HR Policy Association

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Caution lobbying hazard.png

The Human Resources Policy Association (HR Policy Association or HRPA) is a trade association describing itself as "the lead public policy organization of chief human resource officers" and represents more than 360 corporations in the United States, many of them federal contractors.[1] HRPA is a major opponent of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, an order issued by President Obama in 2014 that aims to ensure that federal contractors comply with federal wage laws, health and safety standards, and civil rights laws.[2]

See, the February 2016 special report from the Center for Media and Democracy "Reporter's Guide: Federal Contractors with History of Repeat OSHA Violations Battle New Safety Rules."

HRPA claims that its members "have a long standing commitment to complying with all federal and state employment and labor laws,"[3] but many of the member companies with executives on its board of directors and/or their subsidiaries have multiple serious and repeat violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workplace safety standards. See below.

See Related Articles for links to additional reports and information on federal contractors and labor issues.

Member Companies Cited for Dozens of Serious and Repeat OSHA Violations

OSHA Violations definitions.png

An investigation by the Center for Media and Democracy of OSHA inspection records found that numerous corporations (and/or their subsidiaries) whose executives sit on the HRPA board had been cited for serious and repeat violations of OSHA standards from 2013-2015 that would be reportable under the EO. A "serious" violation indicates "a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result" from a hazard, a "willful" violation is cited when "evidence shows either an intentional violation of the Act or plain indifference to its requirements," and a "repeat" violation indicates the business "has been cited previously for a substantially similar condition."[4]

