University
of CaliforniaUniversity
of CaliforniaSteve's Selected Notes from Ag-Busnet -- July, August 2002
Contents:
First Aid Kit Question
A reader who seeks to comply asks ...
Regarding the first aid kits required by General Industry Safety Order section 3400(c): We do not know what the Lamino Trauma Pads or the Cordura Bag are? We have asked persons knowledgeable in the medical field but they have not given us a suitable/understandable answer. We wish to stock a "complete" first aid kit but these two items are giving us problems. Could you explain what they look like and what they are used for specifically.
Looking back, I see these items were part of a "suggested" multi-functional first aid kit supplied to this writer by the Fresno-Madera chapter of the American Red Cross, which I then accepted for inclusion in my April 1991 newsletter (that still circulates).
But here's a more recent suggestion from a Cal/OSHA Consultation representative. Agricultural employers can either possess a first aid kit that matches the "table" of items in the construction safety orders at http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1512.html OR simply have a physician's approval letter for a first aid that they themselves have assembled or acquired.
Please note: an "emesis basin" is a bowl to vomit in.
SSA Phone Number
A reader asks ...
Steve: What is the latest SSI phone number that employers can use to verify that the name and SSI number match? I'll take my answer off the air. Thanks
It's 800-772-6270 (4 am to 4 pm Pacific time)
SSA has had plans to offer on-line verification (complete with employer PIN and password). However, I don't think that mechanism is available yet.
Bill Brees, SSA, San Francisco replies ...
Steve,
I'm in Baltimore for a conference, but wanted to reply to you about this before I return.
SSA has a pilot program going on with a very few employers to test many aspects of our new SSNVS Internet system. The system works. We're really only testing how users understand and use it. This may take some time. I'll know later in the week at this conference what the results are so far and what the future looks like at this time. This is, as you might imagine, a very sensitive topic and SSA intends to proceed with extreme care to make sure there are no abuses or improper uses of the Internet system before making it more widely available. I assure you there will be major announcements when we are ready to expand the number of users.
Reminder: Our program web site links to many federal agencies (including SSA) at http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/links/fedagency.html Howard Rosenberg, Labor Management Specialist, UC Berkeley, is principal web "master."
FLC License Verification Reminder
California's Labor Commissioner Art Lujan has issued a press release related to the law that now requires growers to verify the state license of any farm labor contractor providing labor services. It's at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2002/IR2002-10.html The agency also has a web site to facilitate verification at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/flcverify/flcverify.html The response should be retained for 3 years.
Although possession of a federal farm labor contractor registration is a prerequisite to acquiring a California farm labor contractor's license, its probably a good idea to verify it also at the same time you verify the state license. Here's how ...
Steve,
The U.S Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division also has a team set up for Federal registration verification. They are located in the San Francisco Regional Office and here is the information:
U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour
Division
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 930
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone (415) 848-6600
FAX: (415) 848-6655
Ramon Lopez Jurado - (415) 848-6603
Tessie Lacer - (415) 848-6641
William Zapata - (415) 848-6606
You could write, fax, or call Monday -Friday 8:30- 5:00. To get current registration verification it is helpful to at least have the last held Registration #, social security number, or company's Federal ID#.
You could also phone me at (213) 894-6375 x.234 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Eduardo Huerta
Regional Agriculture Specialist
Potential Bracero Payment?
A reader asks ...
"Steve,
Do you know of any government program that is providing funds for offspring of braceros that worked in the US prior to 1960? I received an inquiry from a Spanish-speaking man who heard some sort of announcement on television about unclaimed funds that adult children can now claim but the message sender didn't know where to go to claim his funds."
It's not a government program. It's a class action lawsuit (against two countries and a bank) over withheld bracero wages in the 1940's. Although not an endorsement of any specific law firm, a web search did yield a background story at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/braceros_press05.htm (The firm has a San Francisco office.)
Steve's naive legal question: Do surviving family members pay an up-front fee to join the lawsuit -- even though the dispute may take years to resolve? (I left a message with the firm.) In lieu of phoning an attorney, are there more local service agencies that field questions (or circulate flyers) on this matter? Thanks!
A reader provides a concise update ...
Bracero Savings. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (www.lieffcabraser.com/braceros.htm), a law firm representing aging Bracero workers employed in the US between 1942 and 1949, filed one of several class-action suits seeking an accounting for the 10 percent of wages that were withheld from the wages of 256,000 Braceros; some ex-Braceros say they never received these withheld wages. The suit seeks $30 to $50 million in actual damages and billions more in punitive damages from the U.S. and Mexican governments, Wells Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks.
