California OSHA’s (Cal/OSHA) standards board is demanding that agency staff add “exclusion pay” requirements into a pending final long-term COVID-19 worker-protection standard, further escalating the controversy over the decision by top officials in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) administration to cut those mandates over unions’ objection.
California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) has released its potential final COVID-19 worker-protection rules, including revisions to the prior draft’s controversial definition of “close contact” but maintaining the removal of mandatory “exclusion pay” for employees -- a move already drawing fire from labor unions that urged officials to reinstate the provision.
A federal appeals court has overturned a district judge’s ruling that invoked OSHA’s “primary jurisdiction” over workplace protections from COVID-19 to preempt Amazon warehouse workers’ suit accusing the retailer of violating New York pandemic safeguards, setting a narrow precedent for using that doctrine to limit suits over state policies.
California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) has issued a new guidance setting out requirements for employers to protect workers from the monkeypox virus (MPV) under the agency’s existing Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD) standard, setting out varying requirements for three different types of employers.
Officials in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) administration are insisting that California OSHA’s (Cal/OSHA) pending final COVID-19 standard not require employers to provide “exclusion pay” to employees who cannot work due to infections, even though the chairman and at least two other members of the agency’s standards board support such a revision, according to sources.
Top OSHA officials told advisory panels this week that the agency is poised to advance several long-awaited rules on heat illness, protective gear and more after it completes its permanent COVID-19 safety standard for the healthcare sector, saying the staffing demands of that project have sidelined even major priorities for the Biden administration.
Employers’ attorneys and labor groups are offer contrasting legal and other strong objections to California OSHA’s (Cal/OSHA) proposed long-term worker safety standards for COVID-19, setting up an imminent debate for the agency’s standards board on what changes -- if any -- to adopt in a final rule.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit is set to hear oral argument next week in a suit brought by workers at a Pennsylvania meat plant challenging the Trump OSHA’s refusal to take enforcement action over what they say was an “imminent danger” of COVID-19 infection at their workplace, in a test of one of the OSH Act’s few private rights of action.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected unions’ bid to reinstate OSHA’s COVID-19 healthcare emergency temporary standard (ETS) and impose a strict deadline for the agency to issue a permanent replacement, holding that the OSH Act imposes no “clear duty” on officials to take either step.
Staff at California OSHA’s (Cal/OSHA) standards board are facing pressure from worker-safety advocates and members of the panel itself to more fully explore the potential impacts from a proposed long-term COVID-19 safety rule that would eliminate exclusion pay and redefine the definition of “close contact” from the current, temporary policy.