• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Learn WordPress
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Personnel
    • Professional Safety Staffing
    • Safety Recruiting
    • Careers with FDRsafety
  • Expert Witness
    • Jim Stanley
    • Steve Hawkins
    • Expert Witness Services
  • Compliance
    • Risk Assessments
    • Industrial Hygiene
    • Fall Protection Safety Services
    • Forklift Safety Services
    • Machine Guarding Safety Services
    • Combustible Dust Compliance
    • Confined Space Safety
  • Safety Training
    • Safety Awareness
    • Instructor-led courses
    • Training Case Study
  • About
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Our Leaders
    • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
    • Safety Solutions Blog
    • Safety Terms Glossary
  • Careers
  • Contact
    FDRsafety
    • Personnel
      • Professional Safety Staffing
      • Safety Recruiting
      • Careers with FDRsafety
    • Expert Witness
      • Jim Stanley
      • Steve Hawkins
      • Expert Witness Services
    • Compliance
      • Risk Assessments
      • Industrial Hygiene
      • Fall Protection Safety Services
      • Forklift Safety Services
      • Machine Guarding Safety Services
      • Combustible Dust Compliance
      • Confined Space Safety
    • Safety Training
      • Safety Awareness
      • Instructor-led courses
      • Training Case Study
    • About
      • Our Mission and Values
      • Our Leaders
      • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
      • Safety Solutions Blog
      • Safety Terms Glossary
    • Careers
    • Contact

Enforcement

OSHA way out of line with new Severe Violator guidelines

  • Posted by Jim Stanley
  • Categories Enforcement, OSHA
  • Date August 30, 2012

OSHA has issued long-awaited additional guidelines for the Severe Violators Enforcement Program and as you might expect from the “New” OSHA, they are way out of line and don’t address a major problem with the program.

The Severe Violator program, of course imposes mandatory reinspections on companies found to “willfully and repeatedly endanger workers by exposing them to serious hazards.” It also subjects companies to inspections at their other locations around the country and effectively imposes a “shaming penalty” by placing the companies on a public list of severe violators.

Under the new guidelines, a company placed on the list of Severe Violators stays on it for three years after final disposition of the citation and OSHA continues to monitor the company’s safety performance over that period. If performance is not satisfactory, the company remains on the list for three more years.

The three-year stay on the list continues, no matter if the company has abated all the problems found in the original citation or taken other steps to improve its safety program.

For construction companies, this can effectively amount to something close to a “death penalty.” A general contractor or project owner, for example, is highly unlikely to do business with a company on the Severe Violator list. And how can OSHA monitor a company’s continuing safety performance at a construction site for three years when most projects don’t last that long?

Guilty until proven innocent

Just as concerning is OSHA’s failure to do anything about its “guilty until proven innocent” approach to the program. Companies cited as Severe Violators are placed on the list prior to the final resolution of their cases. In some cases that means that companies that are ultimately cleared of a citation still have to pay a “shaming penalty.” That can cost them business and do long-term damage to their reputations.

In fact, OSHA reported that in the first two years of the program’s existence 59 companies have been removed from the list after successfully contesting the citations that landed them in the program.

Companies that willfully disregard worker safety need to be forcefully dealt with, of course. But trampling on the due process rights of companies not proven to have done anything wrong is not the way to do it. Nor is imposing a shaming penalty on companies for years after they have done everything possible to set their safety performance right.

Subscribe to updates to Jim Stanley’s OSHA blog.

  • Share:
Jim Stanley

Previous post

Continuous improvement helps abate lockout citation
August 30, 2012

Next post

Group effort needed to address crash accountability problem
September 4, 2012

You may also like

1600px-Point_Guarding
Review Commission Machine Guarding Decision
16 February, 2021
FallingRocks-1
Is Gravity Part of OSHA’s LOTO Regulation?
15 April, 2020
FDR-070918
OSHA Alert: How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection
19 March, 2020

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Categories

  • Accident Prevention
  • Articles
  • CSA
  • Enforcement
  • FDRsafety newsletter
  • Legislation
  • News and Announcements
  • OSHA
  • Recordkeeping
  • Research
  • Risk Assessments
  • Safety and sustainability
  • Temporary Safety Professionals / Recruiting
  • Training
  • Transportation safety
  • Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Additional Thoughts On Reevaluating OSHA
06Mar2025
Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees
13May2024
Online Powered Industrial Truck Operator Certification Problems
25Aug2023

Get In Touch

Contact

360 Cool Springs Boulevard,
Suite 101,
Franklin, TN 37067

1-888-755-8010

info@fdrsafety.com

Careers

Accreditations

Contact Us

Powered by WordPress.