Construction Industry Safety and Health

RSS

It’s no secret that when workers and management value safety, there tend to be fewer hazardous work practices on the jobsite. But are safety managers doing all they can to make that happen?

Masonry contractor JC Stucco and Stone Inc. has been cited by OSHA for three willful and three repeat safety violations. OSHA's March 2014 inspection was initiated in response to a referral by the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections due to an imminent threat to worker health and safety at the site.

Roma Construction Inc., a stucco plastering subcontractor of Monticello Homes, is being cited for five repeat and seven serious violations by OSHA. The Texas company exposed workers to falls hazards of up to 20 feet as a result of improper scaffolding at the Hastings Ridge at Kinder Ranch residential development. The proposed penalty is $79,200.

A new patent guide from the Center for Research Construction and Training ( CPWR) offers valuable information to academic researchers and others who have developed better or safer approaches to work in the construction industry.

The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) is dedicated to reducing occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the construction industry through research, training, and service programs. The following are recently published journal articles by CPWR scholars:

For the fifth time in five years, Miller Building Systems LLC has been cited by OSHA for exposing workers to fall and overhead hazards. In a bit of numeric irony, proposed penalties total $55,000.

Pablo Lopez of Norcross has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration for three repeat and one serious safety violation following inspections at two work sites in Milton and Smyrna where employees were performing roofing work without fall protection.

A study being used by the construction industry to support a bid to change New York’s century-old Scaffold Law is tainted, according to opponents of the revisions, who say it was heavily edited by the business interests who funded it.