Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Feds Resolve to Expand Criminal Prosecutions of Workplace Safety Violations in the New Year

As the year draws to a close and the New Year approaches, people all around the world will be contemplating what they can resolve to do better in 2016. This year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seem to be celebrating the tradition as well. In a move akin to a “New Year’s Resolution” to do better by workers, the two agencies have just announced that they will be expanding their “worker endangerment initiative” to bolster criminal prosecutions against employers responsible for endangering workers’ health and safety.

The new initiative is an encouraging step toward punishing employers who make decisions that put profits over people and toward deterring others from violating federal labor laws. But the initiative—while it’s a beneficial supplement to the weak criminal penalties applicable to many labor violations—is also limited in scope and shouldn’t be regarded as a comprehensive solution.

The purpose of the DOL/DOJ worker endangerment initiative is to supplement the weak criminal penalty provisions found in three of our nation’s labor laws—the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), the Mine Safety and Health Act (Mine Act), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). In essence, the initiative encourages federal prosecutors investigating potential criminal charges for labor law violations to look for possible violations of other federal criminal laws with stronger penalties that they can pursue.

For example, under the OSH Act, criminal penalties may only be imposed in three instances:

In comparison to these weak criminal penalties, other federal laws provide far more stringent penalties. As an example, Title 18 of the United States Code makes it a crime to provide false information or make false statements to federal officials, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. The federal environmental laws also offer new avenues for criminal penalties. Under §1319(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act, an organization can be fined $1 million, and an individual can be fined $250,000 and imprisoned for 15 years for knowingly putting another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. According to AFL-CIO’s 2015 Death on the Job Report, “EPA reported in FY 2014 there were 271 criminal enforcement cases initiated under federal environmental laws and 187 defendants charged, resulting in 155 years of jail time and $63 million in fines and restitution—more cases, fines and jail time in one year than during OSHA’s entire history.”

Given the potential for enhanced penalties and deterrence under the new initiative, it is certainly a welcome supplement to the OSH Act’s weak criminal penalties. But the initiative’s significant limitations must not be overlooked. First, the initiative only applies to federal labor law violations. Under the OSH Act, states can opt to establish their own OHS agencies that take the place of Fed-OSHA (called “state-plan states”), but OHS violations in these states would not fall within the scope of the initiative. To address this limitation, when a worker injury or fatality occurs in a state-plan state, Fed-OSHA and the DOJ can help amplify criminal enforcement efforts of state and local regulators, law enforcement, and prosecutors by openly communicating and sharing information that may be useful for the state investigation.

The initiative is also limited insofar as it applies only in cases that Fed-OSHA refers to DOJ for prosecution. According to OSHA’s own enforcement data, the agency referred a combined 88 cases to DOJ for prosecution between 2006 and 2013.  In our own review of Fed-OSHA inspection data for cases in which willful violations led to worker deaths, we found that most cases involved falls, trench collapses, electrocutions, workers getting crushed, and other scenarios in which environmental crime add-ons seem unlikely. To address these obstacles, OSHA must redouble its effort to refer cases involving violations of the OSH Act’s criminal provisions to federal prosecutors. When a case does not violate the OSH Act’s criminal penalties but involves a potential violation of another federal law, OSHA should refer the case to the agency with jurisdiction over the matter. OSHA should also coordinate with state and local prosecutors about pursuing cases involving worker fatalities or serious bodily injuries under a state’s general criminal code.

The point in emphasizing these limitations is not to criticize the initiative, but rather, it is to serve as a reminder that this initiative should not be regarded as a comprehensive solution to the many deficiencies of our nation’s labor laws. Despite the limitations, the initiative is a step toward better ensuring workers a safe and healthy workplace. The initiative sends a strong message to employers that labor laws will be enforced and egregious violations will be pursued aggressively. Only time will tell whether the Labor Department and Department of Justice will stay committed to the initiative and seek justice against employers who make business decisions that unnecessarily put workers’ lives on the line.

Showing 2,832 results

Katie Tracy | December 22, 2015

Feds Resolve to Expand Criminal Prosecutions of Workplace Safety Violations in the New Year

As the year draws to a close and the New Year approaches, people all around the world will be contemplating what they can resolve to do better in 2016. This year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seem to be celebrating the tradition as well. In a move akin […]

Matt Shudtz | December 21, 2015

CPR’s Shudtz on the Silica Rule

This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it was sending its final version of a long-awaited rule on silica dust in the workplace to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for final review. CPR Executive Director Matthew Shudtz responded to the news with the following statement: Workers across the United […]

Alice Kaswan | December 21, 2015

The Paris Agreement and Theories of Justice

As we seek to understand and assess the Paris Agreement over the coming months and years, we will continue to contemplate the critical underlying political and ethical question: who should be responsible?  And to what degree should that responsibility take the form of direct action versus providing support in the form of financing, technology transfer, […]

| December 18, 2015

Now is the Time to Restore MDE Enforcement Resources

A few months ago, I recounted the recent history of budget cuts to Maryland environmental agencies and their effect on the state of environmental inspections and enforcement in the state over the last two decades.  Fortunately, it appears that an opportunity to change this situation has presented itself to policymakers in Annapolis.  Recently, at the […]

James Goodwin | December 16, 2015

VapeMentors, the Fat Cat Vapor Shop, and Cosmic Fog Vapors All Walk Into an Obscure White House Office…

This week appears to mark the end of an extraordinary period in the history of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the shadowy bureau charged with reviewing and revising pending agency rules, which too often ensures they are not overly inconvenient for affected industries.  For the last month and a half, […]

Daniel Farber | December 15, 2015

Does the Paris Agreement Open the Door to Geoengineering?

If we’re serious about keeping warming “well below” 2 degrees C, geoengineering may be necessary. The Paris agreement establishes an aspirational goal of holding climate change to 1.5 degrees C, with a firmer goal of holding the global temperature decrease “well below” 2 degrees C. As a practical matter, the 1.5 degrees C goal almost […]

| December 10, 2015

Stocktaking and Ratcheting After Paris

In the latest draft treaty text from Thursday evening in Paris two contentious issues seem to be resolved: how often the agreement will be reviewed after it is adopted (“stocktaking”) and whether the reviews should involve ever-more-stringent commitments by the parties (“ratcheting”). The background here is that the greenhouse gas reduction commitments made so far by 185 […]

James Goodwin | December 9, 2015

At Senate Hearing, CPR’s Verchick Provides Sole Voice of Reason on Flawed ‘Regulatory Budgeting’ Proposal

This morning, CPR President and Loyola University, New Orleans, Law Professor Robert R.M. Verchick testifies at a hearing convened by the Senate Budget Committee to examine a dangerous regulatory policy proposal known as “regulatory budgeting.” As he explains in his testimony, regulatory budgeting represents a stark departure from the traditional focus of regulatory policy discussions, […]

| December 9, 2015

What Will ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibility’ Mean After Paris?

Here at the UN climate summit is Paris, negotiators are hashing out the new meaning of an old term: common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). CBDR has been a bedrock principle of climate negotiations since 1992. It was the basis for dividing the world into two camps: 37 developed nations that had binding greenhouse gas emissions […]