safety Archives - The National Law Forum

Law Firms Respond to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: How the Legal Industry & the Public Can Help

On February 21, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered ground troops into the eastern Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Invading under the guise of establishing independence for the region on February 24, Russia started bombing key points of interest around the country, including the capital city of Kyiv. At the time of writing, the skirmishes remain ongoing, with Russia expanding its invasion force as the days go on.

The ramifications of Russia’s war are widespread. In Ukraine, infrastructural damage is considerable, an estimated 2 million civilians are evacuating or have been driven from their homes. The death toll remains uncertain at this time, but the Ukrainian health ministry estimates that hundreds of citizens have been killed as a result of the violence. Globally, financial markets are in a state of rapid flux, seeing huge rises in inflation, a strained supply chain and plummeting stock prices.

Law firms in the United States and abroad have responded to the conflict by offering pro bono services in anticipation of resultant legal complications and organized means by which money can be donated to Ukrainian humanitarian efforts.

How Have Law Firms Responded to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?

In some instances, firms have also closed offices in Ukraine to protect workers, and severed ties with Russian businesses. Law firms that have closed offices in Ukraine include Dentons, CMS and Baker McKenzie, which have closed offices in Kyiv.

“Dentons has established a taskforce to monitor and manage the crisis situation, with a primary focus on protecting our people,” Tomasz Dąbrowski, CEO of Dentons Europe, told the National Law Review. “We are in regular contact with our team in Kyiv and are providing our colleagues and their families with any possible assistance, including transport, relocation and accommodation assistance in the neighboring countries. Furthermore, we have seen a wave of kindness and generosity from our people across Europe, who have volunteered to provide accommodation in their homes for Ukrainian colleagues. Furthermore, in addition to the financial support our Firm is providing to our Ukrainian colleagues, we have also received financial donations from around the world to help them resettle.”

Many law firms have announced they are closing offices in Russia, including Squire Patton Boggs, Latham & Watkins Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Morgan Lewis & Bockius, among others. Norton Rose Fulbright announced March 7 that they are winding down their operations in Russia and will be closing their Moscow office as soon as they can, calling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “increasingly brutal.”

“The wellbeing of our staff in the region is a priority. We thank our 50 colleagues in Moscow for their loyal service and will support them through this transition.”

Norton Rose Fulbright said they “stand unequivocally with the people of Ukraine,” and are taking steps to respond to the invasion.

“Some immediate actions are possible and we are taking them. We are not accepting any further instructions from businesses, entities or individuals connected with the current Russian regime, irrespective of whether they are sanctioned or not. In addition, we continue to review exiting from existing work for them where our professional obligations as lawyers allow. Where we cannot exit from current matters, we will donate the profits from that work to appropriate humanitarian and charitable causes,” the statement read. “We are working with our charitable partners in every region to raise funds to help the people of Ukraine, as well as providing pro bono support to those Ukrainians and others who are being forced to relocate.”

Law firms have also stepped forward to offer pro bono assistance to those affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

**Law Firms Offering Pro Bono Assistance to Ukraine**

Akin Gump Partner and Pro Bono Practice leader Steven Schulman explained how the legal industry is collaborating and working to provide assistance:

“So what we often do in these crises, we will self organize, [and] say who’s a point person who knows what’s going on, and then we will share information so that again, we’re lightening the load on the legal aid organizations.”

Another law firm offering assistance to Ukraine is Covington & Burling, which the country hired to help pursue its claim against Russia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Specifically, Ukraine asked the court to order Russia to halt its invasion. Covington filed a claim on behalf of Ukraine to the ICJ.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are providing emergency aid in Ukraine, as well as in neighboring countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania to help people displaced by the war as they come across the border, Mr.Dąbrowski said. These organizations are providing food, water, hygiene supplies and other necessities, and urgent psychological counseling. Specific NGOs on the ground in Ukraine include Mercy Corps, Fight for Right, Project HOPE, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Fundacja Ocalenie, among others.

However, NGOs need cash donations in order to keep providing aid. Mr.Dąbrowski detailed what pro bono work Dentons is doing, and how the firm is supporting NGOs:

“Our Positive Impact team is in touch with numerous NGOs and lawyers from our firm to identify opportunities for pro bono legal advice, mainly in the countries which share a border with Ukraine. We are already working with NGOs in Poland and Hungary which are helping Ukrainian refugees displaced by the war. We are assisting with issues related to employment law, contracts, establishment of charitable foundations, etc… We are also in discussions with an international relief agency which is looking to set up operations within Ukraine.

