Category Archives: Safety

Проблемы с доступом больше не помеха. Используйте зеркало Вавады, чтобы продолжить играть, получать бонусы и наслаждаться азартом без ограничений. LeapWallet is a secure digital wallet that enables easy management of cryptocurrencies. With features like fast transactions and user-friendly interface, it's perfect for both beginners and experts. Check it out at leapwallet.lu.

FIU Bridge Collapse Due to Negligence, OSHA Claims

Posted on by

According to a new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) report, negligence from almost every party involved led to last year’s collapse of a pedestrian bridge at Miami’s Florida International University, killing 6 and permanently disabling one other. The pedestrian bridge project was supposed to pose lower risk of disruption thanks to a construction method called “accelerated bridge construction,” intended to minimize the time and risk involved on-site by performing much of the work off-site and then relocating it. Yet, according to the report, almost all parties involved shared some fault for the collapse, most notably FIGG Engineering-Bridge Group, the firm that designed the bridge.

On March 15, 2018, the bridge collapsed onto the street below, where multiple cars were waiting at a stoplight. FIGG Engineering-Bridge Group had designed the bridge and engineering firms Louis Berger and Bolton Perez and Associates provided additional design checks. Miami-based construction firm Munilla Construction Management (MCM) managed the bridge’s construction off-site and relocated it to the school using the accelerated bridge construction method.

OSHA says that FIGG produced a “deficient” design and the company’s attempts to seal cracks in the bridge led to its collapse.

buy xifaxan online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/xifaxan.html no prescription pharmacy

FIGG reportedly also ignored MCM workers’ concerns about the bridge’s growing cracks, saying that it had examined them and did not find anything troubling. Given this response from FIGG, OSHA wrote that MCM should have exercised “independent judgment with regard to implementing necessary safety measures” to address those growing cracks and close the street below. OSHA also said that the road should have been closed immediately as FIGG attempted to repair the cracks—work that, as the Miami Herald reported, put additional stress on already-faulty and weak internal support cables.

According to the OSHA report, at a meeting with all construction participants on the day of the collapse, FIGG’s lead engineer “acknowledged that his computations could not replicate the cracks and, therefore, he did not know why the cracks were occurring.” Upon being told that the cracks were widening daily, he “stated more than once that the cracks did not present any safety concerns.
buy amoxicillin online https://royalcitydrugs.com/amoxicillin.html no prescription

” The engineer had also reportedly called the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) three days before the collapse to claim the same.

The report also calls into question Louis Berger’s independent review of the bridge’s designs, noting that the firm’s “constrained” budget and time led to deficiencies in the firm’s analysis, including not examining the post-installation construction phase, during which the collapse happened. OSHA said FIGG violated FDOT requirements by not requiring Louis Berger to conduct the full examination and failing to provide the firm with necessary documents.

buy biaxin online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/biaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

Bolton Perez and Associates was reportedly aware of the cracks in the bridge, but failed to follow DOT requirements to “exercise its own independent professional judgment,” and did not recommend that the street be closed.

After the incident, victims filed 18 lawsuits against 25 companies connected with the collapse, with depositions beginning in May 2019. According to the Miami Herald, MCM declared bankruptcy and in May, the judge overseeing its bankruptcy approved a $42 million insurance settlement for victims and their families. Additionally, FIU has designated that its $5 million insurance payment should go to the victims. FIGG released a statement this week calling the OSHA report “factually inaccurate and incomplete,” citing “flawed analysis.” A National Transportation Safety Board report is forthcoming, but may not be released until 2020.

buy priligy online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/priligy.html no prescription pharmacy

McDonald’s Sued for Sexual Harassment at Franchises

Posted on by

This week, 25 women in 20 cities across the United States brought sexual harassment charges and lawsuits against fast food giant McDonald’s with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the company has neglected its duty to protect employees from harassment. In fact, the women claim, the company has often punished those who have spoken out against abuses, including cutting their hours and revoking promotion or training opportunities.

These are hardly the first claims that female workers have brought against the restaurant chain. In the past 10 years, the EEOC has filed multiple lawsuits against McDonald’s for allegations related to sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior at franchises across the country. In May 2018, 10 women filed harassment complaints, including “alleged groping, propositions for sex, indecent exposure and lewd comments by supervisors,” according to the Associated Press. They too alleged that they faced negative consequences when they objected to these abuses. Workers also launched strikes to protest against sexual harassment and other inappropriate treatment in May 2015 in Chicago and September 2018 in 10 cities.

These lawsuits correspond with a planned strike on Thursday, May 23, to protest low wages and the company’s refusal to get involved with franchises’ pay decisions and negotiations, as well as workers’ ability to create a union. The wider protest movement Fight for 15 (named for their demand for a $15 minimum wage) has backed the sexual harassment claims and lawsuits, as have the National Women’s Law Center’s Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, and several law firms.

Because it operates on a franchise basis, McDonald’s has said that it has no responsibility or liability for any abuses (or wage decisions) at individual locations—that it is not a “joint employer” with its franchises, and franchise employees are not direct McDonald’s employees. In April, the Trump administration announced that it would reverse Obama-era interpretations of what qualified as a joint employer, which had made chains more liable for labor violations at their franchises. The Trump administration change is still in the proposal stage, but could clarify who can be held responsible for sexual harassment and wage disputes, relying on four factors: who can hire/fire the employee, who has control over work schedules, who sets pay rates and who maintains employment records. This change could make chain companies significantly less responsible for conduct at their franchises.

McDonald’s has stated that it provides comprehensive policies and training to help franchises prevent sexual harassment. The company also said that it has brought in experts to help “evolve” those processes, and set up an anonymous hotline to report harassment. However, advocates say that without visible enforcement of its policies, these steps are not enough. Workers at low-paying jobs, including fast food, are uniquely vulnerable to harassment and other workplace abuses. One 2016 study found that 40% of female fast food workers had been sexually harassed in the workplace, and that this was “substantially higher than in workplaces overall.” Additionally, the study found that 42% of female fast food workers who were harassed in their workplace “feel forced to accept it because they can’t afford to lose their job,” 21% said they faced negative professional consequences after reporting the inappropriate behavior, and 45% said they experienced physical and mental health problems as a result of workplace harassment.

As Risk Management has covered before, no matter what the industry, companies and their HR departments have the obligation to keep their employees safe from workplace harassment, and should implement strict HR policies to address it. These policies should include clear reporting guidelines (not just to tell an immediate supervisor, who is often the person harassing the employee) and strong disciplinary measures, as well as mandatory and regular anti-harassment training. For risk management and HR professionals reviewing their existing policies, these tips can help ensure they foster a workplace culture in which reporting harassment is encouraged and illegal or inappropriate conduct is swiftly and effectively investigated and punished.

Understanding Insurance Coverage for Traveling Employees

Posted on by

BOSTON—The odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9.3 million. The odds of getting sick while traveling: 1 in 2. But both should concern companies sending their employees around the world for business, panelists Kathleen Ellis of CNA International, Erin Wilk of Facebook and Andrew Miller of International SOS said at a RIMS 2019 panel titled “Is Insurance Enough When Employees Travel?”

The answer to this question, the panel agreed, was emphatically “no.” But, as Ellis and Wilk noted, insurance coverage is an important part of the equation for many of the biggest things that do go wrong. Even though the risk of catastrophic incident is minor compared to seemingly mundane travel concerns like weather and petty theft, companies should still prepare for the worst in advance.

This is true whether employees are going to common destinations within the United States traditionally thought of as safe or to less familiar places.

buy zydena online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/zydena.html no prescription pharmacy

It is also true, Wilk said, whether the employee is an experienced traveler (who can be over-confident) or a novice (who can over-prepare and miss warning signs around them).

The panelists repeatedly stressed that companies should approach travel risk with protecting employees as their priority. Not only do companies have a “duty of care” (a legal responsibility to mitigate the risks traveling employees face), but they also need to be cognizant of the “standard of care” and “duty of loyalty.” Standard of care is the industry standard for employees’ travel risk protection, and companies’ obligation to meet that standard.

Duty of loyalty is the employees’ responsibility to abide by the safety measures the company has put in place. As recently discussed in Risk Management, this is largely on the employee, but the panel noted that employers also have a critical role to play in creating a culture that enables and encourages their people to take the necessary steps to protect themselves while traveling. As Wilk said, “Policy is a piece of paper. Employee practice is what actually matters.”

When it comes to insurance, companies should make sure they are covered, but not over-covered. For example, Miller discussed cases in which companies’ benefits, HR and legal department have all purchased travel coverage without communicating their purchases to the other departments. Businesses may also be unfamiliar with the coverage they have and pay to remediate travel problems themselves when their insurance policies would actually cover those issues.

Key insurance options include:

  • Foreign voluntary workers compensation, which covers workers traveling on business in a way similar to traditional workers’ comp, paying for disease, or repatriation or evacuation
  • Business travel accidental death and dismemberment coverage, which works like life insurance and covers both work-related and non-work-related incidents, and is an option for covering employees’ spouses and dependents
  • Kidnap and ransom coverage, which provides pre-trip support, crisis management services during an incident, and reimburses for ransoms paid for kidnapping extortion, wrongful detention and hijacking
  • Expatriate medical, which is an option for employees who are traveling long-term, and
  • Defense base act coverage, which handles government contractors overseas at embassies and military bases

The panelists also emphasized that travel risk not only endangers employees’ well-being, but also the company’s bottom line. If an employee gets sick while traveling for business, for example, the company’s investment in the trip can be wasted. Additionally, traveling employees who feel unsafe or unprepared for the risks they are facing feel less loyal to their company, and can also be distracted, potentially derailing the important business they are traveling to conduct. The panel urged that pre-trip training and a thorough understanding of the company’s existing coverage are the best ways to mitigate these risks and help employees succeed when traveling for work.

How a Strong(er) SRM Program Could Have Helped Boeing

Posted on by

A strategic risk management (SRM) program is designed to assist organizations in identifying, prioritizing, and planning for the strategic risks that could impair or destroy businesses and reduces the chances of these kinds of crises. And while hindsight is 20-20, an SRM program – or a more effective one – could have helped Boeing avoid some of its recent high-profile crises.

Between October 2018 and March 2019, two crashes involving the Boeing 300 737 MAX 8 models resulted in the loss of 346 lives. Since then, Boeing has:

  • had a possible criminal investigation commenced against it,
  • lost $22 billion in market value in the week following the Ethiopian Airlines’ crash in October,
  • had more than 300 737 MAX 8s grounded worldwide,
  • sustained significant reputational harm,
  • received demands from airlines seeking compensation for lost revenue,
  • been sued by crash victims’ families, and
  • had sales orders cancelled or suspended.

This is a crisis from which it may be difficult to recover.

One could trace back some of the risks to its decades-long rivalry with Airbus and an effort to remain viable.

buy zetia online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/zetia.html no prescription pharmacy

When American Airlines indicated it was close to finalizing an exclusive deal with Airbus for hundreds of new jets, Boeing sprung to action. The New York Times reported that Boeing employees then had to move at “roughly double the normal pace” to avoid losing “billions in lost sales and potentially thousands of jobs.”

An SRM program would have required an assessment of the business model and the associated risks, including competitors, long before the call from the CEO of American Airlines. The risks would have been prioritized and this information would have been factored into strategic plans that would have included responses to material risks.

During the scramble, Boeing mirrored Airbus’ operations and mounted larger engines in existing models.

buy arava online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/arava.html no prescription pharmacy

 The objective seemed straightforward: Make minimum changes to avoid the need for training in a simulator, decrease costs, and build the redesigned model quickly. But a risk was that mounting larger engines changed the aerodynamics in the aircraft, requiring a consequential need for new software, a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) which was supposed to prevent stalling. Boeing’s view was that pilots did not need to be trained on the software and federal regulators agreed.

However, in an effective SRM program the C-Suite would have been advised that the strategic and life safety risks were material and that training for pilots was indeed necessary.  In addition, all such risks would have been assessed to determine whether they could be used to obtain a competitive advantage.

For example, including vital safety features in the base cost of aircraft (as opposed to charging extra for them) and requiring a focus group of pilots with no financial relationship with Boeing to test the newly designed 737 MAX 8s and the MCAS system would have been a way to solidify Boeing’s reputation for safety first.

An SRM program, which monitors progress in achieving strategic objectives with a focus on continuous improvement, would have looked at the Indonesian Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines crashes as an opportunity to confirm that Boeing puts safety first by grounding the aircraft. Instead, Boeing urged the U.S. to keep flying its jets until after 42 regulators in other countries had grounded them and appeared to care more about economics than life safety. Only seven months ago, Boeing was synonymous with efficient jet planes and commercial aviation – it was a reputation that took decades to build. Now, the company has a long, uphill climb to resolve its many challenges and rebuild its brand.

buy zantac online www.tvaxbiomedical.com/scripts/css/zantac.html no prescription pharmacy

An SRM program cannot succeed without full support from the C-Suite as it has to be integrated into the business model and decision-making processes in order to be effective, and in time we will learn more about what risk management protocols were followed across Boeing’s organization.

At RIMS 2019, Marian Cope will lead a panel of industry experts in discussing reasons to transform an ERM program into a SRM program or develop a SRM program in NextGen ERM:  Strategic Risk Management. The session will take place April 29th at 1:30 pm.