Safety Wars
Safety Wars Live 6-26-2024 Supreme Court and OSHA News
Hi this is Jim from Safety Wars. Before we set the program, I want to make sure everyone understands that we often didn't talk about OSHA and EPA citations, along with some other regulatory actions from other agencies, legal cases, and criminal activity. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Proposed fines are exactly that and they are often litigated, reduced, or vacant. We use available public records and news accounts and press releases. We cannot warranty or guarantee the details of any of the stories we share, since we are not directly involved with these stories, at least not most of the time. Enjoy the show. This, this, this, this, this show is brought to you by Safety FM. And we are here, from the border of Liberty and Prosperity, and the highway to the north to the safety wars, for Wednesday. Well, we're blown just blown through this week. Wednesday, June 26th, 2024. How does everybody do? I'm having a drinking problem here. Can't keep it in my mouth. Are you talking about clients? Well, you know what? The client I was talking about, Army Corps of Engineers, is all on the public record. So nothing is classified here, nothing, you know, may be buried. I'll give you that much, but, and I did not mention any names of individuals. Why is that? Because sovereign immunity strikes again. What good would that do? No, we're not about locking people down here. And, you know, without giving context to everything that's going on, you really can't, no, nothing you can do about it. You can't have context, context drives behavior. Now, something have, you know, I get something happening the other day yesterday, where one of the, no, projects that I was working on, as we know safety wars, aka JCP technical services right behind me, we do a lot of support for warehouse builds. We're involved in a warehouse build right now in the central New Jersey for a company that you've heard of. So that's all I'm really allowed to say. And we're involved in the whole job often. One client, we built about 48. This is the 48th warehouse we are in central New Jersey, right, warehouse number 48. We've been involved in army. So we get to say they're the whole entire project up until start up on the warehouse. And we get to know different people here and there. And we get to sometimes work with, and that where they open up the warehouse and they start doing their thing in the warehouse. And there's still some construction that has to be done punchless. They changed their mind. Hey, this doesn't look the way we thought it was very strange, you know, normal, normal stuff. We're involved with the health and safety aspects. Well, weird thing happened yesterday. One of the projects we were involved in made the news. Why was that? Well, because, and it was through the projects, actually, we know the people on site that manage safety. And you know how it is when a company goes out there and they start beating you, they start beating you, they know, they treat you like you're a seal, you know, a baby seal, and they start beating you again. Well, this is going to happen. Oh, this is going to happen. Well, this is going to happen. They start banging and no, no, the whole thing. We know that. No, you got to have the six wives. And it's like, okay, the six wives is meant to be like a tool on how to manage, no, do an investigation. Why did you do that? It's not really meant to be formalized because that's like pisses people off. Make some hate safety people. And it's like, well, you got to fill out the six wives. Why did you do that? Why did you do that? Why? Why? Why? Why? And then before long, what happens? One, everybody hates you. Number two, are you thinking they're going to tell you the truth when you have an attitude like that? I don't think so. My 30 some years experience, and I'm not rubbing that in a one's face, there's people out there with lots more experience than me in different areas. But they're going to tell you, well, you know what, you want to, you want to get, you want to under the human organizational performance of behavior based safety, you're supposed to get information because more information does not make us more stupid, makes us smarter. And we want to have an accurate assessment what's going on on the job site and in your facility. And when you start acting that way, you start to have an adversarial safety process. Guess what? No one's going to report anything. If you're a general contractor, that's a real dangerous way of running your safety program because this is what happens. Most states there is a statute of limitations. I'm not an attorney. I'm not giving you legal advice of like two years. And what happens? One year, 11 months and two weeks after an election soon happens, you get served a summons or a notice or something that says you're being sued. Now you're like, we've been here about this two years ago. And they're like, Oh yeah, this happened. Here is this. They have all this proof. And they said, well, we were then they say, well, we reported it. They may have reported that their supervisor, their supervisor did not follow up the line. And since they're a subcontractor, not your direct hire, now you're not you're at it's out of control. And you know that the employee can sue the very difficult I don't want to say can't, but it's very difficult for an employee in the United States to sue the employer and win. There are some limited circumstances and everything. We all get that. We all get that, you know, over the top type of stuff. And you know, they had the scaffold law in New York that we're all very fond of here. One of one of our neighbors makes his living with the scaffold law. And so how do