Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., took over as head of OSHA on April 3. Thus, after a nearly 16-month hiatus, the agency has a full-time leader once more. What can we expect in the first year of the Foulke regime? A recent speech by Foulke's predecessor, interim Secretary Jonathan L. Snare, offers several clues.

On March 8, a week before Foulke's confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Snare appeared at the American Bar Association's mid-winter meeting to describe the current state of affairs at OSHA and its priorities for the coming year. Although the new Secretary is free to lead the agency in new directions, the Snare agenda will most likely guide at least the early actions of the Foulke regime. Here are some of the key points from Snare's speech.

Hexavalent Chromium

On Feb. 28, 2006, OSHA issued the long-awaited hexavalent chromium standard. After lauding the standard, Snare suggested that OSHA is bracing for a legal challenge. "We've done our work," he quipped, "now the lawyers will get to work! We're expecting lawsuits from all sides."

End of the OSHA Immigration Sting

As if getting immigrant workers to attend safety training sessions wasn't already hard enough, the Department of Homeland Security delivered a new reason for workers to skip meetings. Last July, in a well publicized sting, the Department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division arrested 49 illegal immigrant workers at a North Carolina Air Force Base by telling them they had to attend a mandatory safety briefing. OSHA was appalled and rightly so.

In his March 8 speech, Snare revealed that Department of Labor representatives had asked Homeland Security to cease and desist. Sure enough, on March 29, the ICE announced the end of such sting operations.

Bird Flu

Snare confirmed that OSHA is paying close attention to the risk of a bird flu pandemic and will continue to work with the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Agriculture, EPA and Department of Homeland Security to develop pandemic preparation guidelines for employers and workers. Among other things, OSHA will update the guidance it issued in March 2004 for workers exposed to bird flu.

Electric Power Transmission & Distribution Standards

OSHA's fourth priority, according to Snare, is to review its standards for work on electric power transmission and distribution lines and equipment - Part 1926, Subpart V (construction of installations); and General Industry Section 1910.269 (repair of installations). OSHA's goals are to:

• Make the standards more consistent across industries;
• Incorporate modern technology; and
• Improve related standards for electrical protective equipment.

Hearings were held last month and OSHA is currently receiving comments on proposed changes to the standards.

Conclusion

Most of the rest of Snare's remarks, including discussion of the 2007 budget, emphasized continuity. So, for instance, enforcement efforts will be marked by the same three characteristics we've come to expect from the Bush Administration:

• Maintenance of traditional enforcement and inspection activity at the same levels;
• More emphasis on targeted inspection and programs such as SST and EEP; and
• More funding for voluntary compliance programs and activities such as VPP.

In short, a new Secretary will probably not usher in a new era for OSHA. Ultimately, although it might inject new energy, barring something completely unforeseen, the coming of Foulke will not result in any dramatic changes in OSHA policy.

THE CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE

Bird Flu & Work Refusal

By Glenn Demby

Here’s a story you Canadian members of SafetyXChange should find of more interest.

As bird flu creeps west, Canada is bracing for a possible pandemic. It might just be a false alarm. But if it’s not, chances are that at least some of you are going to have to deal with influenza-related work refusals.

Is fear of bird flu legitimate grounds for a work refusal? Theoretically, it could be. After all, the right to refuse work kicks in when the worker has a reasonable concern about contracting a dangerous disease. However, even though no Canadian court or labour board has ever had to confront the issue, it appears that a worker would have a hard time justifying a bird flu refusal. There are two reasons:

1. Bird Flu’s Not Contagious

There’s no evidence that bird flu can be transmitted via human-to-human contact. So a refusal to perform a job because it involved contact with people who have or might have the infection, such as new immigrants arriving from Asia, would be hard to sustain.

2. The SARS Precedent

There were at least two reported work refusals stemming from the SARS outbreak of 2003. One involved government immigration officials; the other was a refusal by a customs agent in a Toronto airport. The workers lost both cases. In striking down the refusals, the federal Labour Board cited the following factors:

• Prior screening of immigrants and airline passengers;
• The employers’ close communication with government health agencies;
• Communication by the employers with the Joint Health and Safety Committee; and
• The employers’ implementation of other measures to guard against SARS.

Conclusion

What these cases suggest is that employers who closely monitor the situation, keep workers apprised and take steps to protect workers from bird flu should be able to stand their ground in the event of a work refusal. One more important caveat: When and if you face such a refusal, be sure to investigate the complaint and respond appropriately in accordance with the work refusal laws of your province.

Cites

Caverly and Canada (Human Resources Development), [2005] C.L.C.A.O.D. No. 10, Decision No. 05-011.

Chapman and Canada (Customs Revenue Agency), [2003] C.L.C.A.O.D. No. 17, Decision No. 03-019.

For a more detailed analysis of these cases, see Bongarde Media’s Safety Compliance Insider, Vol. 2, Issue 3, p. 16.
http://www.safetysmart.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

THIS DATE IN HISTORY

May 8, 1980

The WHO declares victory over smallpox

By Glenn Demby

The complete eradication of a human disease is a rare and remarkable achievement. Such an achievement was proclaimed on this date 26 years ago when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that “Smallpox is dead!”

Inventing the Vaccine

Victory over smallpox, one of history’s most virulent diseases, took centuries to accomplish. The turning point came in 1796 when an English country doctor named Edward Jenner invented a vaccination. Jenner had heard an old wives’ tale that milkmaids could never get smallpox. But he also knew that milkmaids often contracted a non-life threatening form of smallpox called cowpox that caused their hands to blister. Putting two and two together, Jenner hypothesized that pus from the blisters protected milkmaids against smallpox.

To test his theory, Jenner drew some pus from Sarah, a milkmaid who developed the blisters as a result of milking her cow, Clover. He injected a brave young volunteer named James Phipps with the pus. Phipps got sick for a few days but quickly recovered.

But, alas, Jenner’s discovery was pooh-poohed by London’s medical community. It took decades for smallpox vaccination to become accepted.

Disseminating the Vaccine

Inventing and gaining acceptance of the vaccine was only half the battle. To win the war against smallpox, the vaccine had to be manufactured and disseminated around the world. It took most of the 20th century to achieve this goal. In 1958, the WHO resolved to wipe out smallpox within 10 years. It took longer than expected, but the goal was achieved.

Final Victory

The last naturally-occurring case of smallpox in the world took place in 1977 when a young man in Somalia contracted the disease. He survived. Three years later, the WHO declared final victory over smallpox.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top