justice? Or just ...

While looking for a case indicating the liability specifically of the individual owner/operator, rather than the corporate entity, I thought "Grace!" I couldn't find the final court decision, only some motions regarding evidentiary matters. The media, however, carried it. They don't cite case numbers, unfortunately. One of the respondents was quoted saying something along the lines of "it's regretable that anyone was injured, but that's not what this case was about." What did he think it was about? Or was he just weasel-wording it to separate public health from environmental contamination? The U.S. lost its case. I'd really like to read the opinions to see what the justification was, for morbid curiosity, if nothing else. Especially, given that quotation, to see which law was cited as being violated.

that's all, folks

Title 29 - Labor Chapter 15 - Occupational Safety & Health Sec. 666 - Civil and criminal penalties (e) Willful violation causing death to employee Any employer who willfully violates any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, and that violation caused death to any employee, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for no more than six months, or by both; except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $20,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. Now, here we go: > "civil and criminal penalties" gives a first impression that the plural applies to criminal, as well as civil. Nope. There's only one criminal provision under the federal (and Minnesota) Occupational Safety & Health Act. It's here. You need to actually achieve killing your employee. Not only that, but it also needs to meet the legal definition of "willful", which isn't the same as used in normal conversation. There's one of those op-ed pieces on a blog bemoaning the state of affairs when killing your worker carries a lower penalty than assaulting a burro on federal property. A claim I've read before. The author, however, failed to provide a bibliography along with the word 'bibliography'. So, I'm not sure how valid his numbers are, or where they're from. Which is sad, because I would like to use some of them & would have been happier if I didn't need to go looking for the information from primary sources. Like the burro. Or ... "By comparison with other federal agencies, OSHA is hardly the big bully it is often painted as. For example, the penalty for killing a burro on federal land is one year in jail, and the penalty for mail fraud is up to 30 years behind bars. The Environmental Protection Agency [in the course of] one year obtained prison sentences totaling 256 years." e.g. I'd like to know which year that was & where the burro law is. He also stated: "... there are fewer OSHA compliance officers than there are U.S. fish and game wardens. In other words, the large mouth bass and the wild turkey are afforded better [protection] than U.S. workers."

OHS prosecution in UK

Apparently we aren't the only ones who complain about the lack of prosecution for occupational safety failure.

The Guardian is pro-labor, left-leaning paper (left in the sense the the US uses it).