you do that? Don't they ever go to trial? They never go to trial. They always settle out of court for ridiculous amount of money. The ones that do go to trial, watch out. Don't get your, you know, it's along the lines of bring your checkbook with you, sort of thing. Now, what ends up happening here? I'm rambling. No, the things in the news report that we read are true. They got a lot of balls, to say the least, to manage their safety, whether they do with their contractors. Because I tell you what, they would not put up with the stuff that's in that article from their contractors. Would not happen. Right. And I know that for a fact with the what they wouldn't put up with it. If we went in there and didn't report injuries or we mismanaged an injury, right, didn't send person for urgent care for an effective urgent care, didn't do the follow up and didn't do the workers comp and didn't do this and everything else that's involved with managing an injury. If we didn't do any of that, guess what? They would crucify us. They would absolutely crucify us. And we probably end up losing our job over it. If you're a safety professional, you probably end up losing your job over it. Oh, come on, Jim, you're not being serious. Oh, I'm dead serious. Very, very, very serious when I say that. So, you know, you just makes you say, Hmm, what the hell is going on here? And what have had to do with a fall, which, you know, it's pretty, which is pretty interesting now that I had to do with a fall. So what does it come down to is our hop messages here. No, we put on here, right? It's Wednesday. Let's hear the number three, right? Hop message number three broadcasting to our brothers and sisters in the occupied territory of behavior based safety. Get out your secret decoder ring. Here is your nightly message. Learning is vital. Learning is vital. So how are you supposed to learn if you're coming from that situation where your advert, no, an adversarial situation doesn't work. Now, you have to swallow your pride and say, uh, you know, uh, how are we, how are we going to manage this and everything else? Now, I'm, I know the other day I mentioned some Supreme Court type stuff, you know, that was stuff in the Supreme Court and court cases there. And I got no, we got the comments. Well, you're not an attorney. Okay. Great. I'm not an attorney. Thank you. But I do know how to read usually, right, which I think most people would find that I grew up with would find that. Number four, 10th grade, at least would find that very humorous because I always had a reading issue. And, uh, how did I solve it? Freshman year, uh, St. Joe's been touching. You had to reach 26 books. Freshman year. And, uh, so you had 26 books. Roughly was the goal, but some of them were longer books. So I think it eventually was like 21, 22 books and you had to write, uh, book reports on them and everything else. And in two years, I was able to resolve my reading issue, even though sometimes, you know, yeah, I read stuff on the air and it's like, Oh, okay. I had the wrong idea on that one. Now, uh, let's see if we can do a share screen on here. Oh, hold on. I got the audio hijack on. Kind of came up. Let's minimize that. And we are hold on, hold on, screen. And okay, there we are. Supreme Court of the United States, that should be coming up on your thing. And we're going to go on your screen. We're going to go through this here. Now, why am I mentioning this? When they do come out, it's, uh, no, uh, only a couple of times, uh, a year, right, where they issue, uh, decisions. And here we have, uh, you should be able to see this at home. We're, uh, so a lot of times people say things on the news. You're talking mainstream news. So we sometimes use the network news here and the four minutes they have. Now you could go and, uh, be like some of the other shows out there where they have multiple stories and everything else great. I tried to shy away from that. Well, that was really wasn't working from us. It's a different kind of program. I wanted to give commentary. So today we had, uh, a, uh, court decision come out and we're going to read this up. All right. Supreme Court of the United States, so this is Murthy Combat Surgeon General, et al, versus Missouri, et al. Searchy, right? Under the longstanding content moderation policies, social media platforms have taken a range of actions. So there's a certain categories in speak of speech, including speech, they judge me false or misleading. In 2020, with the outbreak of the COVID-19 of COVID-19, the platforms announced that they would enforce these policies against users who pose false or misleading content about the pandemic. Platform forms also applied misinformation policies during the 2020 election season. During that period, various federal sort of officials regularly spoke with, uh, platforms about COVID-19 and election related misinformation. They laid out a couple of examples here where they were, uh, hey, don't do, uh, misinformation and, uh, do not, uh, address, uh, misinformation. Then you had the FBI and FBI and cyber security and infrastructure security agency communicated with platforms about election related image information, like the Hunter Biden laptop, which has been proven to be not rushing this information, but true. And I told you that here on this program, because I happen to have the business with the guy who reported the laptop. All right. And he, it was, I knew him for a time being, and I have attendance, and I heard him on a couple owner years, not on this network that were very convincing to me that he wasn't, uh, Russian spy number one, number two, is that a very dear friend, uh, on this show who has been on this show, knows some, knew the man personally until this, all