Tag: COVID-19

Posted on

The 10th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020 is … the whistleblower whacker

SHRM, whistleblower

The Society for Human Resource Management describes itself as “the foremost expert, convener, and thought leader on issues impacting today’s evolving workplaces.” Physician, heal thyself!

According to a recent lawsuit filed against SHRM (as reported by The New Yorker), SHRM may have a huge whistleblower retaliation problem on its hands.

Here are the key allegations, which SHRM denies:

  • Bailey Yeager, a former director-level employee with a history of glowing performance reviews and promotions, expressed concern when the organization asked her in May for feedback about its proposal to return employees to the office after two months of working from home.
  • Expressing concern about potentially infecting her two daughters, she requested that she be allowed to continue working remotely “until returning to work is both more widespread regionally and there is a decline in the metrics regarding cases/hospitalizations.”
  • She also asked to see SHRM’s plans for reopening safely.
  • Two weeks later she, along with three other employees who had expressed similar concerns (including two with pre-existing medical conditions), were fired.
  • According to her OSHA complaint, SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. held a conference call during which he outlined plans to “outsource” job functions in departments in which employees had expressed resistance to returning to work in person.
  • Yeager’s complaint also alleges that Taylor bragged that he had spoken to his friend Eugene Scalia, the Secretary of Labor, and that an OSHA representative contacted Yeager to implore her to withdraw her complaint. (To be fair, it unclear if there is any nexus between Taylor’s call to Secretary Scalia and OSHA’s call to Yeager, but it is definitely implied in her complaint).

If you fire employees who reportedly dare ask for the ability to continue working from home, and potentially wield your influence with the federal government in an attempt to leverage the dismissal of the resulting lawsuit, while at the same time holding yourself out as the “foremost expert on issues impacting today’s evolving workplaces,” you might be the worst employer of 2020.

Posted on

Coronavirus Update: Please stop telling me that we all just need to get on with living our lives

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

Earlier this week, I posed what I thought was a simple question on the private Facebook page of my community’s homeowners’ association: given the current rise of COVID-19 cases, should we, as a community, rethink our trick-or-treating plans. It was intended to start a generative discussion about whether we can host public trick-or-treating safely, but it quickly devolved into insults and name-calling.

The general theme of my pro-Halloween opponents was some combination of—if you don’t feel safe stay home in your basement; and we need to live our lives. People felt comfortable expressing this opinion even after others had commented about family members COVID-19 had killed.

People need to stop correlating COVID-19 safety measures with a restriction on their ability to “live their lives.” We are in the midst of a pandemic stemming from a highly contagious airborne virus. The pandemic is not getting better. In fact, it’s getting worse as we are just at the beginning of the second wave of this deadly virus. More than 220,000 Americans have died, and countless more have suffered the loss of a loved one, or are continuing to suffer the lasting and lingering effects of a virus that we still don’t fully understand. The numbers are getting worse (health experts use the ominous word deterioration), and we are in for a long and difficult winter as we battle COVID-19’s second wave.
You living your life is stopping me from living mine.
My family has been very cautious with this virus. For the first two months of “living with Covid” we stayed in our home. We had groceries delivered. We only met with people from outside of our home on Zoom. We did not even order takeout. Seven months later my wife and I are both still working from home full-time.
As we entered summer, however, we started to slowly branch out. I started going to the grocery store in person. We ordered takeout from our favorite restaurants. (I scratched some off the list after seeing employees not wearing masks.) Every now and then we started grabbing a glass of wine outside at our favorite local wine bar, have enjoyed a few nights of live outdoor music at the wine bar, have entertained family and friends outside on our deck in small groups, and, in August sent our children back to school. For us, this is living our lives.
Others views of living their lives is quite different. They have large parties, visit restaurants and bars, and attend huge social gatherings. Moreover, as COVID fatigue sets in after seven months of limitation and restriction, people are getting lazier with maintaining distancing and wearing masks.
In short, a lot of people aren’t doing the things we all need to do to battle back this deadly virus. And because of it, I’m being forced back deeper into my comfort zone, my bubble.
Maybe I’m resentful. People out “living their lives” may not get sick at all, and I’m being hyper-cautious and I or my family still might.
Or maybe I don’t understand the appearance of selfishness and callousness—that you care more about your own life than that of your fellow human beings. That it’s more important to you to host that large party at your home or fill your kid’s sack with bits of candy, than to ensure that you don’t spread a deadly virus around our community.
The reality is that we can still beat back this virus. Science is in agreement with the simple steps we need to take.
  1. Wear masks.
  2. Maintain physical distance.
  3. Wash your hands.
  4. Stay home if you’re sick.