While men between the ages of 18 and 60 are currently prohibited from leaving Ukraine, as of March 10, 2022, the conflict has created one of the largest refugee crises within the last few decades.

“We have activated our registered charitable foundation to collect donations from our people around the world to support Ukrainian families – and particularly children – displaced by the war, including some of our own people from Kyiv. So far, our colleagues from around the world have donated or pledged close to €300,000,” Mr.Dąbrowski said. “We have already distributed €60,000 of that to eight NGOs in Poland, Hungary and Romania, which are providing emergency aid, food and water, hygiene supplies, transportation, medical and psychological care, shelter and schooling to Ukrainian civilians fleeing from the war”

Concerns with immigration and refugee asylum is the next expected complication. In the short-term, the Department of Homeland Security is prioritizing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for those already in the U.S.

For the public, there are a number of actions to take to support Ukrainians. However, those wishing to help should make sure to do their research before making any donations in order to ensure the funds end up in the right hands.

How Can Members of the Public Help Ukraine?

Possible scam organizations and outreach programs are common during international crises, so it’s important to know the signs of fraudulent charities. Some best practices for providing support include:

Giving directly to an organization rather than through shared donation links on social media
Being wary of crowdfunding efforts
Doing a background check on an organization and its donation claims using Charity Watch, Give.org, and Charity Navigator.

Some examples of charitable organizations focused on Ukraine relief include:

Informational resources for those affected are provided below:

Conclusion

Law firms and the public alike have stepped up to offer assistance and financial help to those most affected by the Russian invasion. Law firms cutting ties with Russian businesses and closing offices in Russia shows that the legal industry is standing behind Ukraine as the conflict continues to escalate.

In upcoming coverage, the National Law Review will be writing about how law firms are helping clients handle Russian sanctions, as well as the immigration implications of refugees displaced by the war in Ukraine.

*The quotes and input of interviewees reflect the latest information on the Russian invasion of Ukraine as of March 7, 2022. Readers can find the latest legal news from around the world on The National Law Review’s Global Law page.*

Article By Chandler Ford, Jessica Scheck, and Rachel Popa of the The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

Gaming Industry Associations Agree on Universal Esports Principles

Earlier this month, a set of gaming industry representatives agreed upon and released a set of unifying esports principles. These representatives include the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), as well as associations from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the UK, and Europe. These “Principles of Esports Engagement” were developed in a collaborative effort and form a set of values applicable in all aspects of the global esports environment.

The principles include the following:

Safety and Well-Being
- All esports community members deserve to participate in and enjoy esports in safe spaces and to be free from threats and acts of violence and from language or behavior that makes people feel threatened or harassed.
Integrity and Fair Play
- Cheating, hacking, or otherwise engaging in disreputable, deceitful, or dishonest behavior detracts from the experience of others, unfairly advantages teams and players, and tarnishes the legitimacy of esports.
Respect and Diversity
- Esports promotes a spirit of healthy competition. Whether in person or online, all members of the esports community should demonstrate respect and courtesy to others, including teammates, opponents, game officials, organizers, and spectators.
- Esports is truly global and brings together players from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. We believe the broad and diverse player base of esports contributes to its success. We support an open, inclusive, and welcoming environment for all, no matter one’s gender identity, age, ability, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Positive and Enriching Game Play
- Esports can help build self-confidence and sportsmanship and boost interpersonal communication and teamwork skills. Esports brings players and fans together to problem solve through strategic play, collaboration, and critical thinking. Participation in esports can also lead to the development of new and lasting friendships among teammates, competitors, and members of the broader esports community.

The goal of these organizations in releasing this set of principles is to foster an esports community that is responsible, welcoming, engaging, and of course, fun. Notably, in ESA’s press release announcing these principles, the association highlighted the growth of esports, citing research that estimates that, in 2019, global esports viewership will hit nearly 500 million and revenues will exceed $1 billion USD. With this level of growth, the esports community has a vested interest in supporting the best conditions for play and ensuring esports remains an exciting and inclusive activity and industry at all levels.