DuPont

Chemical, agricultural, and biotech giant DuPont has an executive on the board of HPRA.[5]
Over recent years, DuPont and/or subsidiaries have had multiple federal contracts with the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture or other federal agencies.
As described in detail below, from 2013 to 2015, DuPont or its subsidiaries or related entities have incurred 41 “Serious,” 3 ”Willful,” 4 “Repeat,” and 4 “Other-than-Serious” citations from OSHA, along with $598,836 in OSHA penalties.[6] [7]
The multiple Serious, Willful, and Repeat violations include citations for infractions of safety rules related to four worker fatalities in 2014, some of which were still found to be in violation during a follow-up inspection in 2015, as described below. Some citations are being contested by the company. Recent OSHA citations (May 5, 2015 and April 28, 2014) also include violations under the lockout/tagout regulation that was referenced after a 2010 worker death in Buffalo, New York (see below).
Four Tragic Deaths in Texas, Followed by Additional OSHA Violations
Danger OSHA Dupont Poison Gas.png
In May 2015, OSHA cited DuPont for a hazardous gas leak in November 2014 that led to the deaths of four workers at DuPont’s La Porte, Texas plant after what OSHA characterized as "serious failures" by DuPont. An employee collapsed when 20,000 pounds of gaseous methyl mercaptan leaked into the enclosed space where she was working. Three other employees, including two brothers, were killed one by one by the toxic fumes while trying to rescue her and each other.[8] OSHA issued DuPont 1 “Repeat” and 9 “Serious” violations for failing to train its employees about the ventilation system and use of respirators, as well as a fine of $99,000. The violations are under contest by the company.[9]
“Four people lost their lives and their families lost loved ones because DuPont did not have proper safety procedures in place,” Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels said of the incident.[10]
A follow-up inspection at the same plant in January 2015 found that DuPont was continuing to violate safety rules. OSHA fined the company an additional $273,000, and found 4 “Serious,” 3 “Willful,” and 1 “Repeat” violations.[11] In addition, OSHA placed the company on the Severe Violator Enforcement Program list, which focuses on companies that have “demonstrated indifference towards creating a safe and healthy workplace.”
“We have concerns about the safety culture,” OSHA’s Michaels told the Texas Tribune. “We expect chemical facilities where highly toxic materials are used to have a culture that focuses on ensuring worker protection. It appears to have broken down.”[8] Michaels noted that the fines were "petty cash" for a corporation with approximately $35 billion in annual revenues. The violations are under contest by the company.[8]
Serious Violations at Other DuPont or Its Subsidiaries’ Facilities
Workers Exposed to Hazardous Chemicals in New Jersey
In May 2014, a chemical leak from a tanker truck exposed workers to hazardous chemicals at the DuPont Chamber Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey. An inspection in response to a complaint led to OSHA issuing 11 violations and initial penalties of $120,300 to E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Chamber Works. OSHA inspectors cited the company for eight “Serious” violations under the process safety management standard. In addition to the Serious violations, the company failed to perform an analysis addressing hazards related to the storage and transport of chemicals. DuPont Chamber Works also did not perform inspections and tests on the equipment used in chemical processes, resulting in 2 “Repeat” violations, as the company was previously cited for these same violations at other facilities in 2010 and 2011. One “Other-than-Serious” violation was cited because the company failed to address issues relating to hazards promptly. The violations are under contest by the company.[12][13]
Deaths from Chemical Leaks in West Virginia and New York
While violations occurring in 2010 would not be reportable under the terms of the Executive Order, as they are outside the three-year look-back period, the two fatal incidents described below provide background and context for DuPont’s subsequent reportable violations, including the recent fatal accidents in 2015 in La Porte, Texas.
On January 23, 2010 a DuPont worker was sprayed in the face with hazardous phosgene, an herbicide that was used as a chemical weapon in World War I, after a hose ruptured in a storage area in DuPont's Belle, West Virginia plant. The man was taken to the hospital, where he died the following night. The phosgene release was the third hazardous chemical release in two days at the plant. An investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) found problems with DuPont's use of automated safety software, communication with emergency crews, and equipment maintenance.[14] In July, 2010, OSHA announced that it had fined the company $43,000, citing it for 6 “Serious” and 5 “Other-than-Serious” violations, including the company's failure to properly inspect piping used to transfer phosgene, perform a thorough process hazard analysis for its phosgene operation, train workers on hazards associated with phosgene, thoroughly inspect all high-risk sections of piping used to transfer oleum, and properly install energized electrical conductors.[15] The case closed in August, 2010 and the penalties and citations were sustained.[16]
A storage tank at DuPont’s Yerkes facility in Buffalo, New York exploded on November 9, 2010 due to an undetected leak of flammable vinyl fluoride, killing one worker and causing first-degree burns in another. The Chemical Safety Board, which produced a safety video based on the incident, called the accident “preventable” and identified problems with DuPont's monitoring of flammable vapor.[17][18] After a separate investigation, OSHA announced on May 5, 2011 that it had cited DuPont and a contractor for a combined total of 17 “Serious” violations, and $61,500 and $55,440 in proposed fines, respectively.[19] The case was closed in February, 2012, after an Administrative Law Judge sustained 7 of the Serious citations against DuPont and a fine of $49,000.[20]

Honeywell International Inc.

