Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) What the law and MIOSHA standards really require  by Lee Schwartz on May 8, 2008 
For purposes of full disclosure, I am the Executive Vice President for Government Relations with the Michigan Association of Home Builders (MAHB).

Michigan's Occupational Health and Safety construction safety standards already require 1 on-site toilet for every ten employees. This is the same as the federal Occupational Heath and Safety Act (OSHA) construction standard on which it is based.

Michigan's construction safety standards also contain the federal OSHA-based exemption that portable toilets do not have to be present on a construction work site when a mobile crew has transportation readily available to nearby toilet facilities.

This reasonable and rational exemption is found in the occupational health and safety rules of every other state in the nation as well as in the occupational health and safety rules of the United States Virgin Islands and Guam.

The Michigan Occupational Health and Safety Act (MIOSHA) contains a detailed process, agreed upon by both business and labor, for the creation and/or amendment of safety and health standards.

Before a proposed standard, except an emergency standard, is promulgated an advisory committee is appointed to examine the issue and advise the appropriate safety commission. (There are three safety standard commissions, construction, general industry and occupational health.) The advisory committee has to be representative of the major interests affected by the proposed standard.

Adoption of a health or safety standard has to be by a majority vote of the members present if a quorum is present and requires an affirmative vote of not less than 4 members of the commission, including at least 1 representative of labor and 1 representative of management.

House Bill 5064 would bypass this legislatively-established MIOSHA rules promulgation process to eliminate the mobile crew exemption and would make Michigan the only state in the country without this exemption.

Worse, the requirements of HB 5064 not only would require a potable toilet be present at a residential worksite even when alternate toilet facilities were easily accessible for mobile crews with transportation, it would also require the presence of such a toilet even when the total work could be accomplished in a hour or less.

Many families simply do not want to allow construction workers to use their family toilets. To then require a residential builder or a remodeler to present a building department with a written agreement with a portable toilet provider before a building permit is issued adds needless costs and delays to a project.

The MAHB’s opposition to HB 5064 should not be read as opposition to assuring employees do not suffer the adverse health effects that can occur if toilets are not available when employees need them. It is not.

Michigan’s current MIOSHA construction sanitation standard already ensures that, as do the matching standards found in every other state’s occupational health and safety rules. If this rule is failing to protect the health of Michigan’s construction employees (and there is no evidence it is) it should be revisited by the Construction Safety Standards Committee in accordance with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act.

We oppose HB 5064 because it is impractical, unnecessarily burdensome and, if Michigan does become the only state in the nation without the mobile work crew exemption, sends the wrong message to businesses looking to bring jobs to Michigan.


Reply

2) Potty Act  by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008 
Let's get this one taken care of so attention can be given to things for which the over-paid, under-worked legislators were elected.
Reply

3) Construction Toilets  by pcross on May 1, 2008 
Sad state of affairs when this legislation is a priority with the other major issues that Michigan is facing with unemployment, undereducated workforce, failing schools and budget problems.
Reply

View Full Conversation