit the doctor. They feel the need to hide minor injuries because "a supervisor must meet production goals, keep the number of recorded injuries low, and most importantly, keep the meat flowing down the line without interruption" (Schlosser 175). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for inspecting meatpacking plants and making sure they are operating and functioning properly. The old OSHA policy was that, there were 1,300 inspectors and over 5 million workplaces to be looked at. The employers would expect an inspection about every 80 years (Schlosser 179). Now, for an inspection to even be done, the factories injury rate must be higher than the national average. There is a slim chance of that happening because the records are kept by the companies' officials, since the have direct control on the number of injury reports. Schlosser brings up an interesting statement about OSHA's policy when he says they "did indeed reduce the number of recorded injuries in meatpacking plants. It did not, however, reduce the number of people getting hurt. It merely encouraged companies, in the words of a subsequent congressional investigation, "to understate

According to the Bureau of Labor, statistics indicate that more than 4.1 million people were hurt or injured on-the-job in 2006 and 5,488 were killed in 2007 (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2010, p. 511). Laws and regulatory requirements are currently in place to standardize and promote workplace safety. Organizations with extensive safety programs have reduced number of accidents, decreased workers’ compensation claims and lawsuits and lesser accident-related expenditures (Gomez-Mejia, et al, 2010, p. 511). This paper discusses the effects of legal, safety and regulatory requirements in

The employer also has to comply with all standards, rules, and regulations that are set forth by OSHA and the OSH Act. Employers are required to inspect the workplace to insure they are up to OSHA standards. Insure that employees are only using safe tools and equipment that are in their proper condition. It should be easy for the employees to be aware of potential hazards by the employer posting signs, using color codes, labels, or signs to convey warning. Employees must be trained in a language that they understand. Operating procedures must be in place and properly communicated to the employees to assure the employees follow safety and health standards. Employers that house or use hazardous chemicals will be required to have hazardous communication program and for that all the employees to be trained on exposure and precautions. Employers are to fund medical exams if required by OSHA standards. The OSHA poster must placed in a prominent location at the workplace. Records need to be kept of work-related injuries and illnesses. The log of these injuries and illnesses need to made available on February 1st for three months. Assure employees have access to medical and exposure records. Provide a workplace free of discrimination. OSHA citations must be posted at or near the work area where the infraction occurred. The citation must be in place for three working days or until the

I would like to see the entire report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. What has been done to promote a safe work environment? To what extent has Dynamic Duo, Inc. committed to making their plant a safe and productive work place? It would be a benefit for the organization to hire a work site inspector for assistance in making the company safe. This assessment needs to be by some one that specialize in manufacturing plants.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), often referred to as the "OSH Act," was enacted in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon. Its purpose is to assure safe and healthful working conditions for men and women (EPA, 2006). The Act is administered and enforced at the national level by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a division of the US Department of Labor. The application of the OSH Act in the current employment climate will be discussed as it applies to a variety of industries; considerations that are most applicable to the specific type of industry will be discussed initially, and those that are equally important regardless of the type of business will complete the section. Finally, this paper will discuss how the