Honeywell and its subsidiary companies are involved in numerous industries, including manufacturing specialty chemicals and aerospace products. In 2014, Honeywell generated $3.69 billion in revenue from the federal government, primarily related to aerospace.[21] Honeywell executives sit on the HR Policy Association Board and the board of the Professional Services Council.[5]
Between 2013-2015, Honeywell International Inc. or its subsidiaries or related entities incurred 18 “Serious” and 13 “Other-than-Serious” OSHA citations and $39,125 in penalties.[22]
Honeywell International Inc., 905 East Randolph, Hopewell, VA
On January 28 2015, a tank exploded at Honeywell International's Hopewell, Virginia plant after it became over-pressurized during cleaning.[23] The Hopewell facility "is one of the world’s largest single-site producers of caprolactam, the primary feedstock in the production of nylon polymer used in carpet fibers, plastics and films," and "also produces a wide range of chemical intermediates," including sulfuric acid, specialty oximes, ammonia and carbon dioxide, as well as ammonium sulfate fertilizers.[24]
Luckily nobody was injured in the explosion, but the incident comes as little surprise at a plant that had been cited in 2013 for serious OSHA violations, and was responsible for numerous chemical leaks between 2013 and 2015 resulting in $300,000 in fines from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for spills of chemicals including “nitric acid, methyl ethyl ketone, caprolactam, oil and gasoline.”[25] Honeywell agreed to make $13 million in repairs to the plant. “DEQ has issued 14 enforcement orders to (the Hopewell plant) since 1990,” the Virginia agency said in a news release. “In addition, a joint consent decree by DEQ and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was issued to Honeywell in 2013 for air quality violations.”[26] These environmental problems do not trigger action under the Executive Order, but they are included to demonstrate that companies that run afoul of workplace health and safety regulations also often have problems with other regulations that protect the public.
02/02/2015: Days after the January 2015 explosion described above, OSHA inspected the Hopewell site and issued an initial fine of $3,675 for 1 “Serious” violation of Virginia’s General Duty requirement.[27]
03/09/2015: A month later, OSHA returned for a planned inspection of the facility and cited Honeywell for 3 additional serious violations and issued fines of $8,330. The company failed to train workers or to develop and implement safe work practices related to process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals; or to provide protection for workers using electrical equipment. The fines were later reduced to $6,545 in an informal settlement.[28]
03/14/2013: Less than two years before the explosion, OSHA conducted an inspection at Hopewell, and issued 6 “Serious” violations and fines of $9,540. When the case was closed in May, 2014 Honeywell was fined $3,780 and cited for 3 serious violations related to process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals, problems similar to those that would be found by OSHA in the aftermath of the 2015 explosion. Unfortunately, the Hopewell plant is not the only troubled Honeywell site: several other facilities have similarly been cited multiple times by OSHA for serious violations over that same time period.[29]
Honeywell International, Chesterfield Plant, 4101 Bermuda Hundred Road, Chester, VA
Honeywell’s Chesterfield facility "is one of the largest U.S. producers of nylon 6 resin, used in the production of carpet fiber, molded parts for automobiles, cord for fish nets, and plastic that is found in food packaging and pharmaceutical applications."[30]
09/08/2014: In response to a complaint, an OSHA inspection resulted in initial penalties of $8,300 for 3 “Serious” and 4 “Other-than-Serious” violations of OSHA for failing protect workers who are servicing or maintaining machines and equipment from hazardous energy; failure to ensure employees had an exit route door which could be opened from the inside at all times without keys, tools, or special knowledge; and failure to provide certain protections for workers using electrical equipment. The violations are under contest.[31]