ARTICLE BY Mark A. Patrick of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

For more video gaming issues, see the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports law page.

Don’t Slip Up: When Are California Employers Required to Pay for Employees’ Shoes?

A hot-button issue in California is whether an employer is required to pay for or reimburse an employee for shoes that are required as a condition of employment. A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal highlights the complexity of the issue and lack of concrete guidance on a critical question: whether California workplace safety law requires an employer to pay for nonspecialty safety shoes, such as generic steel-toe boots, that the employer allows the employee to wear off the jobsite.

An employer’s failure to properly pay for or reimburse for the shoes it requires its employees to wear as a condition of employment can expose the employer to civil liability and/or regulatory enforcement by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Indeed, there has been a dramatic uptick in both civil class action claims against employers and regulatory enforcement by Cal/OSHA alleging failure to pay for or reimburse for the cost of shoes required as a condition of employment. These difficult scenarios range from generic waterproof shoes requirements in food processing plants to nonspecific requirements for work boots to be worn on construction sites.

In Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., No. C086672 (June 4, 2019), the California Court of Appeal ruled that under California Labor Code section 2802 and the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 5 applicable to the restaurant industry, BJ’s Restaurants was not required to pay for the cost of the slip-resistant shoes that it required its employees to wear as a condition of employment. In so holding, the court relied on Wage Order No. 5, which provides that a restaurant employer must pay for its employees’ work apparel only if it is a “uniform” or if it qualifies as certain protective apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Section 2802 provides that employers are required to reimburse their employees for “necessary expenditures … incurred by the employee[s] in direct consequence of the discharge of [their] duties.” Thus, if slip-resistant shoes were part of a uniform or apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or OSHA, then pursuant to section 2802, BJ’s Restaurants would have been required to reimburse its employees for the cost of the shoes. The court relied on a California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) opinion letter to find that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the slip-resistant shoes constituted a “uniform” within the meaning of the Wage Order No. 5:

The definition and [DLSE] enforcement policy is sufficiently flexible to allow the employer to specify basic wardrobe items which are usual and generally usable in the occupation, such as white shirts, dark pants and black shoes and belts, all of unspecified design, without requiring the employer to furnish such items. If a required black or white uniform or accessory does not meet the test of being generally usable in the occupation the emplolyee [sic] may not be required to pay for it.

The court found that because the plaintiff did not argue that the slip-resistant shoes were part of a “uniform” or were not usual and generally usable in the restaurant occupation, the employer was not required to reimburse the plaintiff for the slip-resistant shoes under Labor Code section 2802.

However, even though the court held as such, given that the plaintiff had not attempted to characterize the shoes as apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or OSHA, the court did not reach the issue of whether the employer could be obligated to pay for the slip-resistant shoes under Cal/OSHA or OSHA. This unanswered question is bad news for California employers, as it is unsettled whether an employer is required to pay for nonspecialty protective shoes required as a condition of employment, such as generic work boots. It remains unsettled because there is a conflict between Cal/OSHA and OSHA regulations regarding generic nonspecialty protective shoes.

Shoes as Personal Protective Equipment

Under federal OSHA regulations, which were amended in 2008, an employer is required to provide personal protective equipment, including certain specialty protective shoes, at no cost to the employee. However, the federal OSHA regulations also contain an exemption that does not require the employer to pay for generic nonspecialty shoes, such as steel-toe boots, which the employer permits to be worn off the jobsite. Further, a 2011 OSHA directive interpreted this regulation as not requiring employers to “pay for non-specialty shoes that offer some slip-resistant characteristics, but are otherwise ordinary clothing in nature.”

Consistent with the federal OSHA regulations, Cal/OSHA regulations provide that “[a]ppropriate foot protection shall be required for employees who are exposed to foot injuries from electrical hazards, hot, corrosive, poisonous substances, falling objects, crushing or penetrating actions, which may cause injuries or who are required to work in abnormally wet locations.” Also consistent with federal law, California law generally provides that, if protective equipment is required by Cal/OSHA, the employer is responsible for the cost of the protective equipment.

