*Re: Nov 14, OSHA final rule, employer-pad personal protective equipment

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Suppose the contractor has no " employees " of record but hires only

individuals willing to sign on as a sub-contractor. You know the

kind where the general contractor makes no deductions and has the

individual sign some waiver and agree to accept an IRS1099 year end

subcontractor's tax statement. Would that be a case where the

workmen would be responsible for their own PPE since they are not

employees?

Ken Gibala

=====================================

>

> LiveSimply,

>

> I have been dealing with OSHA compliance issues since OSHA began.

The

> US is way behind vritually all other industrialized countries in

safety

> and now environmental protection.

>

> The rule on who pays for PPE has been in contention since OSHA

started.

> This rule as almost been passed a number of times.

Realistically,

> this is still the easy part.

>

> Just because the law says employers are supposed to pay for PPE

does

> not mean that they will or that they will even buy it. Employers

have

> been required to " provide " PPE since 1970. Provide does not mean

> " pay " . Now it does.

>

> The challenge is still to get them to provide it, when it is

necessary.

> If no industrial hygiene testing is done, an employer will not

know

> if PPE is required. No testing = no 'established' need to provide

PPE.

>

> So the issue now reverts back to 'is there a requirement to perform

IH

> testing? " Nope! So the impact of this new rule is likely to be

> minimal.

>

> PS, In virtually all other countries with OSHA standards, the

> requirement to perform IH testing left for employee committees to

> decide if it is necessary. If employees want the testing, then

the

> employer must provide it and then any necessary exposure reduction

or

> PPE.

>

> Bob

>