09/08/2014: In response to a complaint, an OSHA inspection resulted in initial fines of $4,165 for 1 “Serious” and 3 “Other-than-Serious” violations. In a settlement, these were reduced to 3 “Other- than-Serious” violations and a fine of $3,332 for violations that included failure to perform proper exposure monitoring for employees, where Methylene Chloride, which OSHA considers a potential occupational carcinogen, is present.[32]
05/22/2013: In response to a complaint, an OSHA inspection resulted in initial fines of $3,570 for 2 “Serious” violations. In an informal settlement, these were reduced to 2 “Other-than-Serious” violations and fines of $1,700 for violations of the lockout/tagout standard.[33]
Honeywell International, Golden Valley, MN
"Honeywell’s Golden Valley facility is the global headquarters of Honeywell’s Automation and Control Solutions (ACS) division and three of its seven strategic business units."[34]
05/01/2014: In response to a complaint, an OSHA inspection resulted in a fine of $1,750 for 1 “Serious” violation for failing to protect the fingers of workers using welding machines.[35]
09/24/2013: In a planned inspection, Honeywell was cited for 4 serious violations and fined $5,600 for violations of several OSHA standards including: failure to provide protections for in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases; failure to provide proper guards for machine gears; and failure to provide protections when using electrical equipment.[36]
07/30/2014: Following a planned inspection at another Honeywell International site in Golden Valley, MN, OSHA issued a $1,750 penalty and 1 serious violation for failing to protect workers against exposure to electrical wiring and components.[37]
Honeywell Aerospace, 1985 Douglas Dr N., Golden Valley, MN 55427
09/25/2013: After a planned inspection, Honeywell subsidiary, Honeywell Aerospace was cited for 1 “Serious” and 1 “Other-than-Serious” violation and fined $1,400. The serious violation concerned the OSHA standard for hand and portable powered tools and equipment. An informal settlement sustained the violations and reduced the penalty to $980.[38]
Violations at Other Facilities
04/15/2015: After a referral inspection at a Chickasaw, AL site of UOP LLC, a Honeywell subsidiary, OSHA issued 1 “Serious” violation and a penalty of $2,168 for failing to maintain floors in a clean and dry condition.[39]
In 2012, OSHA cited Honeywell Electronic Chemicals, LLC for jeopardizing the safety of employees at its Mansfield, Texas, and issued 10 “Serious” violations with $53,000 proposed penalties. Employees were found to be exposed to catastrophic releases of highly hazardous chemicals while conducting operations at the plant,” reads the OSHA Press release. “This company jeopardized the safety of its employees by failing to implement OSHA's process safety management regulations effectively,” said Jack Rector, OSHA's area director in Fort Worth, Texas. “OSHA requires employers to provide safe and healthful working conditions to prevent accidents and illnesses.”[40] The case closed in August, 2013 after a formal settlement sustained 5 “Serious” and 2 “Other-than-Serious” violations and a penalty of $23,300. The serious violations concerned process safety management of highly hazardous chemicals, and failure to post warning signs of the danger posed by permit-required confined spaces.[41]
In 2011, OSHA cited Honeywell International’s operations in Metropolis, Illinois for safety violations following a vapor release. “The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Honeywell International Inc. with 17 serious safety violations for process safety management violations after its Metropolis processing plant experienced a release of hydrogen fluoride vapor. Proposed penalties total $119,000.”[42] The case was closed in March, 2013 after a formal settlement in which the company was cited for 12 ”Serious” and 1 ”Other-than-Serious” violation, and a penalty of $70,000.[43]
Both of the preceding cases could trigger action under the EO as they reached a final resolution within the three-year look-back period.
Additional Complaints
Honeywell International has been trying for years to settle tens of thousands of asbestos exposure cases, and, in its 2015 SEC filings (see Note 19) the company estimated that at the end of 2014 it was liable for $1.5 billion in asbestos-related claims. These private lawsuits would not trigger action under the EO but are mentioned here to provide additional context.[21]