However, California law significantly diverges from federal law when it comes to nonspecialty safety shoes that can be worn off the jobsite. Under Cal/OSHA, there is no corresponding provision that specifically exempts employers from paying for the cost of generic nonspecialty safety shoes, such as steel-toe boots. Indeed, in 2012, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board proposed the adoption of a regulation similar to the federal regulation, which exempted employers from paying for the cost of nonspecialty safety footwear. The proposed regulation initially contained exceptions despite the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board’s having noted that “existing case law requiring employers to pay for [personal protective equipment] is more effective than the federal standard, because California enforces the employer’s duty to pay for safety devices and safeguards without the exceptions provided in the federal standard.” The regulation was ultimately not adopted. Consistent therewith, Cal/OSHA has taken the stance that if an employer requires shoes for safety purposes, whether specialty or nonspecialty, the employer must pay for the cost of those shoes.

In contrast, California employers have argued that the federal OSHA regulation exempting employers from paying for the cost of generic nonspecialty safety shoes should control in California. Indeed, in Townley, the trial court originally granted BJ’s Restaurant’s motion for summary judgment finding that the federal OSHA regulation exempting employers from paying for the cost of nonspecialty safety shoes controlled in California because California did not adopt a Cal/OSHA regulation requiring employers to reimburse employees for the cost of such shoes—and thus, BJ’s Restaurants was not required to reimburse for the cost of the slip-resistant shoe. However, as noted above, the California Court of Appeal did not reach the issue of the applicability of Cal/OSHA and OSHA to these types of situations.

Key Takeaways

What does this all mean for California employers? The short answer is that, if an employer requires employees to wear shoes with safety characteristics as a condition of employment, it may want to assess whether it is required to reimburse employees for the cost of the shoes. An employer’s failure to pay for or reimburse an employee for the cost of shoes could expose the employer to potential civil claims or regulatory enforcement by Cal/OSHA.

This article was written by Karen Tynan and Robert C. Rodriguez of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more on employer safety requirements, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

Is Electric Scooter Safety Next on the Regulatory Menu?

A few years ago, hoverboards drew a lot of attention from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Formally known as self-balancing electric scooters, hoverboards became an instant success because they combined practical mobility and enjoyment. But that success was not without some setbacks. When news stories in 2015 linked hoverboards to fires (which we wrote about here), the same popularity that drove sales also attracted public and government scrutiny.

While the CPSC typically does not discuss ongoing investigations, in January 2016, the attention around hoverboards drove then-Chairman Elliot Kaye to make public statements about the agency’s inquiries. And in February 2016, then-Acting Director of Compliance Robert Howell issued a public letter to manufacturers, urging them to test their products according to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 2272, which would not become a formal voluntary consensus standard for another nine months. These statements were unusual. The public and congressional attention on alleged hoverboard fires drove the CPSC to be more public in its efforts.

Poised for the Next New Thing

With the hoverboard memory fresh in its mind, the CPSC is likely to get ahead of future potential emerging technology issues. One product that the agency may see as ripe for early intervention is a cousin of hoverboards: electric scooters. We last wrote about how scooter manufacturers have provided a roadmap for other technology companies to respond to complaints. Scooters share some features of regulatory interest with hoverboards – they’re both powered by lithium ion batteries, for instance – but they also have some unique features. Specifically, the wildly popular scooter-sharing rental model means scooters carry riders with varying levels of ability and knowledge about the product, presenting companies with the challenge of addressing rider safety without a readily available opportunity to warn or instruct them on scooters’ use.

Scooters are everywhere in many cities, creating both opportunities and litigation challenges for companies. States and municipalities have struggled to figure out how they can address the safety of riders and others, including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. They have set a variety of rules on issues like how many scooters can operate, where they can go, and how fast they can move. Some cities are testing the waters carefully, using pilot programs to see how scooters could integrate with other modes of transport. These debates are usually about how scooter riders should ride – the rules of the road/sidewalk – but not about how scooters should be designed and built.

The CPSC has the authority to regulate the safety of scooters. In addition to the question of battery safety, CPSC staff and commissioners have expressed concerns about falls or other mechanical hazards, such as the consequences of potential structural failures. And while the agency is engaged, so far its activities have been modest. CPSC staff have collaborated on UL 2272 since it was issued in 2016. The standard now includes electric scooters under the term “Light Electric Vehicles,” but the standards committee has not adopted any scooter-specific provisions.

