OSHA@Home: Have We Heard the End of This?

By Joe Lazzara, Scientific Technologies Inc.

Last month OSHA flip-flopped on the issue of employer responsibility for OSHA safety and health violations which occur at home for employees who use their homes as a workplace. So – you think employers are off the hook? Guess again, because we have heard neither the end of this controversy nor the exoneration of employers’ responsibilities for employees working at home.

In August, 1997, a Houston company requested information on OSHA’s policies regarding employees who work at home, as they had planned to place sales executives in home offices. After endeavoring for two years in formulating an answer, OSHA responded in November, 1999 with a compliance letter interpretation, which is a clarification of existing standards already in effect. In the compliance letter, OSHA ruled that "the OSH Act applies to work performed by an employee in any workplace within the United States, including a workplace located in the employee’s home."

OSHA went on to explain the distinction that a company is responsible for ensuring its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, but not a safe and healthful home. Unfortunately, the example chosen to illustrate this point would give most employers heartburn. Their example: if the work is performed in a home basement and the stairs leading to the space are unsafe, the employer could be liable if the employer knows or should have known of the dangerous condition.

Does this mean job interviews for even occasional work-at-home applicants should include a home inspection? Should we start painting our banisters yellow?

The press picked up the compliance letter ruling on January 4, 2000 and the uproar began. One day later, OSHA withdrew their letter, citing "widespread confusion and unintended consequences". If you would like to follow the details of the compliance letter and OSHA’s turnaround, check out: www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Interp_data/I20000106.html.


Employer Responsibilities
Unfortunately, among the clamor over several extreme examples of OSHA rules at home (exit signs, lead paint exposure, multiple means of egress), there are several reminders to employers that real health and safety exposures can and do exist for employees outside the employer’s walls – with real employer consequences.

Many states have their own state-based safety compliance programs, which take precedence over the federal OSHA regulations. You may be surprised to discover that your state’s view of the work-at-home issue is similar to OSHA’s original interpretation. For example, according to a report in the San Jose Mercury News, Cal-OSHA, California’s worker safety and health agency has had, since 1989, a ruling that required the portion of the home where work is conducted must be in compliance with the California OSH Act. Cal-OSHA does not inspect a work at home location unless it first receives report of an accident or a complaint.

Workers’ compensation insurance generally does not distinguish between an employee’s injuries suffered at the employer’s location or at home office environment. According to the California Workers’ Compensation Institute, if an employee has a work-related injury caused by keyboard use, for example, the location of the keyboard does not much matter. Regulations in other states may be similar to California’s interpretation.

Specific OSHA standards require periodic inspections of certain types of equipment, such as compressed gas cylinders, resistance welding equipment, electrical protective equipment (typically high voltage gear), ladders and personal protective equipment such as respirators. Field service personnel working out of their homes may easily have some of this material assigned to them. Simply stated, don’t ignore the inspection requirements just because the equipment is located off company premises.

Finally, Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman has certainly left the door open for further rule-making on work-at-home employees. In a released statement, Herman stated, "Given the changing nature of work in the 21st century, yesterday I called for a national dialogue to determine what the rules and policies should be for America’s workers." Herman has called for a working group, including the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration and others to study the social and economic effects of telecommuting.

It doesn’t sound like we have heard the end of OSHA@home, after all. Until next time, be safe out there!

Lazzara on Automation Safeguarding is a monthly column written for Safetyonline.com and Plantautomation.com

Joe Lazzara is president and CEO of Scientific Technologies Inc. (STI, Fremont, CA), the largest provider of automation safeguarding solutions in North America. Lazzara began his career with Hewlett Packard in 1973 where he had responsibility for safety and environmental issues for one of HP’s largest divisions. He joined STI in 1981 as vice president and became president in 1989 and CEO in 1993. Lazzara received a bachelor’s of environmental engineering degree from Purdue University and an MBA from Santa Clara University.