These measures are not complicated. But I also understand that simple does not equate to easy. It’s going to be a long fall and winter, especially in climates like Ohio’s, where we will be forced indoors for several months. But if we continue to ignore basic health and safety measures, COVID-19 will continue to thrive, more people will get sick and die, and people “living their lives” will continue to either jeopardize mine or force me into full-time hermit mode.

So today I am imploring everyone to think about others in addition to thinking about yourselves. When this virus I over (and one day it will be over), I will not have any regrets over how I lived my life. Will you be able to say the same?
Posted on

New CDC guidance will result in A LOT more employee absences

software, compliance

Yesterday, the CDC made a key update to its COVID-19 guidance. It made a significant change to the definition of “close contact.”

No longer does one qualify as a “close contact” by being within 6 feet of someone for 15 continuous minutes or more.
The CDC now defines “close contact” as:
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period (individual exposures added together over a 24-hour period) starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.”

Factors to consider in determining whether one is a “close contact” include:

  • Proximity (closer distance likely increases exposure risk);
  • The duration of exposure (longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk);
  • Whether the infected individual has symptoms (the period around onset of symptoms is associated with the highest levels of viral shedding);
  • If the infected person was likely to generate respiratory aerosols (e.g., was coughing, singing, shouting); and
  • Other environmental factors (crowding, adequacy of ventilation, whether exposure was indoors or outdoors).
Most notably, under separate CDC guidance, this determination is made regardless of whether anyone was wearing a mask or other facial covering.
This change matters a lot. COVID-19 quarantine rules depend on whether one has been in close contact with someone who tested positive. The liberalization of this definition (which appears to have been based on anecdotal evidence of at least one infection) will result in more people meeting the definition of “close contact” and therefore having to quarantine for 14 days after an exposure to someone who tested positive.
This doesn’t just matter to exposures in your workplace. It also matters to employees’ activities out side of work, and to their children who are exposed at school. If the child has to quarantine for 14 days, guess who might need to be home with their quarantining child?
Make no mistake, this will create an attendance mess for employers, especially as COVID-19 numbers continue to briskly rise. Now is the time to double-down on the enforcement of physical distancing rules and measures at work. Six feet must mean six feet at all times.
  • Floors should be marked so that employees understand what six feet looks like.
  • Shifts should be staggered to allow for greater separation of employees, if needed.
  • Start- and end-times should be shifted to avoid bunching at time clocks.
  • Lunch and break rooms should be set up to avoid crowding and allow for distancing.
  • Bathrooms and elevators should have strict (and low) occupancy limits.

You can’t control with whom an employee or a family member comes in close contact outside of work, but you certainly can enforce measures at work to limit the possibility of close contact occurring there. Otherwise, you risk one positive COVID-19 case wiping out your business for two straight weeks.

Posted on

The 10th nominee for the “Worst Employer of 2020” is … the Callous Car Dealer

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

I continue to shake my head at the callousness of employers during this pandemic. Consider this example from The Oregonian, which earns its spot as the 10th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020.

A finance manager at a used car dealership in Portland was fired by his boss during a staff meeting for questioning the company’s alleged cover-up of a coronavirus cluster, a lawsuit claims.