However, consumer advocacy groups are asking the government to pay more attention to allegations of injuries associated with scooters, which may pressure the CPSC to be more assertive. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has urged the agency to conduct more research and seek recalls of scooters associated with injuries. The CFA has also asked Congress to give the CPSC a nudge. So far, groups like the CFA have not called for a mandatory product safety standard, but that possibility always exists.

How Scooter Companies Can Engage the CPSC

What’s going on in Washington presents scooter companies with the opportunity to ensure their voices are heard in these conversations. As with any CPSC-regulated industry, companies should comply with their obligations to report potential hazards and, as appropriate, recall products. Some companies have already conducted recalls, though seemingly without the CPSC’s public involvement. Companies should also continue to go beyond these case-by-case actions and ensure product safety issues are on their policy agenda in conversations with the CPSC, Congress, and other stakeholders.

For example, companies may want to set up introductory meetings with CPSC commissioners to build positive working relationships long before commissioners have a vote on a recall or a rule. Scooter companies may also want to engage at safety-related events to present themselves as thoughtful, responsible innovators.

Companies should also maintain their active involvement in voluntary standards bodies, namely with UL with respect to its 2272 standard on hoverboard and scooter electrical systems. Voluntary standards both help protect consumers and protect responsible companies against undercutting by less safety-minded market players. Currently, safety practices vary between companies. More uniformity can build consumer confidence and help establish the kind of “reasonably prudent company” benchmark that is key to litigation defense. Moreover, when companies work alongside the CPSC’s technical experts on the voluntary standards, they can build trust and rapport that can help future discussions.

Electric scooters are not going away. Their enormous potential in urban transportation is too valuable. But discussions about how to regulate scooters are just getting started. Scooter companies should make sure they are seated at the table; that is, as always, the best way to avoid being on the menu.

Article by Mike Gentine and Derin Kiykioglu of Schiff Hardin LLP.

More on CPSC regulation in the National Law Review Consumer Protection page.

Potential for more Trucking Accidents in California if New Federal Law Passes

A provision that is included in pending legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives may result in fewer truck drivers in California taking needed rest breaks while they are working. The bill would apply to truck drivers who drive into California from other states while exempting them from California’s mandatory rest break requirements. If this bill passes, truck drivers may be more fatigued and cause more accidents in both California and in the rest of the U.S.

The proposed law

A provision that is included in a House appropriations bill would exempt interstate truck drivers who drive into California from following the strict rest and meal break regulations in the state. Under California law, all workers, including truck drivers, must take one 30-minute meal break every five hours and one 10-minute rest break every four hours of work. Some other states, including Kentucky and Colorado, have similar rest and meal break laws on the books. Federal law only requires that truck drivers take one 30-minute break during the first eight hours of driving. Officials in California are concerned that reducing the amount of time that drivers spend resting may result in increased injury and accident rates in the state.

According to the Truck Safety Coalition, the legislators are attempting to preempt state labor laws that mandate additional meal and rest breaks beyond those that are required under federal law. While the law would apply to interstate drivers who drive into the state, some experts are also concerned that drivers who only drive within the state but who work for interstate trucking companies may fall into a legal loophole. They believe that their companies would likely pressure the drivers to only take the minimally required breaks under federal law instead of following the state’s requirements. The provision was introduced by two California Republicans, including Rep. David Valadao and Rep. Jeff Denham. Denham has received more than $60,000 in contributions to his campaigns from trucking organizations.

Drowsy driving truck accident statistics

In California, 15,000 large truck crashes happened in 2016. The California Highway Patrol reports that 8,989 of those collisions happened in Los Angeles. Nationally, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports that 87,000 injury crashes happened in 2015, and 4,311 trucks and buses were involved in fatal accidents. The FMCSA reports that 55 fatal truck accidents in 2015 were caused by drowsy or fatigued truck drivers and another 71 were caused by driver inattention with unknown causes.

If the proposed law passes in the House and Senate and is signed into law by Trump, many truck drivers may not have to take the rest breaks that they currently have to take. Truck drivers drive for exhaustingly long shifts, and not being able to pull off of the road more frequently may lead them to become exhausted. In Dec. 2016, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that the crash risk for drivers spikes for every hour of sleep that they lose. Truck drivers who do not get sufficient sleep and who are also not able to take enough rest breaks may have greatly increased risks. For all drivers, AAA found that the risk of accidents doubles for people who get between five and six hours of sleep each night. When they only get four to five hours of sleep, their risks are four times higher of crash involvement than people who are more rested.