Verizon and Subsidiaries

Danger Osha violators600px.jpg
Telecommunications giant Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiaries received federal contracts worth $487.8 million in 2012, according to a U.S. Senate report.[44]
As described in more detail below, between 2013-2015, Verizon Communications Inc. or its corporate subsidiaries incurred 7 “Serious” and 13 “Other-than-Serious” OSHA violations along with $46,750 in penalties.[45] These include an April 2015 incident in which a Verizon worker had a hand caught in a wire and had to be airlifted to a New York hospital. Verizon was cited for a “Serious” violation of OSHA’s hand and power tools standard and fined $7,000, the maximum allowable penalty. The case remains open, pending abatement of violations.[46]
Tragic Electrocution Death in Brooklyn
In 2012, OSHA found Verizon Communications, Inc. subsidiary Verizon New York, Inc. had committed multiple serious and repeat violations, including inadequate training and safety equipment, and gave Verizon New York a $140,700 fine, the maximum penalty allowed, due to the 2011 electrocution death of death of Douglas Lalima in Brooklyn.[47] The case was closed in February, 2014 following a formal settlement that resulted in 2 “Serious” and 1 “Repeat” violations, but increased the fines to $147,000. The Repeat violation related to the OSHA standard for telecommunications, requiring the employer to provide rubber insulating equipment designed for the voltage levels to be encountered and to ensure that they are used by employees as required.[46]
The incident was described in a 2013 U.S. Senate report, which labeled Verizon Communications, Inc. a “severe violator” of OSHA health and safety standards. The report described how the cherry picker bucket in which Lalima was working burst into flames. According to the report, “an inspection found that the employee and bucket were too close to the power line, the employee had not been adequately trained, and he lacked insulated gloves.”[44]
The tragedy was compounded by the fact that OSHA had cited the Verizon subsidiary, Verizon New York, for some of the same safety violations in 2007 after another worker died in Rhode Island. “The recurring nature of some of these hazards is disturbing,” said OSHA area director Kay Gee.[47]
Additional Complaints
In 2011, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a rare lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc. and 24 named subsidiaries for unlawfully denying reasonable accommodations to hundreds of employees in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Verizon ultimately settled for $20 million, at the time the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history.[48] This case would not trigger specific action under the Executive Order, as the settlement occurred prior to the EO’s three-year look-back period. However, it is included to give an indication of the company’s overall record of compliance with the laws covered by the order.
In 2012, a class action lawsuit was brought against Verizon Services Corporation, dba Verizon California, Inc (a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc) by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing under California's Family Rights Act.[49] One victim described how she was repeatedly denied family and medical leave to help care for her elderly mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's.[50] The suit resulted in a $6 million settlement.[49] However, this case would not trigger specific action under the Executive Order, as it was settled outside the three-year look- back period. Additionally, while the Executive Order requires companies to report violations of state labor laws “equivalent” to the enumerated federal laws, such as this California statute, the Obama administration has not yet issued guidance and regulations to implement this aspect of the Order. Nonetheless, this case is included to give an indication of the company’s failure to comply with important workplace laws.