McCrary contends his boss directed employees to conceal a COVID-19 outbreak to maintain business profits and customer visits to the showroom….

At least two workers tested positive and a general manager exhibited symptoms but refused to be tested, the lawsuit says. Two “significant others” of employees also tested positive, the suit says.…

His suit claims that Lapin didn’t require social distancing or take other safety measures at work in light of the coronavirus pandemic and had fired another sales representative who was worried in spring about coming into work.

Worst Employer of 2020 The lawsuit further alleges that the owner fired McCrary in an “alcohol and drug-induced rage” during an all-staff meeting after McCrary had raised health and safety concerns following the outbreak, screaming, “Everyone, everyone Shawn is fired – get the (expletive) out of my company!”
McCrary’s lawsuit also quotes this text message the owner sent after the staff became aware of the positive cases: “Keep this down please. Don’t share this information with anyone since we do not want to scare away business.”
A worthy nominee, indeed.
Posted on

Coronavirus Update: Reporting an employee who tests positive

COVID-19, workforce management WFM 2.0, ethics

When an employee tests positive, an employer has certain reporting obligations. These obligations fall into two categories—reporting to OSHA and reporting to your state or local health agency under state law.

OSHA

While OSHA has remained largely silent on mandates for businesses related to COVID-19, it has published specific guidance on when an employer must record and report COVID cases at work.

Under OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements, COVID-19 is a recordable illness, and employers must record cases of COVID-19 in their OSHA logs, if:

  1. The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19;
  2. The case is work-related; and
  3. The case involves death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health-care professional.
You should assume numbers 1 and 3 are met when an employee reports a positive test. Criteria number 2—work-relatedness—will almost always be the tripping point for recording vs. non-recording.
According to OSHA, an employer must make a “reasonable determination” of work-relatedness in determining whether to record an employee’s positive test. In making this determination, OSHA relies on three factors:
  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation. OSHA does not expect employers to undertake extensive medical inquiries. Instead, OSHA usually considers it sufficient for an employer (1) to ask the employee how s/he believes s/he contracted the COVID-19 illness; (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and (3) review the employee’s work environment for potential COVID-19 exposure.
  • The evidence available to the employer at the time it made its work-relatedness determination.
  • The evidence that a COVID-19 illness was contracted at work. OSHA states that the following information is relevant to this determination—
    • COVID-19 illnesses are likely work-related when several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if it is contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if his job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if she is the only worker to contract COVID-19 in her vicinity and her job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if he, outside the workplace, closely and frequently associates with someone (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who (1) has COVID-19; (2) is not a coworker, and (3) exposes the employee during the period in which the individual is likely infectious.
    • CSHOs should give due weight to any evidence of causation, pertaining to the employee illness, at issue provided by medical providers, public health authorities, or the employee herself.

Per OSHA, “If, after the reasonable and good faith inquiry described above, the employer cannot determine whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to a particular case of COVID-19, the employer does not need to record that COVID-19 illness.”

OSHA’s reporting rules also apply to confirmed workplace cases of COVID-19. That is, for confirmed work-related cases of COVID-19—
  • an employer must report to OSHA in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of knowing both that an employee has been in-patient hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19; and
  • an employer must report employee fatalities the occur within 30 days of the workplace incident (in this case, the exposure to COVID-19) and within 8 hours of the actual fatality.
Violations of these recording or reporting requirements are subject to OSHA’s traditional enforcement and penalties.
State Law
 
States have their own COVID-19 reporting requirements. For example, Ohio mandates that businesses “contact their local health district about suspected cases or exposures” of COVID-19. This reporting is critical so that the local health department can undertake the contact tracing necessary to identify close contacts and limit pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread.
Employers should check with their legal counsel on their state-specific reporting requirements.
Posted on

COVID-19 causes Radial Inc.’s 25,000 seasonal hires to practice safe shipping

seasonal hires, distribution center, COVID-19, fulfillment center

It’s a common headline this time of year: Retailers and distribution centers staff up as holiday shoppers begin their quest for the perfect gift.