this stuff went down and he had to move away. He's living somewhere, my understanding in Colorado, under an assumed name, uh, you know, that sort of thing, because people were threatening to kill him over it. But no, that, that's true, basically, that laptop is thing. Right. So they were going after him, you know, misinformation, and we had to hear about Russia collusion, which also known, right, was, uh, a lie and everything else. So, and there was also been allegations a lot of proof that the FBI was involved in tampering with the election and intimidation and things of that nature with this. Evidence, I'm just all out in the open. Now, right. So they actually went after an influence system, but that's not really relevant here for the whole thing. Respondents are two states of five individual social media users who sue dozens of executive branch officials and agencies alleging that the government pressured the platform to censor their speech and violation of the First Amendment. Following extensive discovery, the district, uh, a court issued a preliminary junction and fifth circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. Court held that both the same plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had article three standing seeking junction relief. On the merits, the court held that the government and to these individuals by coercing or significantly encouraging the platform's moderation decisions to inform these decisions into state actions. The court then modified the district's injunction to say that the defense shall not coerce or significantly encourage social media platforms to suppress held. Neither the individual or the state plaintiffs have established standing, meaning they're not personally impacted here. So then that's a long and shorted study. Uh, we're issued, uh, while they have no standing. This is being played that courts can now go. I don't know the practical of that courts, has said it's okay for the government to go and do X, Y, and Z and impact all this stuff. That's not what they said according to this. In effect, that's what it's going to happen. But, all right. And guess what? If Donald Trump wins, who's to say we're in 2028, someone else wins, that this can't go against the, on the other side here. The court did not say that, uh, the government's allowed to do this. What they said was nobody had standing to do it. That's what the Supreme Court said. All right. Meaning that this, they're not personally impacted and an attorney could go and explain that better than I could here. So again, just by the bias omission, the one kind of bias, which is omission, we're, we're, no, we have the, well, the Supreme Court said it's fine. No, they did not say it was fine. They said nobody has standing in this. Which should affect, in effect, the government's going to do whatever they want. Now, I have a problem here with this. Personally, I don't know. Maybe you got a problem with this. Do you think that it's right for the White House to give someone a call and say, knock it off or say, hey, you know, you don't want to do this? Especially when there's an accusation, accusations by one other segment that this is, uh, weaponizing government in some ways, right? I don't know. Whatever the hell that means, doesn't lead us down a good half. Now, uh, there were some other, uh, what else? Uh, that basically there is no standing. You can go look up this, uh, look it up here. So let's get down to the end. That's what they say. Right. Oh, they, all the stuff while they have, uh, standing here, right? And, uh, well, well, well, here it is. The plaintiffs' counterarguments are unpersuaser. First, they arguably suffer continuing present adverse effects with their past restrictions as they must now self-sensor on social media. But the plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending. Second, the plaintiffs suggest that the platforms continue to suppress their speech according to policies initially adopted under government pressure. But the plaintiffs have redressibility of the problem. With that evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, platforms remain free to enforce or not enforce their policies. In other words, they are, even those tainted by initial government coercion, that means they're private platforms. That's more significant than anything else. The private platforms, they can do whatever the hell they want. And the available evidence indicates that platforms have continued to enforce their policies against what COVID-19 misinformation, right? Even as the federal government has wound down its own pandemic response measures. Okay, let's put this where it is. Where the platforms have continued to enforce their policies against COVID-19 misinformation? Well, some of the stuff out there that was deemed misinformation during the pandemic is not anymore. Yes, that is true. All right. The plaintiffs next is sort of right to listen to your understanding. The individual plaintiffs argue the First Amendment from DEX, their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakers on social media. This theory is certainly brought as in what grant all social media users the right to sue over someone else's censorship. As least so long as they complain, they claim an interest in that person's speech. While the court has recognized the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas, the court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has concrete specific connection to the speaker. There's a certain case here, right? Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiff decides that hearing, unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists, but they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that cause an identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficient, the concrete of herticularized, the same plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media. They have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow. And states do not have third parties standing as parents to have a trade to bring an action against the federal government on behalf of their citizens or face social media restrictions. And who does Justice Barrett deliver, depending on the court, Justice Roberts and Sotomayor, Kagan Kamenall, and Jackson joined. Alito, they were saying yes. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, all justices filed a dissenting motion in which Thomas and Gorsuch's JJ joined. Let's scroll on down here. And here is a really in-depth thing right here. That's the abstract. Let's scroll on down so we have an abstract for the other one you can read through this, like 57 pages. I don't normally read every piece here. And this is the dissenting opinion here. All right. The low-course assessment of all of them in this record is all right going on. Rather extensive. But they basically said that they don't agree with that. What do we get to the final conclusion here? They go into some of the other stuff here with a dissenting opinion. It's like 30 pages. Here we go. I'm beginning with the authority of relevant officials, high-ranking White House officials and certain general high-ranking White House officials. Presumably speak and may have the ability to influence the president as discussed earlier. A presidential administration has the power to inflict potentially fatal damage to social media platforms like Facebook. Facebook appreciates what the White House could do, and President Biden has spoken openly about that power as he has every right to do. For instance, he has declared that the policy of his administration is to enforce the antitrust laws to meet challenges posed by rising to dominant internet platforms, and he has directed the attorney general and other agencies, heads to enforce antitrust laws vigorously. Promoting competition in the American economy, executive order 14-0-36, he has also floated the idea of amending or revealing of the Communications Decency Act. Previous administrations have also wielded significant power over Facebook, and in a data privacy case brought jointly by the DOJ and FTC, Facebook was required to pay an unprecedented $5 billion civil penalty, which is among the largest civil penalties ever obtained by the federal government. Matter that may well have been prominent in Facebook's thinking during the period in question is this case was a dispute between the U.S. and the European Union over international data transfers. In 2020, the court addresses that the European Union invalidated mechanisms for transferring data between the EU and U.S. because it not sufficiently protects EU citizens from federal government surveillance. The EU U.S. conflict over data privacy, a hundred famous books, international operations, but Facebook could not resolve the conflict on its own. Rather platform, the platform relied on the White House to negotiate an agreement that would reserve its ability to maintain its transatlantic operations. Therefore, beyond any serious dispute, the top ranking White House officials and the Surgeon General possessed the authority to exert enormous coercive, coercive, present. So basically, this goes on and on and on. Basically, they said this is all baloney, what the majority said. No, they did have standing. Now, just the way it is, guys, you're here with that. Now, I'm going to continue to talk about things that interest me, and what annoys me is that we have more power right here in that smartphone. We have more access to information than probably any library ever constructed, even the library of Alexandria in ancient Egypt. Why aren't we using that information? Why aren't we using that computing power? I came across an article today about how people are getting stupider with the advent of technology. You can't read a map, and one of these things go down. What are we going to do? We're going to continue to read stuff that nobody else wants to talk about. Talk about stuff no one wants to talk about here on Safety Wars. Our second article from the Supreme Court is right here. Hold on. I tell you what we're going to do. We're going to go to commercial break. And we'll go from there. All right. Okay. Hold on. Have you listened or watched the Safety Wars show? It does stream live on the radio and on the streamer eemers that we have. So if you have not taken a listen to Jim Bosel and what the hell he's doing every evening with Safety Wars, I would strongly encourage you to take a view or take a listen, whichever option is available for you, and take a listen to what the hell he has going on. It's definitely will take some deep dives and some information that you might be interested. In a world where danger lurks in every corner, one man stands as a beacon of hope. Jim Bosel, a veteran safety expert with over three decades of experience, now bringing his knowledge to you with Safety Wars. Engage and informative and always relevant that's Safety Wars. Join the Safety Revolution with Safety Wars available on Spotify, Apple Podcast, YouTube, and wherever you get your podcasts and videos. Hold your reportables, catastrophic losses, environmental disasters. You want answers? So do I. This is Jim Bosel with Safety Wars. That's my daddy. All right. We're going to go and another case here. Why don't we talk about this about Safety Wars. Good information is critical for us to do our jobs as Safety Professionals. It's just the way it is, right? So that's why this impacts us. Now this is a little bit here. Federal