As this year’s Construction Safety Week wraps up, let’s look at some pretty staggering statistics relating to jobsite and workplace safety, as well as some new-age solutions to these age-old problems.

– The average cost of a slip or trip injury causing time away from work: $46,000 {National Safety Council}
– It is estimated that the amount of near misses that go unreported is up to 85% {MakuSafe}
– The Top 2 OSHA citations were for lack of fall protection systems and insufficient information transmitted to employers and employees regarding toxic and hazardous substances {ThinkHR}
– OSHA penalties range from $13,260 (other-than-serious & serious) to $132,589 (repeat & willful) {ThinkHR}
– 20% of private-industry worker fatalities are in construction {Big Rentz}
– Construction sees non-fatal injury rates that are 71% higher than any other industry {Accident Analysis & Prevention}

So what can we learn from all of this and how can the construction industry do better to stay safe?

– Construction companies can save $4-6 in indirect costs for every $1 invested in direct costs by evading an injury in the workplace
– Creating and implementing training programs such as how to properly wear PPE, general awareness and classes provided by OSHA would reduce the amount of employee injury but also be wise financially Construction site injuries typically account for 69% of project costs, while health and safety programs only account for 2.5% of project costs
– Utilizing safety and machine operating checklists as well as hazardous material communications will facilitate consistency and reduce liability exposure
– Maintaining a safe environment will help build a positive reputation, assist with brand awareness and recruiting, and promote team morale

How does technology play a part? There are newer systems and protocols that could help prevent and protect construction companies from safety issues. Things such as:

– Wearables (think arm holster or watch) that can monitor conditions, detect slips/trips/falls quickly, report near-misses without interruption, etc.
– Digital trainings available at any time to any size group
– Live stream cameras with recording for monitoring or later verification of procedures or events
– Telematics installed on heavy equipment that could include front and rear facing cameras and operational details of the equipment
– Systems to analyze safety inspection data in order to implement change

We can all agree that safety in construction is a problem and something to take seriously. It’s a risky environment with constant movement, equipment and people coming on and off the jobsite. Taking every step possible to mitigate injuries is worth every penny these precautions could cost. What steps do you have in place for your team?

With the Coronavirus being something new to most people as of this year, it is to be expected that the way we react to and handle it to be unfamiliar territory. Even just this week, the FFCRA (Families First Coronavirus Response Act) guidelines were challenged after some DOL (Department of Labor) changes. This stemmed from a court hearing in New York but could trickle out to the rest of the US as well. Here is some important information from our valued HR partner, Think HR:

FFCRA Leave Significant Rule Changes

A federal court in New York recently struck down four federal DOL rules related to the leaves provided by the FFFCRA. As a result, certain aspects of the FFCRA are now more favorable to employees. Unfortunately, it’s not clear if the ruling applies nationwide or only in the Southern District of New York, where that court is located. Until there is further activity in the case which may clarify whether the rules remain intact throughout the rest of the country we recommend that employers err on the side of caution when administering FFCRA leaves and assume these particular rules no longer apply.

What is clear is that these four rules definitely do not apply to the counties of Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester (i.e., the Southern District of New York).

Here are the rules that the court invalidated:

1. The requirement that work be available for an employee to use leave
– DOL Rule: The DOL said that for an employee to use Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) or Emergency Family and Medical Leave (EFMLA, aka EFMLEA), the employer had to have work available for them during the time they needed leave. For instance, if an employee was furloughed while sick with COVID-19, they would not be eligible for EPSL.

– The Court’s Ruling: Availability of work is irrelevant. If an employee is still employed, whether on the schedule or not, they should be allowed to use FFCRA leave for qualifying reasons.

2. The requirement that employers agree to intermittent leave
– DOL Rule: Employees must get approval from their employer to use intermittent leave to care for their children when their school or place of care is unavailable because of COVID-19.

– The Court’s Ruling: If an employee needs intermittent leave (partial weeks or partial days off) to care for their child whose school or place of care is unavailable because of COVID-19, the employer must allow it.

3. The requirement that employees provide documentation before taking leave
– DOL Rule: Employers could require that employees provide certain documentation before being allowed to take FFCRA leave or before designating the leave as EPSL or EFMLA.

– The Court’s Ruling: Employers can still require documentation (which is necessary to get their tax credit), but they can’t prevent an employee from starting leave until the documentation is received. The law clearly states that an employee must provide notice as is practicable when taking EFMLA leave and after the first workday of leave when taking EPSL.

4. The definition of health care provider, for the purpose of exemption from leave
– DOL Rule: The DOL had defined health care providers broadly, to include anyone who works for a healthcare entity and many who contract with one. (The rule was so broad that a custodian working at a drugstore or an English professor at a university with a medical school could be exempt.)

– The Court’s Ruling: The definition is too broad. However, the court did not provide a new definition. We recommend that employers apply the exemption only to those employees capable of directly providing healthcare services.

As a partner of Think HR, we will pay close attention for activity in this particular case and will let employers know if and when things change or become clearer.