While the news is a huge relief, particularly during a time of record unemployment, 2020 brings new challenges for companies that sell and ship sought-after holiday gifts like Fingerlings, ugly sweaters and smart gardens (yes, it’s a thing) across the country. Recruiting and training tens of thousands of new employees is one thing; doing so in the midst of a pandemic is compounded with an extreme new level of health and safety risks.

Radial Inc., which provides multinational e-commerce services to retailers including Dick’s Sporting Goods, Keurig and GameStop, announced in September it is adding 25,000 seasonal employees to its fulfillment and call centers this holiday season. The Pennsylvania-based company emphasized the safety measures it is implementing in its 20 distribution centers and eight call centers, five of which are in North America.

“The executive team has been proactive about addressing COVID-19 safety concerns since the very beginning of the pandemic,” said Eric Wohl, Radial’s chief human resources officer and senior vice president. “We’ve revamped processes and procedures and researched and tested numerous types of emerging technologies to enforce social distancing and maximize safety.”

Since the annual holiday shopping crush comes as a surprise to exactly no one in the retail industry, Radial is skilled at scaling its workforces four to five times the normal size every peak season to handle the increased demand in e-commerce.

“We expected that there would be even more e-commerce demand this holiday season as the impact of COVID-19 has made shoppers more comfortable buying online,” Wohl said. “We developed hiring projections and safety protocols to account for that going back to the second quarter.”seasonal hires, distribution center, COVID-19, fulfillment center

Wohl said that all seasonal employees being hired for the holidays are hourly workers. Of the current Radial employees, the hourly population represents around 75 percent of its workforce. Including the seasonal staff already onboard, hourly workers account for over 85 percent of all workers at Radial. In peak season, that percentage is even higher, he added.

Implementing mobile tech on a large scale

Technology is aiding Radial’s safety measures for current employees and new hires. Radial has thermal temperature devices and Instant-Trace Contact Badges, Wohl said. The badges utilize Ultra-Wideband technology for proximity measurement to help enforce social distancing requirements by alerting the wearer if someone else is within six feet.

“As we scale for peak season, these technologies are incredibly valuable to ensure safety procedures are carried out in traditionally high-traffic areas, such as training groups,” he said.

Also read: Labor analytics add power to workforce management tools

Enhanced robotics in distribution centers utilizes autonomous mobile technology to assist employees who are packing and shipping orders as they comply with socially distanced headcount capacities and reduce interaction with one another, Wohl said.

Visual camera projection systems at certain sites are also helping onboard new hires with mobile training stations that optimize training layouts and processes to ensure safety. Wearable microphones and speakers also help workers more easily hear their managers across the warehouse while remaining socially distant, he said.

Creating virtual call centers

Call center employees have transitioned to a largely remote workforce, Wohl said.

“Radial is offering more work from home positions than ever before and moved to proactively transition the majority of our team to home in March and April,” he said. “We are looking to have 50 to 70 percent of our customer care workforce work remotely this holiday season, which is over 2,500 employees nationwide.”

Radial also has implemented changes to the interview and training process for call center employees, including virtual formats to reduce the need and number of seasonal workers in previously onsite-only training classes.

Training for COVID-19 and the holiday rush

Still, training 25,000 new hires not only in how to do their new jobs but also in how to act in a COVID-19 work environment can be a challenge. Wohl said that starting with the interview process, they have worked closely with staffing companies to provide low-contact, socially distant interviews at agency offices, drive-through job fairs and other interview formats.

“We have also invested in socially distant interviews and virtual training so customer care and fulfillment workers are set up for success on the job,” he said. “Each site has the resources to ensure socially distanced training of new-hire groups through several voice and visual training projection solutions for trainers, along with Instant-Trace badges.”