sale law of distinguish. This is another course, Snyder v. United States. Federal sale law of distinguish between two kinds of payments, the public officials. Rives and gratuities. Rives are payments made or agreed to before an official act in order to influence the public official respect. To that future of official act, gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act. As a reward or token of appreciation, while America law generally treats bribes as inherently corrupt and unlawful, the law's treatment of gratuities is word and wants. Some gratuities may be innocuous. And others may raise ethical and appearance concerns. It is like the hot calling of the kettle black here, right? Federal, state, and local governments have drawn different lines on which gratuities and gifts are acceptable and which are not. For example, Congress has established comprehensive commissions about bribes and gratuities to federal officials of a lot of federal officials, right? So for example, for a bribe, you have a 15-year maximum prison sentence of prohibited gratuity and you have a two-year maximum prison sentence. And this goes on a little bit more into the history of this. This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. 2013, Snyder was a mayor of Portage awarded two contracts to a local trucking company. Not important which one. And 2014 Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder. The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected the payment was a gratuity for the city's trash contract. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. Federal jury ultimately convicted him as an illegal right-end thing and sentenced him to one year, nine months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that the relevant statute, statute number 666, criminalized his only bribes, not gratuities. Seventh circuit in the great end affirmed it. So this is held, section 666 describes the same local officials as making a crime, those officials who accept gratuities for their past acts. And they lay out a whole bunch of reasons here. Six reasons taken together lead the court to include that the statute that he was convicted under is bribery statute and not a gratuity statute. Right? And it goes on and on and on. And it lists all the reasons there. By the way, if you hear an alarm, you're having a thunderstorm come through so we get knocked off the air. We'll see them on Friday. And based on the balance of difficulties for this interpretation of 666, the government's argument boils down to one main point. That 666 uses the term rewarded as well as influence. The government says that commerce will not have added in term rewarded to influence than 666 if the statute were meant to cover only bribes and not also gratuities. That argument is misconceived contrary to the premise of the government's argument, bribery, statuities, sometimes use the word reward or over without the term reward. And in the statute, an official might try to offend against bribery charges if I was saying the payment was received only after the official act. Therefore, it cannot be influenced that by including the word rewarded, Congress made it clear that timing of the agreement is key, not the timing of the payment. Right? Although a gratuity or reward offered and accepted by a state or local official may be unethical or illegal under other federal state and local stat laws, the gratuity does not violate this specific thing. So everything got overturned for this mayor here and this mayor, Snyder, long road here that he went through with this. So that's the other one. So he got off on in technicality. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court even wanted his case. He got an admirer man for doing that or a person for doing that with that. And as I like to say, and I remind my beloved bride, right, there was a case here and locally here with having to deal with a roof of feet people who got denied confirmates in Westchester County. And I said, I think they've done mess with the wrong people there. That was in 2009. And guess what? All the gun laws, a lot of them were overturned because they fought it to took into the Supreme Court. So suggestion, all right, and as an old movie line from Clint Eastwood, I think it was Clint Eastwood said, did your mama ever tell you that there were people that you shouldn't mess with? Yeah, well, I'm one of those people. And that's, no, that's the moral of the story here. You know, you don't mess with certain people. You just leave them alone. Now, coming down here. All right, we're going to go through our regular OSHA stuff here in a minute. And we're going to go since we're not going to be on the air roll, use our hop message number four. This is safety words broadcasting to our brothers and sisters in the occupied territory of behavior based safety. Get out your secret decoder ring. Here is your nightly message context drives behavior context drives behavior. All right, so we're going into our own, uh, our usual stuff here. Let's see. Can we do the entire screen? No, I just want that one. And here. Department of Labor begins debt collection against an Ohio landscaping company bar from federal worker program after owner allegedly threatened workers. The company was ordered to pay $169,000 of wages and penalties. U.S. Department of Labor has initiated debt collection procedures against a landscaping company that allegedly threatened workers for cooperating with federal investigation. I've had the company. This owner owns owes a lot of money because of that wages. The app should follows a wage an hour division investigation, which identify numerous violations of the HGB visa program by homing by a company and the owner of the company, that's