Caterpillar

Construction and mining equipment manufacturer Caterpillar is a major federal contractor.
Between 2013-2015, Caterpillar[51] or its subsidiaries Caterpillar Global Mining LLC,[52] Solar Turbines Incorporated,[53] and Progress Rail Services[54] incurred 30 “Serious”, 1 “Repeat” and 8 “Other-than-Serious” OSHA violations and $119,447 in penalties.
"Lockout/Tagout" Violations
Caterpillar or its subsidiaries have been cited frequently for violating OSHA "lockout/tagout" standards related to controlling hazardous energy sources while workers conduct service and maintenance on machinery.
05/07/2015: Caterpillar Inc. was cited for 1 “Serious” violation at a site in Toccoa, Georgia, which was sustained in an informal settlement in October with a penalty of $4,500 for a lockout/tagout violation.[55]
10/01/2013: In October, 2013, following a planned inspection at Caterpillar, Inc.’s Fountain Inn, SC site, OSHA issued 5 “Serious” violations for and for failing to provide protection from hazardous machines and power-transmission belts; failure to provide required electrical grounding. An informal settlement confirmed each serious violation, but reduced the penalty to $2,400.[56]
02/12/2013: Following a referral inspection at a Carrier Mills, IL worksite of a Caterpillar subsidiary, Caterpillar Global Mining LLC, OSHA cited the company for 1 “Serious” violation and issued the maximum penalty of $7,000 for failing to ground containers for transferring flammable liquids.[57]
02/01/2013: In an inspection arising from a complaint at a Pontiac, IL site, Caterpillar Inc. was cited for 1 “Serious” violation and issued an initial penalty of $5,000 for a lockout/tagout violation. The case was closed in July, 2013 after an informal settlement confirmed the violation and reduced the penalty to $3,500.[58]
East Peoria, IL: OSHA cites Caterpillar for failing to lock out equipment
In June, 2011, OSHA “cited Caterpillar Inc. in East Peoria with three lockout/tagout violations, and issued an initial penalty of $66,000 following an investigation into a December 2010 incident in which an employee was injured while attempting to clear a jam on the link orienter in the full link heat treat area. Lockout/tagout provisions for the equipment had not been implemented prior to the employee entering the area.”
“Two repeat violations include failing to train employees on lockout/tagout procedures and to affix a lockout or tagout device to isolate energy to the link orienter....Caterpillar was cited for the same violations at the East Peoria facility in May 2009.”[59] The case was closed in July, 2013 after a formal settlement sustained 1 ”Repeat” violation and reduced the penalty to $7,000.[60]
Progress Rail Services Corp.
03/10/2015: Following a complaint investigation at the site of Caterpillar Inc. subsidiary, Progress Rail Services Corp., in Taylor Mill, KY, OSHA issued 2 “Serious” violations and issued a penalty of $9,500 for failure to provide machine guarding to protect operators and other employees in the machine area. In an informal settlement, the penalty was reduced to $4,750.[61]
01/23/2015: Following a referral investigation at another Progress Rail Services site in Muncie, IN, OSHA cited the company for 1 “Serious” and 1 “Willful” violation and issued $55,000 in penalties for violations of the “General Duty” requirement; and for failing to ensure the safe condition of tools and equipment used by employees. In an informal settlement the willful violation was reduced to serious, and the penalty reduced to $9,000. This case remains open.[62]
06/04/2014: Following an accident inspection at a Progress Rail Services site on Terminal Island, CA, CalOSHA cited the company for 1 “Serious” and 1 “Other-than-Serious” violation and issued an initial penalty of $9,370. The serious citation was a violation of CalOSHA’s General Industry Safety Orders standard (Cranes and Other Hoisting Equipment) for failing to take certain measures to prevent crane movement while making repairs on crane runways, supporting structures, or equipment. A formal settlement deleted the “Other-than-Serious” violation and reduced the penalty to $5,000. The case remains open.[63]
10/01/2013: Following an accident inspection at another Progress Rail Services site in Rocklin, CA, CalOSHA cited the company for 2 “Serious” violations and issued penalties of $25,500. The serious violations were for failures to protect workers from exposure to hazardous liquids. In a formal settlement the penalty was reduced to $13,375.[64]
09/25/2013: Following an accident inspection, at a Progress Rail Services site in Mojave, CA, CalOSHA cited the company for 1 “Serious” and 4 “Other-than-Serious” violations and issued penalties of $17,700. The serious violation was for failure to secure a load against dangerous displacement. The case remains open.[65]
09/10/2013: Following a complaint inspection at a Progress Rail Services site in Patterson, GA, OSHA cited the company for 3 “Serious” violations and issued penalties of $15,660. The violations concerned failure to provide safe floors;100 to provide workers with personal protective equipment; and to ensure that powered industrial trucks are taken out of service when they are in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe. The penalty was reduced to $10,962 in an informal settlement.[66]
07/29/2013: Following a complaint inspection at another Progress Rail Services site in Mayfield, KY, OSHA cited the company for 2 “Serious” violations and issued the maximum allowable penalties of $14,000. The violations concerned the General Duty requirement;103 and general industry standards. The penalty was reduced to $7,000 in an informal settlement.[67]
Solar Turbines Incorporated
03/04/2015: Following an inspection at the site of a Caterpillar Inc. subsidiary, Solar Turbines Inc. in Channelview, TX, OSHA cited the company for 1 “Serious” and 1 “Other-than-Serious” violation and issued penalties of $8,000. The serious violation concerned the General Duty clause: “Employees were exposed to being struck by loads lifted with a Gaffey 10 ton semi-gantry crane...that did not have the hook over the load in such a manner to minimize swinging.” The violations are under contest.[68][69]
Caterpillar Loses Lawsuit over Refusal to Allow Union Health and Safety Investigator on Site after Worker Death; Hit with OSHA Violation and Violation of the National Labor Relations Act
After a worker at a unionized weld shop acquired by Caterpillar Inc. in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin was crushed to death on September 8, 2011, Caterpillar refused to allow a safety specialist with the United Steel Workers to access and investigate the worksite.[70]
USW complained to the NLRB, which found that the company had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act and ordered that the union's investigator should be allowed access. The company appealed the Board’s decision, which was upheld in October 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[71][72]
The accident's cause was never determined, but in a separate investigation by OSHA, Caterpillar’s predecessor, Bucyrus International Inc. (which had been acquired by Caterpillar two months before the accident), was fined $7,000 for 1 “Serious” violation, the maximum allowable penalty for a violation of the general duty standard.[73]
The South Milwaukee case would trigger reporting obligations under the EO as the company committed NLRB violations subject to a court judgment within the three-year look-back period.