Distribution and call centers have their own dedicated training teams for seasonal and full-time employees, he said, retooling their entire process and technology platforms to manage COVID-19 impacts.

Case study: PFS dials up a rapid work from home solution for its call center staff

Radial’s human resources department, which consists of 47 employees as well as 13 employees on the HR Partner team, also has played a pivotal support role ensuring that training teams and new hires have what they need to be successful, Wohl said.

“We conduct regular assessments of training and onboarding effectiveness for continuous improvement and partner with our training teams to share best practices and collaborate on program development,” he said.

Support for all employees

Everyone has a role to play in slowing the spread by following basic precautions and looking out for one another, Wohl said. Radial has assigned a social-distance champion at distribution centers who regularly monitors the facility to help remedy problems through coaching or procedural changes.

“We’re also continuing to find ways to adapt perks to boost morale and in ways that fit in with today’s new circumstances including flexible work schedules and enhanced support for employees dealing with the impacts of COVID personally or within their family,” he said. Boosting morale also is important, he said. Trivia contests, raffles, quarterly awards and dress-up days have helped, he said.

“We try and maintain a family-like environment in all our sites and teams,” he said. “We listen to our employees. We ask for regular feedback on how we are doing to support their needs during COVID and adjust our plans when we can.”

Retailers still must hire seasonal workers to help ramp up for the holiday season. Data shows that despite the impact of COVID-19, shoppers won’t significantly change their holiday spending compared to 2019. With this high level of activity in mind, employee health and safety must be the top priority for every retailer right now, Wohl said.

“If they can’t keep their employees safe, they can’t deliver on their promises to customers,” he said. “Fulfillment and customer care centers are where the behind-the-scenes holiday magic happens. Dedicated employees are behind every package, phone call or text.

“For retailers to meet their holiday goals and make sure packages arrive on time, safety needs to be the mantra at every single store, warehouse, customer care center and delivery center.”

Whether you have 10 or 10,000 employees on staff, make building schedules an easier and faster process with Workforce.com’s scheduling app. You can optimize staffing levels, forecast wages and manage shifts with ease.

Posted on

If your employees are scared to come to work you are doing something very, very wrong

Super Bowl Monday, football, NFL

According to Deadspin, NFL players are terrified of COVID but are afraid to speak up for fear of angering the NFL.

“I looked at my son. I looked at my family, and I just didn’t think it was worth it,” Jaguars player Lerentee McCray, a seven-year veteran, told me this summer after opting out. “I could catch it and bring it home to them. Or I can get it and even if it doesn’t kill me, it could destroy my career long-term. I feel really weird not playing football right now, but can’t. I can’t risk doing something so dangerous and maybe hurting the people I love.”

In the end, most players decided the money was worth the risk. So, they play.

Yet there’s been a definite shift in that attitude over the past few months and even weeks, several told me in various interviews, as the virus spreads through locker rooms. Most requested anonymity for fear of angering NFL owners and the league office.

Players add that they feel that the safety measures the league and their union promised pre-season were meaningless.

One of the things players tell me that’s changed their thinking from the summer is the ballistic pace of the infections. One moment the virus isn’t there, the next it’s calling plays in the huddle. As a virus spreads through a locker room there’s a sense of helplessness. Players now think of football during the pandemic era not as a calculated risk, but Russian roulette.

All of the outbreaks have left a player base more scared than ever before. That’s the word I’m hearing the most: scared.

This is awful. Yes, they make a lot of money to play a game, and yes, they all had the ability to opt out before the season started (as 67 players chose to do). But they also should have an expectation that their employer is doing everything within reason to keep them safe and the ability to air their grievances if they perceive that their employer is failing in that mission. The fact that players believe that the NFL is failing on both counts is galling.

Employers, you have one primary obligation to your employees during this pandemic — keep them safe. If your employees are terrified to come to work, you are failing, period. It’s time to look inward. Are you doing your part?

