|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home offices protected under workplace rules; employers object
January 4, 2000
From staff and wire reports WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Companies that let employees work at home are responsible for federal health and safety violations in home workspace. But some employers object to what they see as government overstepping its regulatory powers. Hoping to clarify the controversy, the Labor Department said Tuesday it has no immediate plans to inspect home offices. "Ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for the employee should be a precondition for any home-based work assignments," says an advisory letter from the department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The letter, dated November 15, answered questions posed by a Texas-based credit services company planning to have some of its sales executives work at home. Advisory issued as a clarification, not a change in rulesOSHA officials said Tuesday that the advisory opinion does not mark any change in rules and does not mean that the government will routinely begin inspecting home offices. Rather, they said, it clarifies existing laws that hold employers liable for and require them to report any worker illnesses or injuries resulting from assigned duties, even if the workplace is a person's home. Some large companies already have written agreements or offer guidelines to telecommuting employees setting up home offices in recognition of this responsibility.
'The long arm of OSHA reaching into people's homes'However, business groups said the new OSHA interpretation specifies a greater burden on employers that could have a chilling effect on at-home work arrangements. "This goes far beyond what the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or the Constitution, ever anticipated," said Patrick Cleary of the National Association of Manufacturers. "This, plain and simple, is the long arm of OSHA reaching into people's homes. We think it's wrong. We oppose it," Cleary told CNN. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also objects. "At a time when we want to provide a maximum amount of flexibility to workers, this new policy announcement just flies in the face of that," said spokesman Frank Coleman. Potential liability problems for employersIn the past, government inspectors have occasionally visited private homes to investigate allegations of problems such as sweatshop-type conditions in apartments converted to workspaces in the garment industry, for example, or to investigate deaths of at-home workers. The advisory letter gives examples of the types of problems that could pose liability risks for companies. The problems included ergonomic injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, from improperly configured computer work stations, or fires caused by overloading home electrical circuits with office equipment. "Employers should exercise reasonable diligence to identify in advance the possible hazards associated with particular home work assignments and should provide the necessary protection through training, personal protective equipment, or other controls appropriate to reduce or eliminate the hazard." the letter said. "One obvious and effective means of ensuring employee safety would be periodic safety checks of employee working spaces" by companies, the advisory said. The policy applies specifically to home work areas and not the entire home. It potentially applies to nearly 20 million Americans who regularly work from home for an employer, as well as to those who work at home occasionally. Reporter Kathleen Koch and The Associated Press contributed to this report. CNN TRANSCRIPT: Special Event: OSHA Announces New Ergonomic Standards for Nation's Employers RELATED STORIES: One in five with symptoms may have carpal tunnel syndrome RELATED SITES: Occupational Safety & Health Administration - OSHA
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back to the top |
© 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. |