named after the company, the division found the employer shorter wages for at least 19 workers by up to $4.05 per hour, less than they're required for daily wage. The company also violated program regulation by assigning workers to penal estimating job sites. After this HGB application certified, they would only employ the workers primarily from Mexico and the Cleveland area. The HGB program allows U.S. employers to hire non-immigrant workers separately before non-advocultural label services in its application. They violated for five years and the company continues. This is of course the company continues to ignore communications from federal investigators and refuses to pay these employees that wages owed for their hard work. Those who believe they can ignore the law continue with whole wages and avoid penalties or deeply mistaken and will be held accountable. The way it is, pay people what you owe them because when you don't, it's only bad things could happen. U.S. Department of Labor announces eight additions to program assistance in transitioning service members and spouses. U.S. Department of Labor today announced that selection of eight employment navigator and partnership program partners in the Department of Veterans Employment and Training Service. And they list the companies, or we're not going to list them here on the year, operating a 37 U.S. and overseas Air Force Army Coast by Marine Corps and Navy installations. They forgot space force people. Employment navigators provide transitioning service members and their spouses with individualized career assistance, which can include apprentice opportunities, training digital matching of skills and experiences, employment, networking, mentoring, and referrals, and many other services. I tell you what, the veterans need to need help. Here, this is near and dear to the postal family here on assistance to veterans. Okay, the Department of Labor completed an impact inspections at 15 mines when histories repeated health and safety violations in May 2024. The U.S. Department of Labor announced today that its mines safety and health administration, EMSA, completed impact inspections in May 2024 at 15 mines in 12 states, leading to the agency to cite three other violations on one safeguard. And, you know, it gives the history here. No, they're talking about the upper big branch mine, killing 29 workers. Let's see what they were. Can they clink us where they are? Ooh, I think I might have to zoom in on this one. Okay. I don't even know how to read some of these. So they list them here with this link. And these are the violations here. Hold on, anything on note. To, well, they can get a breakdown, which is good. To be honest with you, I wish, no, I don't know Vosha even. Wow, this is pretty interesting from EMSA here. They give out all of the, not like a spreadsheet here is what we're looking at, where all the violations were and what they were. Pretty handy. Imagine if Vosha did that, if only by region, that would would be great. And let's go over to our next one, the U.S. Department of Labor. Okay, U.S. Department of Labor cites contractor for lacking required fall protection, contributed to a 54-year-old employees' fatal flaw. I have five man crews firstly working to remove tar and so from metal roof panels at a making warehouse in, outside of Atlanta, I guess, and in the properly in November 2023, where a 54-year-old labor tragically suffered fatal injuries after stepping on a skylight and falling about 19 feet. I've had to investigate one of these. It's not a pretty thing. And the one that I investigated on the 19-year-old kid fell about the same height. The only thing and what happened was, and first of all, if it would have been me and the same circumstances, I would have been dead. But because it was 19 and very resilient, and the other thing was that he fell literally in front of an EMT, an off-duty EMT. And the off-duty EMT said to his through keys to one of the workers and said, "Go to my truck and get the shit and call 911." In that case, right? So they're able to get immediate medical attention, the person survived, screwing them up for the rest of his life. I mean, but he survived. Investigators with OSHA determined the employee of a certain company stepped on the skylight after dumping their free off-the-ware houses roof. The ambulance rushed to work through his service to severe injuries. Yeah, well, he died, obviously, his severe. They were near my hospital where they succumbed to injuries hours later. The company failed to notify OSHA of the incident within the required eight hours. Now, often, no, no, this is what we'll see how much they whacked them for here. Now, in the heat of the moment and being this upset, I mean, I think of the Alec Baldwin and the Rust set with how upset Alec Baldwin was during that whole thing. The, you know, things aren't going through your head exactly. This is why you have exactly at the time. This is why you have to have, and I hate to say this, you have to have an emergency action plan, EAP, that has the information, how to respond to an emergency, including a fatality. You have to have that. Why? Because you're not going to be thinking call OSHA, especially if you have a heart. Oh, maybe I should call OSHA. The other thing that gets this, often, companies that get this type of citation, I'm not saying this is actually what happened here, but no, I'm trying to add a little bit of context to the things that I've seen already. A company goes out there and has this sort of thing. No, they think that because the police or the ambulance or the government was already knowing about this, that doesn't count. You have to call OSHA yourself. After more than 20 years of experience as a