  • Are you mandating masks?
  • Do you require a minimum of six feet of physical distance at all times?
  • Are you promoting hand washing and other good personal hygiene habits?
  • Are you regularly cleaning and sanitizing work and common areas?
  • Have you eliminated gatherings of employees?
  • Are you mandating self-screening for COVID-19 symptoms and sending home anyone with symptoms until cleared by a doctor?
  • Are you enforcing the CDC’s isolation and quarantine rules?
  • Do you have an open door through which employees can walk, without retaliation or fear of retaliation, if they feel you are not meeting these obligations or their coworkers aren’t following the rules?

Unless you can answer yes to each of these questions, it’s time to take a long, hard look at your pandemic protocols and decide what you should be doing differently. Your employees, their families and friends, and the general public are counting on you.

Posted on

Coronavirus update 10-12-2020: Schadenfreude

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

If you and I are connected on LinkedIn or Twitter, you may have noticed that my headline describes me as a (the?) “Master of Workplace Schadenfreude.”

I’m often asked, “Jon, what the heck does that mean?” Today, I have the answer.

Schadenfreude is a German word that most commonly translates to “enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others.” Yet, after listening to a recent episode of Vox Media’s Today, Explained podcast, I’ve decided that definition is way too cold and narrow.

 

The episode discusses the moral conundrum some felt with upon learning of President Trump’s recent COVID-19 diagnosis. In doing so, it takes a 2:45 deep-dive into the moral philosophy behind Schadenfreude. Being a college philosophy major who, 26 years ago, dabbled with the idea of continuing those studies in grad school instead of going to law school, the discussion made me giddy.

Vox reporter Sigal Samuel discussed four different possible meanings of Schadenfreude as seen through the eyes of four different philosophers—

    1. Arthur Schopenhauer, who defined Schadenfreude as a moral failing or diabolical cruelty, calling it “an infallible sign of a thoroughly bad heart and profound moral worthlessness.”
    2. Charles Baudelaire, who thought of Schadenfreude as a sense of superiority, taking delight in the fact that you’re smarter and better than the person whose suffering you’re enjoying. He used the example of watching someone slip on the ice: “I don’t fall, I don’t; I walk straight, I do; my footstep is steady and assured, mine is.” It’s not cruelty for the sake of being cruel, but instead, an unconscious boosting of your self-esteem, albeit through the failings of others.
    3. Michel de Montaigne, who likened Schadenfreude to one’s own vulnerability. You’re not celebrating someone else’s calamity, you’re celebrating the fact that by comparison, you’re safe.
    4. René Descartes, who believed that Schadenfreude is an act of justice, arising when something bad happens to someone who you feel has earned it. It’s joy in seeing someone deserving get their comeuppance, elation in the fairness of the situation, and delight in karma getting its due.
If I had to choose where I fall on this moral spectrum, it’s somewhere between numbers 3 and 4. I take joy in seeing someone getting what they deserve because of who they are or what they’ve done, combined with the celebration that I’m not in their shoes. I’m definitely not diabolically rejoicing over someone else’s failings or failures.
There you have it. Wonder no more about why I call myself the Master of Workplace Schadenfreude.
Tomorrow, back to your regularly scheduled COVID-19 workplace updates.
Posted on

Crying ‘discrimination’ because you refuse to wear a mask isn’t just silly, it’s offensive

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

Please watch this short video and then let’s talk.

This woman claims discrimination because she refuses to wear a mask in public.

“Stand back,” and “You don’t care about other people,” are just a couple of the attacks this woman has received because she refuses to cover her mouth and nose.

Technically, this is discrimination in that she is being treated differently than mask-compliant folks. But this isn’t Discrimination.

The type of discrimination we worry about is the invidious discrimination individual suffer because of some innate trait over which they have no control and/or a fundamental individual liberty—race, sex/gender, LGBTQ status, religion, national origin, disability, age, etc.