Pressures on truck drivers

Truck drivers report that they are under tremendous pressure by their companies to get their loads delivered on time, according to ABC News. When drivers are pressured to make their deliveries under tight deadlines, they may end up driving while they are fatigued. This pressure may compound the potential problems of having fewer rest breaks under the proposed federal law. If that law passes, it is likely that all interstate companies will force their workers to only follow the federal rules rather than pulling off the road more frequently or whenever they feel tired.

Drowsy driving can have serious or even fatal consequences for drivers and those who are traveling on the roads around them. Enacting federal legislation to preempt California’s meal and rest break requirements could lead to many more injuries and deaths in the state each year. Californians may want to lobby their representatives and senators about this provision in order to protect the general safety of everyone in the state.

This post was written by Steven M. Sweat.

For more legal analysis go to the National Law Review.

Trump’s Actual Impact on OSHA

In November, we attempted to look into the crystal ball to see what potential impact the new Trump administration could have on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Here are some of results so far, which on the whole, are favorable to employers who suffered under the “regulation by shaming” mantra of past Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels.

Budget Cuts – As predicted, on May 5, President Trump signed a spending bill that cuts the labor department’s discretionary spending budget by $83 million. This could limit some of OSHA’s enforcement efforts.

Recordkeeping as a Continuing Violation – The Volks rule, which was enacted by OSHA last December as a last minute rule in response to a loss, suffered through an adverse decision in the federal courts. The new rule established that an employer has a continuing duty to create accurate records of work-related employee injuries and illnesses. This effectively changed the statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations from six months to five years and six months. On April 3, President Trump signed a joint congressional resolution under the Congressional Review Act that overturned this rule. The law is now back to the original intent of Congress that the statute of limitations for all OSHA citations is six months. This is a significant win for employers who can focus their time on current substantive safety issues instead of reviewing documents for accuracy from up to five years ago.

Union Representatives in OSHA Inspections of Non-union Facilities – As mentioned in the prior post, I predicted that interpretation letters could change with the new appointment of the secretary of labor. One of the most controversial of these letters was the 2013 Fairfax memo regarding walkaround rights during an OSHA inspection. The memo stated that during an OSHA inspection of a non-union facility, a union representative could be designated as the employees’ “personal representative” even without representation election or voluntary recognition of the union as the exclusive representative of the employees. This was being challenged in court and then OSHA rescinded the Fairfax memo and agreed to revise the Field Operations Manual (FOM) for its inspectors to reflect the same change on April 25, 2017. The lawsuit was then dismissed as moot since OSHA rescinded the controversial memo. The letter was viewed as an overstep by OSHA into the area of labor relations covered by the NLRB, since it appeared to be motivated by giving unions more access to non-union employers for organization efforts rather than to assist in a safety inspection. This is another win for employers.

So far, the progress has been good for employers. We will just have to wait and see how other issues develop, including the electronic recordkeeping rule and non-discrimination standard (which limits blanket post-accident drug tests), which is being challenged in two separate lawsuits, as well as the silica standard, which is being challenged in court. The DOL has to decide how strongly it will defend these rules in court which will have a significant impact on how the courts may rule. Stay tuned for updates.

Are Helmets Required in Pennsylvania and New Jersey?

As most riders know, wearing a helmet is mandatory in New Jersey. Not so in Pennsylvania where anyone 21 years of age or older and has been licensed to operate a motorcycle for not less than two full calendar years OR has completed a motorcycle safety course approved by PennDOT or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation can ride without one. Beyond the arguments for or against mandatory helmet laws is the reality of the dangers associated with riding without one. A few years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article on the Pennsylvania law that permits riders to forgo a helmet and State Representative Dan Frankel’s effort to reinstate a mandatory helmet law.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, in New Jersey for the year 2007, there were 85 motorcycle related fatalities of which 82 % were wearing helmets. The National Highway Safety Institute estimated that 42 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets and that 6 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets. In 2008, 82 fatalities with 87% wearing helmets and NHTSA estimates another 42 lives saved because of helmets and 4 fatalities would have been prevented with 100% use of helmets.