roofing and framing contractor, the company should know the work it's employees do is dangerous and intentionally fatal, especially when safety protocols are ignored, said OSHA Area Director Joshua Turner in Atlanta. Falls are widely known as leading cause of death in the construction industry and had required fall protections been in place. In this case, workers, family, friends, and coworkers were not left now to dream a terrible loss. Nine serious violations. So let's go through here. Do we have this? Okay, a person now. Let's go. You shouldn't criticize. Oh, okay. They have their own rationale on why they have proposed things based on size of the company seriousness and everything else. OSHA proposed $61,065 in penalties. This goes against the thing where companies are small, mob-and-pop operations, which this apparently might have been. They want compliance, not punishment. That's why these penalties are low. Number one, number two is this. Often, I'm told by people who are much more experienced than I am, that often these OSHA cases, OSHA that were fatalities happen, they low ball OSHA, low balls, this stuff, right, to get an admission of guilt. That could be used in a civil case. That might be part of the reason here. So I don't know what context is. I can't really say for sure. But typically, that happens 65,000. Especially if they're guilty of what they're accused of. I'm not saying they are guilty. Everyone's innocent until proven guilty. Citation 1, item 1, serious. Employers, honor of July, January 29, the employer exposed employees through 18-foot, 8-inch full hazards, and that employees were allowed to work from a pallet elevated by the forklift, $4,800. General duty clause violation, right? And, no. So as is customary for general duty clause, they have to, right? One, not the employee was exposed. Two, that it was something that would cause death or a serious physical harm. And three, that there was a way of feasibly doing something, and it would have been effective. Basically, there's four, and I think those are the four. But anyway, okay, I'll look it up for all you folks here, because I always, I should have that, I used to have that right here. So here, hold on, let's go. I'm going to look this up right now, and we're going to go stop, share, and screen, because God knows, right? God knows what comes up in these things when you don't, when you go to Google or anything, right? So you may have to have four elements here, right? The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard. The hazard was recognized. The hazard was causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm. And four, there was a feasible and useful method for direct the hazard. I hard to keep all this stuff current in my mind. So the employer did not do any of that. So again, they, an OSHA has to identify that in their thing, right? No safety glasses, an iron face for death, $2,700. Again, six foot fall protection, construction, you need some kind of fall protection. That was $4,800. And each employee working and walking services is not protected from falling through holes, including skylights more than six foot above lower levels for rehearsal full rest systems. You need to have that at 16,131. Now, there is one of my warehouse clients, and actually there is an engineered grid that goes underneath these skylights, where someone falls through and they lay it on the grid. Probably can retrofit a lot of these skylights with that. I'm just saying, again, you're relying on the employee not to flock on a skylight. That's what you're relying on. Now, is it possible that this skylight was obscured? And you can recognize this as a skylight? Yes, I've been in those situations, but that's not a typical situation. So some type of guardrail is, right, people put up, something like that. Again, try to eliminate an engineer after hazard before you're going to be relying on the rule. Don't walk over there. Don't walk on skylights. Guess what? Worker may do it and inadvertently, you know, hierarchy of controls, right? Citation one, item six, employer did not provide a training program. You can be res, I'm gonna say call, $4,800. The employer exposed employees to struck by and fall hazards, and that forklift training was not provided to employees operate in forkless, engaged in roofing and framing activities, $4,800. No training. Portable ladders were used for access to an up for landing service, and the ladder side roads did not extend at least three foot above the lower landing. $4,800. Again, that's a work rule violation. All that. You gotta keep an eye on that, because workers will not follow rules all the time. Just the way it is. That doesn't make them evil. Does it or anything like that? But it is, you know, in there. 4,800. 839. Citation one, item 10, the employer did not provide a training program for each employee using ladders and series when necessary. $4,800. $39. Citation two, item one. The employer did not report within eight hours to definitely an employee. Honor about November 20th, the employer did not report a work-related fatality of an employee to OSHA within eight hours. The work-related fatality was reported to OSHA on almost over two months later by the Descendants' brother-in-law. $3,457. That is where the site visits, right? I don't know. What were the site visits? Do they list it here? Again, you don't report this and they have come out two months later. You're going to have yourself a problem, guys. I use that generically in that term, all right? You're going to have a problem. This is out of Smyrna, New York. The Centers with the Department of Social found that a company of in Tennessee failed to provide workers. The worker was fatal injury and three other employees were