A federal judge in San Francisco will rule on U.S. and Mexican government petitions to dismiss the suit on August 2, 2002. Both governments argue that most of the withheld wages were repaid, and funds that were not repaid reflected Braceros who did not request repayment in the appropriate time period. A bill is pending in Congress, the Bracero Justice Act, that would require a hearing on a lawsuit, that is, prevent the judge from dismissing it because e.g. the statute of limitations expired.
Another reader says ... Steve-
This may be a better place for you readers to check out. http://www.bracerojustice.com/main.htm
My own question related to legal fees brought this response from an attorney
Hey Steve,
In reference to the legal question: Since Elizabeth Cabraser's firm seems to be handling the matter (she is a giant player in the field of class action lawsuits, and highly successful), it would be run like a regular class action lawsuit, whereby the party to the action (the person wanting the funds) would not have to pay anything to be represented. Cabraser would have them sign a contingency agreement and would earn fees through the class action -- there would be a large chunk of money set aside from the award for attorney's fees. Under the applicable rules for class actions, the attorney is not allowed to charge a plaintiff money to join in the class action. Hope that helps.
Thank you. A representative of Ms. Cabraser's firm indicated the judge will -- or may -- rule on August 2nd. He suggested that potential claimants call 1-800-541-7358.
Newly Arrived Worker Dies of Heat Stress
The Fresno Bee reported Saturday that "a 60-year old farm laborer died Friday morning, a day after collapsing with a 107-degree body temperature while picking tomatoes in triple-digit heat."
Story is at http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/3556567p-4586023c.htm
A Bee reporter left me a message about "what employers on farms should do in order to keep their workers protected from overexposure to the heat."
Roughly, my response will be: They or designated (properly trained) foremen/supervisors have "duties" that include: (1) assuring workers drink enough water, (2) setting up work/rest cycles, (3) monitoring environmental conditions, (4) adjusting work practices and assignments as necessary, (5) overseeing new workers' heat acclimatization, and heat stress training for supervisors and workers, (6) treating heat stress, (7) following up on heat illness incidents to prevent recurrence, and (8) providing safety meetings during heat spells.
Several farm organizations have brief audio/visual heat stress training resources in Spanish. Cal/OSHA Consultation has printed material as part of their "Agricultural Safety and Health Inspection Project." And I still offer free of charge a printed English/Spanish "paycheck stuffer" in Word, available from Yolanda Murillo at ymurillo@ucdavis.edu (Subsequently, this writing was used in a Sun-Maid Summer Newsletter.)
Howard Rosenberg, UC Labor Management Specialist also has a related and extensive web site "under construction." Preview at http://are.berkeley.edu/heat/
$7,000 Poster?
A local poultry farmer just called about an ad she received in the mail from a firm "serving" general industry (not a farm-related organization) that advised her she risked a $7,000 penalty for not posting a certain government poster. For over $100 she could order a poster set over the phone. She may have missed a fine-print disclaimer (if it was there) that some industries may have additional posting requirements.
$7,000? Does anyone know of an instance of a California compnay being assessed Cal/OSHA's top penalty, reserved for "serious" safety violations, simply for a missing poster? Or is the advertisement misleading?
Readers clarify poster penalty issue.....
Steve,
Don't blame the free enterprise swindlers who take advantage of the distinct threat that was written into the Cal/OSHA Poster in the January 2000 revision. It clearly says "The law requires that the poster be displayed. (Failure to do so could result in a penalty of $7,000)"
However, $500 or less is more likely. This note from a Cal/OSHA Consultation representative responding to one of our readers... (I find it interesting that the suggested fine for a missing placard is twice that for a physician's failure to report a pesticide-related injury.)
Bob, these are excerpts from the Cal OSHA Policy and Procedure Manual and the 2002 Labor Code. Looks like the Labor Code indicates a fine could be proposed of up to $7,000. Although, according the Policy and Procedure Manual for DOSH it directs field enforcement officers and their district manager's to propose a penalty of $500, which is also adjustable.
Let me know if you have any further comments or questions.
Regulatory Violation
There are six types
of regulatory violations for which the following gravity-based penalties
are required and shall be entered in item 12 on the Cal/OSHA Form 10:
Failure to report carcinogen use ($2500 for each carcinogen);
Carcinogen, other than reporting ($1000);
Failure of a physician to report a pesticide- related illness ($250;
Failure to conform to asbestos-related registration requirements ($1250);
and
Failue to obtain a construction activity permit ($1250).
Any other non-carcinogen or non-pesticide-related illness not categorized
above ($500), e.g,
failure-to-report, failure-to-post, failure-to-pose, failure-to-report
injury or illness.
NOTE: All of
the above types of regulatory violations shall be adjusted for Good Faith,
Size and History, except for the failure of a physician to report a pesticide-related
illnesses. Reference: Cal/OSHA Policy and Procedure Manual
- Copied from the internet 7/2/2002.