In Pennsylvania in 2007 there were 225 motorcycle related fatalities. 46 % were wearing helmets and another 61 people’s lives were saved by wearing helmets. In 2008, 239 fatalities with 49% wearing helmets and another 70 lives saved because of helmets. The NHTSA also estimated that in 2007 45 lives would have been saved and in 2008 45 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets.

Across the US there were over 5000 fatalities in both 2007 and 2008 from motorcycle accidents with only 58% wearing helmets. NHTSA estimated that in those two years there were 3615 lives saved by the use of a helmet and another 1627 lives would have been saved if they were wearing helmets. More recently, in 2012, NHTSA estimates helmets saved the lives of 1,699 motorcyclists and that an additional 781 lives could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. In states without universal helmet laws, 62% of the motorcyclists killed in 2012 were not wearing helmets compared to 9% in the states with universal helmet laws. Think about that for a minute.

In addition, NHTSA sponsored a study in 1996 to assess the effect of wearing a helmet upon the ability of motorcycle riders to: (1) visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before changing lanes and (2) to detect traffic sounds when operating at normal speed. The results indicate that wearing helmets does not restrict the ability to hear auditory signals or the likelihood of seeing a vehicle in an adjacent lane prior to changing lanes.

I have no reason to doubt these figures. A few years ago while traveling to Court in rush hour traffic on I 95 towards Philadelphia I saw a rider go flying over his handle bars onto the roadway. It was shocking to say the least. I thought he was unconscious. I pulled over the side of the road and watched as he got up. Another motorist an I assisted the rider to the side of the road. He had a full face helmet and a motorcycle leather jacket and blue jeans. He was disoriented and almost lost consciousness a few times. His knees were scraped through his jeans and bleeding. His jacket showed the signs of a serious incident. His helmet showed damage that would have caused a serious injury to a rider without one. Despite his protective gear, I was sure that he had suffered serious injuries. I am happy to report that he called me the next day to tell me that but for his bruised/scraped knees, he was fine. It is clear to me that his helmet and jacket had adequately protected him from more serious harm. As a rider I routinely see other riders in Pennsylvania riding without helmets. In both states it is common to see riders in shorts, sneakers and T shirts. I rode for many years in jeans and a T shirt but always with a helmet. It is great to ride on a warm summer day without the bulk of protective clothing. It’s also dangerous. At many of the rally’s I attend I am often engaged by visitors about their right to ride without a helmet. It’s a debate worth having. What is often overlooked are the true consequences of that action. As indicated above, helmets save lives. That’s indisputable.

What is missing from those statistics are the consequences of sustaining an injury as a result of not wearing a helmet and surviving. NHTSA estimates on a national level we would have saved 2.7 billion dollars in 2007 and 2.9 billion dollars in 2008 if there was 100% helmet use. This of course fails to consider the impact to the rider and their families. Many head injuries are quite serious and have long term consequences, job loss, medical bills and other financial strains. Many of the more serious head injuries lead to long term disability and regular care. We see this regularly when representing injured riders. As many of us in the motorcycle community know, motorcycle insurance provides in most cases no medical benefit and in others, very little coverage. Riders without insurance who suffer serious head injuries become dependent on Federal programs such as SSI and Medicaid. Even people with insurance don’t have enough coverage for a lifetime of care.

I urge anyone reading this to reconsider riding without a helmet. I’m sure the families of those who lost loved ones or who are now watching someone suffer because they were not wearing a helmet would join in my request. Every motorcycle rider understands that there is some danger associate with riding but that doesn’t mean that you should not be prudent and take precautions to minimize your risk.

A Proactive Approach to Travel Risk Management

An improving economy and updated business practices have contributed to companies sending more employees than ever on international business trips and expatriate assignments. Rising travel risks, however, require employers to take proactive measures to ensure the health and safety of their traveling employees. Many organizations, however, fail to implement a company-wide travel risk management plan until it is too late – causing serious consequences that could easily have been avoided.

travel risk management

The most effective crisis planning requires company-wide education before employees take off for their destinations. Designing a well-executed response plan and holding mandatory training for both administrators and traveling employees will ensure that everyone understands both company protocol and their specific roles during an emergency situation.

