|
|
OSHA RESPONDS TO CRANE ACCIDENTS
Gary Auman, MICA's legal counsel, informed the MICA office of a newly established OSHA initiative. Gary noted that the new initiative may or may not directly effect any of our members,
but you need to be aware of this. Don't forget, even if you are not using a crane, this emphasis program by OSHA may bring them to a job site on which you are working. This will expose your work area to scrutiny, which could escalate into a compliance inspection.
Subject: Urgent Message from OSHA
Due to the recent cranes accidents in Cincinnati, New York and Florida, we just received the following message from OSHA Area Director Richard Gilgrist. Mr. Gilgrist asked that we inform our members that OSHA will be increasing their enforcement on jobsites where cranes are being used. Please read his message and take note:
| | I know all of you are probably already edgy with respect to the recent accidents in New York and Miami. Suffice it to say, we are too. There will be increased emphasis and inspection activity on the issues, especially the "jumping" operations of tower cranes, in the coming weeks. Please get this information out to your members and cohorts, and take the appropriate steps, so that none of us will be the subject of the national news. |
DHS REVISES 'NO-MATCH' RULE TO SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGES
The following excerpt is provided by the American Subcontractors Association;
In response to legal challenges, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a supplemental proposed rule (SPR) March 26 in the Federal Register that contains various changes to its controversial "no-match" rule, yet none to any of the punitive employer requirements. The highly publicized no-match rule outlines steps an employer must take in response to receipt of a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that an employee's name does not match the Social Security number on file or a notice of fraudulent documents from DHS. If the employer fails to take the required steps, it could be at risk for violating federal immigration law. Originally scheduled to take effect Sept. 14, 2007, the no-match rule was put on hold Oct. 10, 2007, when a U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction on the grounds that DHS: (1) erred in issuing the rule by not providing a reasoned analysis justifying the change in policy, (2) overstepped the department's authority by interpreting anti-discrimination laws, and (3) violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by not providing an economic analysis of the rule's impact on small entities. DHS contends the no-match rule does not reflect a change in policy, but its new SPR provides an economic analysis and eliminates anti-discrimination language in hopes of overcoming the court's objections. A Supplemental Final Rule is expected some time this summer, at which point DHS will likely ask the court to lift the preliminary injunction currently preventing the rule from taking effect. While the comment period on the SPR ends April 25, the effective date of the final rule is unknown at this time
top
|
|
