“Unions and Democrats in Congress have been pressuring OSHA to {issue emergency temporary standards} that they have said would be easier to enforce than the guidance issued by OSHA, which they argue lacks teeth.”
I couldn’t find a detailed list in the article referenced by the link using words inside the {}.
Thus, I cannot be sure if the Unions’ demands are reasonable and more prudent than the guidelines provided by OSHA (that would become mandatory if not voluntarily adopted by employers).
I presume that unions are trying to protect their workers. To be most effective in doing so, it is important for them to cooperate with OSHA rather than create conflict that is counterproductive.
As regards the Democrats in Congress, their intervention can only be seen as political and creating conflict that is most certainly counterproductive. Few, if any Democrats are experts or experienced in workplace safety, so they are not qualified as a group to intervene for any purpose except to score political points.
“To be most effective in doing so, it is important for them to cooperate with OSHA rather than create conflict that is counterproductive.”
What are you talking about? They’re not creating conflict. They’re saying OSHA should “issue emergency temporary standards that they have said would be easier to enforce than the guidance issued by OSHA, which they argue lacks teeth.”
It’s like saying “The Trump administration suggests wearing masks in public, but that suggestion lacks teeth, so they should make it a requirement so it’s easier to enforce.”
Yes, OSHA IS creating conflict rather than cooperate. The forced compliance suggestion is at variance with the current suggestion. So, there IS conflict between the two standards.
“…The agency in March eased the requirements for determining when an employer has to report an infected worker, a change businesses had pushed for because they said it was difficult to determine if an employee had become infected at work. Worker advocates have said the change could undermine a sick employee’s access to workers’ compensation insurance. …”
The agency is OSHA.
The change per the eased requirements is appropriate because WC is explicitly defined as coverage of workplace injury or death. When a worker is injured in the course of work, or in commuting travel thereto or therefrom, he/ she is covered under a ‘no-fault’ basis. When there is a possibility that an injury or death is not related to work, the benefits are not available. So, in the case of COVID-19, the possibility that exposure occurred outside work requires proof for coverage. Health insurance coverage is often available, and if not, health care by medical service providers is always available regardless of the patients’ ability to pay for it.
“Unions and Democrats in Congress have been pressuring OSHA to {issue emergency temporary standards} that they have said would be easier to enforce than the guidance issued by OSHA, which they argue lacks teeth.”
I couldn’t find a detailed list in the article referenced by the link using words inside the {}.
Thus, I cannot be sure if the Unions’ demands are reasonable and more prudent than the guidelines provided by OSHA (that would become mandatory if not voluntarily adopted by employers).
I presume that unions are trying to protect their workers. To be most effective in doing so, it is important for them to cooperate with OSHA rather than create conflict that is counterproductive.
As regards the Democrats in Congress, their intervention can only be seen as political and creating conflict that is most certainly counterproductive. Few, if any Democrats are experts or experienced in workplace safety, so they are not qualified as a group to intervene for any purpose except to score political points.
“To be most effective in doing so, it is important for them to cooperate with OSHA rather than create conflict that is counterproductive.”
What are you talking about? They’re not creating conflict. They’re saying OSHA should “issue emergency temporary standards that they have said would be easier to enforce than the guidance issued by OSHA, which they argue lacks teeth.”
It’s like saying “The Trump administration suggests wearing masks in public, but that suggestion lacks teeth, so they should make it a requirement so it’s easier to enforce.”
Yes, OSHA IS creating conflict rather than cooperate. The forced compliance suggestion is at variance with the current suggestion. So, there IS conflict between the two standards.
“…The agency in March eased the requirements for determining when an employer has to report an infected worker, a change businesses had pushed for because they said it was difficult to determine if an employee had become infected at work. Worker advocates have said the change could undermine a sick employee’s access to workers’ compensation insurance. …”
The agency is OSHA.
The change per the eased requirements is appropriate because WC is explicitly defined as coverage of workplace injury or death. When a worker is injured in the course of work, or in commuting travel thereto or therefrom, he/ she is covered under a ‘no-fault’ basis. When there is a possibility that an injury or death is not related to work, the benefits are not available. So, in the case of COVID-19, the possibility that exposure occurred outside work requires proof for coverage. Health insurance coverage is often available, and if not, health care by medical service providers is always available regardless of the patients’ ability to pay for it.
‘are not available’ should read ‘may not be available’. Bear culpa.