Additionally, businesses must be aware that Duty of Care legislation has become an integral consideration for travel risk management plans, holding companies liable for the health and safety of their employees, extending to mobile and field employees as well. To fulfill their Duty of Care obligations, organizations should incorporate the following policies within their travel risk management plan:

A customized policy specific to the organization and the specific needs of traveling employees.

Clearly communicated protocols that are enforced to help educate and protect the safety and health of traveling employees.
Response plans and procedures for handling medical/health emergencies.

Proactive Resources for Your Traveling Employees

A travel risk management strategy can only be successful if your workforce is given the necessary resources well before travel occurs. An important part of any travel risk management strategy involves answering common questions employees may have regarding their upcoming travels. It’s also a good idea to provide them with follow-up information so they can be up-to-date.

Not only will a company-wide pro-active travel risk management plan empower employees with the information they need, but implementing such a plan can also help keep your company’s reputation and financial standing in check and prevent any liabilities against your business. The following resources can be useful as part of your overall travel risk management strategy:

Travel logistics such as hotel/meeting site location and reservations details, nearby pharmacies and medical clinics, and passport and/or visa arrangements. It is also crucial to share contact information in the event employees need help during an emergency – such as that of your travel assistance partner or internal emergency resources – and encourage them to add this information to their mobile phone contacts.
A medical overview is essential, especially if the host country requires visitors have documentation of specific vaccinations. Employees should understand and be up-to-date on all routine vaccinations (such as influenza, measles, and mumps). The CDC’s Travelers’ Health website has valuable information, such as worldwide health alerts, although a travel assistance partner can provide this information directly to your employees prior to travel. Additional insight your company can provide to traveling employees is information about health risks in their destination countries. This ensures employees are well aware of the quality of local food and drinking water as well as where to find quality medical care.

Also, since most health insurance plans do not cover members when they are traveling outside the U.S., businesses should purchase additional coverage. Even if their plans provide coverage outside the U.S., many health insurance policies aren’t able to mitigate all of the risks associated with business travel. It would only take one international medical evacuation (which can cost more than $100,000 from business hubs in Dubai, UAE to New York, or China to Texas) to make a serious impact, not just on your traveling employee but on your company as a whole.

A detailed synopsis of the destination’s political standing is crucial to keep your employees safe while traveling, as many regions of the world are experiencing political unrest and living under the very real threat of terrorism. It is important to ensure that your employee benefits package includes security coverage for employees traveling to high-risk areas.

Advance knowledge of the political status of a country will prepare employees should they face an unexpected issue abroad, as would these resources:

American embassies and consulates at the destination country, as well as the State Department’s emergency contact numbers.
Travel alerts, which provide information on risks to the security of U.S. citizens. Though usually short-term, these alerts must be taken seriously.
The State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) is an extremely reliable resource that provides up-to-date location-specific security updates to any employee enrolled for the destination as well as information on the nearest U.S. Embassy. The enrollment will help U.S. Embassy or nearest U.S. Consulate to be in contact with your traveler in the event of an emergency.

Keep in mind that it is not just traveling employees – but also the employers – who need to be prepared for a travel-related emergency. Planning ahead and implementing company-wide crisis management education allows your workforce to be fully aware of the guidelines and protocols. Successfully mitigating a crisis without any communication missteps can prevent a crisis from spiraling into disaster.

ARTICLE BY

Risk Management Magazine

Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS)

Mind Regulations When It Is Time To Mine

The Department of Labor recently issued a reminder to employers involved in themining industry. As spring (slowly) approaches, surface mines will reopen. As miners head back to the job site and prepare equipment for the new season, potential for injury is high.

Of the 12,000 metal and nonmetal mines overseen by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), almost half are operated on a seasonal basis, closing for winter when conditions make operations too difficult. According to MSHA information, injuries at seasonal mines climb sharply in the spring. MSHA is vested with the power to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines.

Miner operators and managers should review safety information available at http://www.msha.gov and take the time to educate employees on the numerous hazards associated with the job. Always keep in mind that employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace; employee injuries are not only detrimental to operations, but can be costly – both financially and reputation-wise.

Article by:

Brandon K. Johnson

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Tag: safety

Gaming Industry Associations Agree on Universal Esports Principles

Like this: