Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

Court Overturns Prop 22, California’s Gig Worker Classification Law

On August 25, the Alameda County Superior Court in California declared that Proposition 22 (better known as Prop 22) violated the state’s constitution, overturning it and potentially putting a portion of the state’s gig work industry in peril. The controversial California ballot measure designated app-based gig workers like rideshare and food delivery drivers as independent contractors, meaning that the companies they ostensibly work for would not have to provide a minimum wage, health insurance, unemployment, sick leave or other benefits. Because the initiative was a ballot measure, the court found the law restricted the state legislature’s ability to regulate compensation rules, and said the measure also illegally prevented workers from collective bargaining and unionization. However, this ruling does not mean that gig workers will automatically be considered employees, as no previous law mandated that classification.

Before Prop 22’s passage in November 2020, California passed AB 5 in May 2019, which instituted a more rigorous test to determine whether workers were employees or independent contractors: if “the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work,” the work was outside the company’s usual business, and if the worker “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.”

Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft essentially ignored AB 5 and poured $224 million into fighting for Prop 22, making it “the most expensive ballot measure in California history,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The measure passed with around 59% of the vote.

In a small concession for workers, Prop 22 did provide for a health insurance stipend, but an August 2021 UC Berkeley Labor Center survey of 500 drivers showed that only around 10% of workers were receiving it, and 40% had not heard about it at all. Since work hours are only defined by the time spent driving with a passenger, others do not work the required 15 hours per week on one app to qualify for the stipend. These and other factors prompted drivers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to sue the state seeking to overturn the law.

For now, the Superior Court ruling will likely not change much for gig workers in California, as Uber and other companies have announced their intention to challenge it in higher courts and may ignore any of its other legal implications, leaving everyone involved with a shaky status quo: an overturned law that is effectively still being followed.

As Risk Management wrote in May, one danger of the continuing ambiguity surrounding gig worker classification is misclassifying workers, which can lead to heavy fines or lawsuits. For example, in January 2020, D.C.-based contractor Power Design Inc. agreed to pay $2.5 million for misclassifying 500 workers as independent contractors rather than employees. In August, food delivery app company Postmates settled with the city of Seattle for nearly $1 million for violating the city’s Gig Worker Paid Sick and Safe Time (PSST) ordinance. The payment will go to cover city fines and compensate more than 1,600 workers for back wages. Additionally, withholding benefits, overtime, and meal and rest breaks (whether a result of misclassification, or in general) can result in workers filing class action lawsuits against the company, potentially resulting in significant costs, impacting productivity and damaging the organization’s reputation.

Another risk for gig work companies is insufficient safety measures for workers. Unlike with formal employees, companies often do not provide gig workers with safety training and may not offer formal ways to report safety concerns. This creates an environment where workers who are often under pressure to complete as many rides or tasks as quickly as possible may get into accidents or leave dangers unreported, creating liabilities for themselves and the company.

online pharmacy reglan with best prices today in the USA

Other states have their own gig work regulations either on the books or in the works and President Joe Biden has expressed support for gig worker classification as employees, but there is currently no national legislation on this issue. However, in March, the House of Representatives passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (or PRO Act), which would reclassify gig workers as employees, affording them all the benefits included in that status.

online pharmacy spiriva inhaler with best prices today in the USA

The Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

Planning and Risk Assessment for Returning to Work From COVID-19 Closures

As businesses reopen and begin having their employees return to work, navigating the impacts of COVID-19 will undoubtedly be a challenge. Not only does keeping employees and customers safe take on new meaning, but sorting through rapidly changing guidelines can be overwhelming at best.

Adding to the complexity of returning to work after coronavirus-related closures, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and various jurisdictional health departments are all providing guidance. To best keep employees safe and make sure businesses are heading down the right path of compliance in this new era, employers should focus on planning and structure reopening into four phases: 1. identify organizational responsibilities, 2. assess risk, 3. identify the controls needed to return safely, and 4. implement.

1. Identify Organizational Responsibilities

OSHA’s Infection Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (IDPRP) has presented a helpful approach for a range of organizations across the country. The plan helps emphasize and communicate basic infection prevention measures and establishes policies and practices to reduce the risk of disease transmission in the workplace. It also helps employers develop procedures for prompt identification and isolation of potentially infectious individuals, along with implementing safe work practices and workplace controls, such as engineering and administrative controls.

To start, identify the people within the organization who will lead the return-to-work effort. This team will provide daily updates on plan implementation, review company sick leave policies and procure and distribute Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

During this phase, review your organization’s policies and procedures to ensure they are not creating obstacles for social distancing or staying at home when sick. Sick leave, quarantine policies and pay continuation should all be modified as necessary.

2. Assess Employee Risk Exposure to COVID-19

With a team in place, it’s time to dig deep into individual roles within the organization to understand the risks associated with various work sites and job tasks. The IDPRP helps organizations identify and quantify risks associated with infectious disease and helps to evaluate an employee’s exposure to COVID-19.

When evaluating the individual roles, identify the position, task and potential exposure based on criteria laid out in four exposure levels:

  • Low risk: Jobs that do not require contact with people known to be or suspected of being infected with COVID 19. Workers in this category have minimal occupational contact with the public and other coworkers. Office workers and telecommuters are examples of low-risk roles.
  • Medium risk: Jobs that require frequent or close contact with people who may be infected, but who are not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19. Higher-volume retail workers, restaurant servers and teachers are examples of medium-risk roles.
  • High risk: Jobs with a high potential for exposure to people known or suspected to be infected with COVID-19. Healthcare support personnel, janitorial personnel in healthcare and medical transport personnel are examples of high-risk roles.
  • Very high risk: Jobs with a very high potential for exposure to people or samples with known or suspected COVID-19 infection during specific medical, postmortem or laboratory procedures. Laboratory workers testing for COVID-19, pulmonary therapists and morticians performing autopsies are examples of very high-risk roles.
    buy clomid online www.soundviewmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/clomid.html no prescription pharmacy

3. Identify the Controls Needed to Return Safely

After completing a risk assessment for each role, identify specific PPE and administrative and engineering controls to reduce employee exposures. Clerical work, for example, is considered low risk and controls include social distancing and awareness training. A task such as stocking shelves where an employee has moderate exposure to others is considered a medium risk and nitrile gloves, cotton masks and other PPE are recommended. For tasks with high or very high exposure such as healthcare delivery staff, controls include nitrile gloves, facemasks, N-95 or better respirator, protective gown, booties, and head cover.

4. Put the Plan in Action

There are many organizational actions that can be implemented to further prepare to support and enforce the mitigation controls in place. Engineering controls to consider include installing high-efficiency air filters in HVAC systems, increasing a facilities dilution ventilation rate or installing physical barriers to control exposure. Post signs detailing cleaning and disinfecting procedures and social distancing requirements.

buy tenormin online www.soundviewmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tenormin.html no prescription pharmacy

Activate temperature stations and enforce an elevator policy.

For a successful return to work, it is essential to communicate and train employees regarding protections in the workplace. A communication plan should be identified during the organizational return-to-work planning phase, along with employee, supervisor and manager training. The workforce must be well-versed in recognizing symptoms, and everyone should know how to report possible exposure and what mitigation controls specific roles should be using. Your workers compensation carrier should be able to walk you through this process and help get you back to work. Tools and resources are also available on the OSHA and CDC websites.

Organizations that had clear pandemic response plans in place ahead of COVID-19 have had better access to PPE, quicker response times to daily changes in recommended controls, and more consistent ability to address employee concerns. If an employer does not currently have a response plan in place, however, it is never too late to get started. Preparing to return to work is a perfect time to establish the framework to make sure a business is not only ready to work during COVID-19, but also ready for unforeseen disasters in the future.

Tyson Foods Cited for Violations after Employee Finger Amputation

Cited for multiple violations, Tyson Foods was fined $263,498 by the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration after an employee’s finger was amputated in an unguarded conveyor belt, the DOL reported yesterday.

Inspectors found recessed drains and fire hazards resulting from improperly stored compressed gas cylinders, which exposed employees to slip-and-fall hazards due to a lack of proper drainage.

Established in 1935 and headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas, Tyson is the world’s Tysonlargest meat and poultry processing company, with more than $40 billion in annual sales. The company produces more than 68 million pounds of meat per week. OSHA gave Tyson 15 business days from receipt of its citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the citations and penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

“Tyson Foods must do much more to prevent disfiguring injuries like this one from happening,” Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health, said in a statement. “As one of the nation’s largest food suppliers, it should set an example for workplace safety rather than drawing multiple citations from OSHA for ongoing safety failures.”

OSHA inspectors found more than a dozen serious violations, including:

  • Failing to ensure proper safety guards on moving machine parts
  • Allowing carbon dioxide levels above the permissible exposure limit
  • Failing to provide personal protective equipment
  • Exposing employees to an airborne concentration of carbon dioxide
  • Not training employees on hazards associated with peracetic acid and other chemicals.

OSHA also cited the company for repeated violations for not making sure employees used appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards. The agency cited Tyson for a similar violation in a 2012 investigation at its Carthage facility. The company also failed to separate compressed gas cylinders of oxygen and acetylene while in storage – a violation for which OSHA cited the company in 2013 at its facility in Albertville, Alabama.

According to OSHA, the inspection falls under its Regional Emphasis Program for Poultry Processing Facilities.

NFL Admits Game’s Link to Concussion Risk

football

After years of denying that the game of football could have caused degenerative brain disease in some players, the National Football League has finally admitted there is a link connecting the game to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). According to the New York Times:

Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, asked during a round-table discussion about concussions whether “there is a link between football and degenerative brain disorders like CTE,”

Jeff Miller, the NFL’s senior vice president for health and safety policy, said, “The answer to that is certainly, yes.” His response signaled a stunning about-face for the league, which has been accused by former players and independent experts of hiding the dangers of head injuries for decades.

Miller’s comments were backed the next day by league spokesperson Brian McCarthy. Miller’s answer may actually help the NFL, as “It could make it harder in the future for a player to accuse the league of concealing the dangers of the sport,” the Times said.

“Strategically, the NFL’s admission makes a world of sense,” Jeffrey A. Standen, dean of the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University, told the Times. “The league has paid a settlement to close all the claims previous to 2015. For future sufferers, the NFL has now effectively put them on notice that their decision to play professional football comes with the acknowledged risk of degenerative brain disease.”

While CTE has been found in former players, the NFL has for decades denied the danger, even after researchers with Boston University announced in 2014 that, in autopsies of 79 brains of former NFL players, 76 tested positive for CTE. A report in 2003 by the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes at the University of North Carolina found a connection between concussions and depression among former professional football players.

According to a 2007 UNC study, Recurrent Concussion and Risk of Depression in Retired Professional Football Players:

Our observed threefold prevalence ratio for retired players with three or more concussions is daunting, given that depression is typically characterized by sadness, loss of interest in activities, decreased energy, and loss of confidence and self-esteem. These findings call into question how effectively retired professional football players with a history of three or more concussions are able to meet the mental and physical demands of life after playing professional football.

The NFL has directed millions of dollars to research of CTE and head trauma and it gave $45 million to USA Football to promote safe tackling and reassure parents that football’s risks can be mitigated through on-field techniques and awareness, the Times said.