The type of this discrimination about which this woman is complaining is discrimination of her own choice—her selfish choice to purposely avoid and ignore the most basic of safety and health measures everyone (or at least everyone with common sense and a rational belief in science) agrees is necessary to protect us during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discrimination against marginalized groups is a major problem in our country. Let’s not trivialize it by elevating these complaints to its level.

Posted on

Could White House employees file an OSHA complaint?

coronavirus

Monday night saw President Donald Trump dramatically return to the White House after his three-day stay at Walter Reed Medical Center for COVID-19.

We saw Marine One land on the White House lawn, President Trump emerge and walk up the stairs to the White House, remove his mask for a photo op, enter his home with his mask still in his pocket, reemerge for a reshoot, and again enter the White House maskless.

It’s that last part I want to talk about. HuffPost asks if White House employees could lodge an OSHA complaint about the President’s COVID recklessness? I’d answer that question with a solid and resolute “thumb’s up.” The bigger question, however, is whether OSHA would do anything about it.

OSHA, the federal agency responsible for employee health and safety, presumably also regulates the health and safety of White House employees. I know of no OSHA standard that exempts them.

That said, OSHA also does not have a specific standard addressing viral pandemics. Instead, it regulates this outbreak via its general duty clause: “Each employer shall furnish to each of [its] employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

It’s that “general duty clause” that could cause the White House fits if its employees take their COVID complaints to OSHA.

According to the Associated Press, Secret Service agents and White House staff are seriously pissed.

Several [Secret Service agents] who spoke with The Associated Press expressed concern over the cavalier attitude the White House has taken when it comes to masks and distancing. Colleagues, they said, are angry, but feel there’s little they can do.…

[T]hree former employees … expressed concern about the health of current workers, but were too afraid to speak publicly. Many are Black or Latino, among the demographic groups that have been more vulnerable to the virus.

Disgruntled employees are the employees most like to file a complaint with a federal agency such as OSHA. And at this moment in history, it seems like there are a large number of disgruntled employees working inside the White House.

Of course, as the HuffPost aptly points out, “Given the retributive nature of the Trump administration, any worker who wants to call in OSHA should be concerned about retaliation. Workers can file complaints anonymously to protect themselves, but those are less likely to receive a thorough investigation than ones with a name attached.” Perhaps this will be this administration’s saving grace on this issue — the fear of anyone to do anything about it. That and the fact that OSHA is not all that likely to investigate or fine its boss.

Additionally, OSHA doesn’t have the best record investigating COVID-related issues. According to former OSHA head David Michaels, “This is far and away the most significant worker safety crisis in OSHA’s history, and OSHA has failed to step up to the plate. OSHA has failed to use really any of its powers to address it . …  It’s hard to take OSHA seriously.”

What hasn’t OSHA done?

  • It hasn’t issued any temporary standards to address issues specific to the COVID pandemic.
  • It hasn’t done anything more than issue voluntary guidance with little to no legal risk or ramifications for noncompliance.
  • It hasn’t launched many investigations over COVID-related complaints—OSHA has only opened 184 investigations stemming from the 8,856 complaints it’s received related to COVID-19 (an inspection rate of less than 3 percent).
  • It hasn’t levied any significant fines or penalties, unless you consider the $13,494 fine levied against Smithfield Foods stemming from one the countries worst workplace coronavirus outbreaks.
Our nation has failed its COVID-19 test in many glaring ways. OSHA is just one example. The White House’s current messaging on the ongoing pandemic is emblematic of the safety issues that many employers are handling (and handling better than the White House) on a daily basis.
Don’t act like the White House. Require masks at all times. Promote good hand-washing hygiene.
Enforce a minimum of six feet of physical distancing. Mandate isolation for COVID+ employees and quarantine for those in close contact with anyone COVID+.
Your employees are trusting you to keep them safe. Do not fail this test.