As OSHA continued its
investigation
of the May
30 crane collapse in New York City, it announced it has issued
citations to three contractors with proposed penalties of $313,500
for alleged violations of safety standards related to the
catastrophic March 15 collapse of a tower crane in New York City
that killed seven people.
The two incidents along with others in Miami and Las
Vegas, coupled with fatal mine explosions in recent years have
raised the question of whether safety standard violations that
result in death should be criminally prosecuted.
In the March incident, the three contractors were
cited for alleged problems associated with rigging the crane and
lack of fall protection, fire protection and other hazards.
“Ultimately, the crane collapse was a failure to
follow basic, but essential, construction safety processes,” said
Richard Mendelson, OSHA’s area director in Manhattan. Considering
this, we can’t help but think the companies got off pretty easy with
$313,000 in total fines.
Such scenarios have some calling for strengthening
the criminal provisions of the OSH Act to reflect its emphasis on
public health and safety, and to provide the credible criminal
deterrent that is needed to ensure greater compliance with worker
safety laws.
In an issue brief published by the American
Constitution Society for Law and Policy, David M. Uhlmann says, “New
legislation should (1) make criminal violations of the Act felonies
and provide enhanced penalties for violators; (2) expand the
criminal provisions to include cases involving serious bodily injury
and knowing endangerment; (3) modify the mental state requirements
so that ignorance of the law is not a defense; (4) expand the scope
of individual liability to include supervisors who knowingly expose
their workers to unsafe conditions; and (5) provide resources to
investigate and prosecute criminal violations of the OSH Act
effectively.
It is a felony to commit most criminal violations of
environmental laws, hazardous materials transportation laws, and
many wildlife protection laws. In “Prosecuting Worker Endangerment:
The Need for Stronger Criminal Penalties for Violations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act,” Uhlmann argues that when
criminal worker safety violations occur, they too should be eligible
for felony prosecution. Especially when they result in fatalities.
Upgrading OSH Act violations to felony status is
also essential for meaningful criminal enforcement to occur. From
2003 to 2008, 10 criminal cases were brought for violations of the
OSH Act, despite the fact that OSHA conducted 9,838 fatality
investigations during that time period, and thousands of workers
died on the job each year.
Unfortunately, Uhlmann, director of the
Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan
Law School, puts the onus on a do-nothing Congress. Absent action by
Congress, criminal cases will remain infrequent, because federal
prosecutors will not devote significant resources to cases that
Congress relegates to misdemeanor status. Prosecutors occasionally
will accept plea agreements to lesser included misdemeanor charges,
but they rarely will initiate complex prosecutions if the most
serious, readily provable offense is a misdemeanor, writes Uhlmann.
It has been 20 years since Congress amended the
environmental laws, and it is long past time for it to do the same
with our worker safety laws, says Uhlmann. Some workers do not have
choices about where they work, either because jobs are scarce or
because they have not had the educational opportunities that would
enable them to seek higher-paying and safer jobs. But everyone
deserves a safe place to work and the ability to come home to their
families in good health.
We can do more to protect workers and ensure that
all companies in the United States honor our best traditions of
caring for and protecting workers. By strengthening the criminal
provisions of the worker safety laws, Congress can make good on the
promise of a safe workplace made 30 years ago when it enacted the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
To read Uhlmann’s brief, go to
www.acslaw.org/node/6986. We think you’ll find it compelling.