<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>OSHA Articles</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/16</link>
<description>Articles discussing the Occupational Safety and Health Act.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:12:11 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<item>
<title>Occupational and Mine Safety Enforcement Under the New Administration.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7478</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7478</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>It is anticipated that American businesses will see tougher inspections and higher fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (&quot;OSHA&quot;) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (&quot;MSHA&quot;) under President-elect Obama. All signs point to a markedly different relationship between the Department of Labor and employers on workplace safety issues.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Disciplining Unsafe Behavior: Cornerstone of an Effective Safety Program.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7420</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7420</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Regardless of the outcome of the November Presidential election, an emboldened Congress will demand passage of numerous workplace-safety laws already introduced, including the radical Protecting American Workers Act. Observers also expect a shift in OSHA efforts from some cooperative programs to a more punitive and politicized enforcement effort, coupled with the departure of many evenhanded career professionals from OSHA and other agencies. Next to preparation for the possible passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (see Cute Titles for Bad Laws in May, 2008 Labor Letter) no area should receive more employer attention as 2008 comes to an end.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Employers Must Pay Employees for Time and Travel for Past Exposure Medical Care Under OSHA's Standard.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7378</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7378</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Employers must pay employees for all time and travel expenses incurred during non-work hours in receiving required medical attention following an on-the-job exposure to bloodborne pathogens, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on September 4, 2008.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>OSHA Proposes Rule to Fundamentally Reshape Crane Use in Construction.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7376</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7376</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>All construction companies who use cranes and derricks in their work will face major changes to their operations under a rule just proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA’s proposed rule for Cranes and Derricks in Construction, published in the Federal Register on October 9, would significantly revise OSHA’s existing requirements for crane use, now over 35 years old. The proposal would apply to virtually all cranes used at construction sites.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>MINER Act is No Minor Act.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7361</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7361</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>All mine operators should be aware of tougher penalties for violations of safety rules imposed by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Act (“MINER Act”). The MINER Act amends the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“the Mine Act”) and is the biggest amendment in the Mine Act’s thirty year history.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>OSHA: Injuries to Employees Getting Into and Out of Personal Vehicles Recordable.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7348</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7348</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Employers must record on their Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recordkeeping logs injuries to employees incurred while they are entering and exiting their personal vehicles on company parking lots.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>300 Log Reporting Guidance from OSHA: Working From Home Following Treatment for an Occupational Injury.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7334</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7334</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>OSHA has recently issued an interpretation letter regarding injury and illness reporting when employees are working from home following treatment for an occupational injury. The language that follows is lifted verbatim from the OSHA interpretive guidance letter.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>OSHA Rescinds Controversial Tree Care Operations Directive and Issues New Enforcement Procedures.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7276</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7276</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has rescinded its controversial June 25, 2008, compliance directive on tree trimming and tree removal operations. That directive instructed OSHA compliance officers as to when tree trimming and tree removal operations are “logging” and covered by OSHA’s comprehensive logging standard (29 CFR 1910.266), and, conversely, when the operations do not fall within the scope of the logging standard. Under the rescinded directive, employers were required to follow the logging standard whenever they removed a tree trunk in segments greater than six feet in length or whenever they removed trees by the use of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>OSHA to Issue New Mandatory Rules Specific to Tree Care Operations.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7274</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7274</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Citing significant and serious hazards in tree care operations and in response to a rulemaking petition submitted by the Tree Care Industry Association, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced that it will issue new mandatory safety rules specific to the tree care industry. On September 18, OSHA began the rulemaking process by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to obtain initial comments from employers and other members of the public on safety practices and hazards in the industry (see below).</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Third Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Ruling Regarding Employee Compensation and Bloodborne Pathogens Standard.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7264</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 7264</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting and, what may be considered by some employers, a costly decision regarding the payment of wages to employees who seek evaluation and treatment pursuant to the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (BPS), 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030. In Secretary of Labor v. Beverly Healthcare-Hillview, the Third Circuit held that an employer must pay for the travel expenses of and non-work time spent by its employees obtaining treatment pursuant to the BPS. No. 06-4810, (3rd Cir. Sept. 4, 2008).</description>
</item>
</channel>

</rss>