the effect of fall protection. This was in Syracuse, New York, Smyrna, right? That's outside of Syracuse. I haven't heard of Syracuse right. Again, did not evaluate respiratory hazards. I'll add or anything else. Let's see what this says. You may end up going over time here, folks. You're going to pick this up. If it works on the podcast for your safety FM people or on the video cast, I upload this. I wasn't sure whether the video would work. We're using the new software here and I am trying to get the hand of it. I hand along it. 83,885 in penalties. Here are the citations, right? And again, everybody, you know, everyone's innocent of room and guilty here and things get vacated and reduced and everything else. So we're not saying anyone's guilty of anyone. Anything I'm just reading, Dr. Ritten reports here tonight. All right, no written program for respiratory stuff. Okay. They were, the employer did not establish and implement those elements of a written program to ensure that any employer using room respirator voluntary was medically able to use that respirator and that the respirator was cleaned so it was maintained. So how do you mitigate this? How do you prevent this? Give your employees training and if it's truly voluntary use, have them sign off on a penalty to see the respirator standard saying that they've been trained and everything else that goes into it that will help mitigate if not prevent this type of citation. And the other thing is you could do air monitoring and air sampling that in turn whether it's necessary to wear that. I tell you what the industrial hygiene order is going to be held a lot less than $6453 because I tell you what at this point as I tell people, get an attorney. So here they were using a three and a half ace respirator for voluntary employees while spraying a fiber aluminum coating without evaluating the respiratory hazards. Just the thing, fiber aluminum, I've talked to people who have had a lead poisoning and I've spoken to people who have had aluminum poisoning. The most famous aluminum poisoning out there was I, who was it Fred Bolger? Was it? No, no. Barnaby Jones, Trent Clambit. You know, the guy who played Trent Clam, and I forget who it was, I watched that all the time. I grew up on that show, the Beverly Hillbillies. Buddy Epson, Buddy Epson, right. Buddy Epson, worst, he never recovered. He got aluminum poisoning because the original Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz movie, he got aluminum poisoning and he never recovered for it. I've spoken to people who have had lead and aluminum poisoning and it's a lead poisoning that's better any day. I don't know, that's true, but you know, according to them, it's horrible to overcome. Citation One Item Three, type of violation serious. Each employee engaged in a steel erection activity who was on a walking work in service with an unprotected cider edge on more than 15 feet above a lower level was not protected from falls by guardrails. Again, on our about 12, 15, 23, 23, an employee replacing aluminum sanding seam roof was not protected from fall hazards by utilizing fall protection exposed to falls of 23 feet. 11,292 on that. All right. Another employee not protected from fall of production, another 11,292. Third employee, 11,292. Citation One Item Six. This was out of the steel erection standard. Any employee engaged in a steel erection activity who was on a walking work in service with an unprotected cider edge more than 15 feet above a lower level was not protected from a fall. Site Stage One Item Seven, guardrail systems and personal fall arrest systems, position device systems and their components are not conform to anything. This is another one that's a little bit tricky. On our about 12, 15, 23, the site located blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hold on. Let me see how many minutes I have left here on safety FM. Okay. On our virtual 15, the site located blah, blah, fall arrest systems and that conform to the criteria in the fall protection center. When the horrors of the lifeline used by employees was not decided so I'll use them in supervision of a qualified person as part of the personal fall arrest system. Here it is. When employees use the lines and vertical lifelines are not attached to several lifelines so you have them attached to all the one and multiple employees connected to two vertical lines tied around a roof end that was not capable of supporting 5,000 pounds. Again, you have to limit that fall to six feet. Fall arrest systems are not conform to criteria when employees are utilizing a fall arrest system which would allow them a free fall of 12 to 14 feet. Another 11,292 and no training obviously 11,292. I don't know. That's where we have it here at virtual $83,885. I don't know. I don't even know what to say here with this. I don't know. So we're going to wrap things up here with our disclaimer here and everything else. We will see you God willing on Friday. This is safe to hold on. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are those of the host and its guest and do not necessarily reflect the official. The views and opinions expressed on this podcast are those of the host and its guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the company. Examples of analysis discussed within this podcast are only examples. They should not be utilized in the real world as the only solution available as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within this analysis are not reflective of the position of the company. No part of this podcast may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic, recording or otherwise without prior written commission of the creator of the podcast, Jay Allen. [Music] [Music] [Music]