ManpowerGroup

In 2015, ManpowerGroup Inc. received $4.4 million in federal contracts according to USA Spending.
Between 2013-2015 subsidiaries ManpowerGroup US Inc., Manpower US Inc., and Manpower, Inc have incurred 1 “Serious,” 1 “Repeat,” and 9 “Other-than-Serious” OSHA violations and $43,120 in penalties.[74] These include violations related to incidents involving a worker who needed surgical treatment after receiving chemical burns on the job in 2014 (Manpower US Inc.) and another who was hospitalized after a welding accident in 2013 (Manpower Inc.).[74]
05/18/2015: Following a referral inspection at a site in Temple, TX, ManpowerGroup US, Inc. was cited for 1 “Repeat” violation and a penalty of $38,500 for failing to provide the guards that would protect workers from hazardous machines. The company is contesting the violations.[75]
07/08/2014: Following an inspection prompted by a complaint at a site in Albany, OR, Manpower US, Inc. was cited with 1 “Serious” and 1 “Other-than-Serious” violation and a fine of $300 for violating OSHA’s requirement that workers be trained on “The physical, health, simple asphyxiation, combustible dust, and pyrophoric gas hazards...of the chemicals in the work area...”; and rules for workplace safety committees.[76]
Additional Wage Theft Complaint
In January 2015 Manpower Inc. agreed to an $8.75 million settlement with more than 20,000 temp workers in the state of California over claims that they weren't paid on time and didn't receive accurate pay stubs.[77] This case would not trigger specific action under the Executive Order, as it was settled before there was a judgment or merits determination and was based on a state law not yet included within the EO. It is included to give an indication of the company’s lax compliance with other important workplace laws.

Federal Lobbying

Opposition to Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

In its fight against President Obama’s Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order (EO 13673), the HRPA has penned press releases claiming the President lacks legal authority to issue the order,[78] policy briefs complaining the order will threaten jobs[79] and "intimidate companies" that have labor disputes,[80] and has submitted several official comments seeking to block or slow the order's implementation. HRPA has even compared making corporations disclose labor law violations to the plight of job applicants having to reveal arrest records.[81]

Its 2014 lobbying blitz in the halls of Congress (see references to EO 13673 under Lobbying) was followed in March 2015 by meetings with high-level administration officials,[82] efforts in June 2015 to extend the comment period and delay the implementation of the rules,[83] and a July conference call.[84]

In a 2015 comment to the Department of Labor, HRPA recommended the Department "withdraw this rulemaking for reasons stated in these comments.” [85]

Lobbying Summary Data

Total Lobbying Spending[86]

  • 2015 : $1,590,000
  • 2014: $2,060,000
  • 2013: $1,850,000
  • 2012: $1,850,000

Lobbying Issues reported, 2015:[87]

  • Pay ratio repeal (H.R. 414)
  • Executive Order #13672 (related to equal employment opportunity/discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity)
  • H.R. 2029 (Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016)
  • Healthcare (Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (S. 620); Ax the Tax on Middle Class American's Health Plans Act * (H.R. 879); SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2015 (S.810); potential bill on U.S. * Preventive Services Task Force recommendation process; H.R. 2050, ACA excise high-cost tax repeal; H.R. 1151; Submitted comments on EEOC wellness program proposed rule (RIN 3046-AB01); Meeting with staff from the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services on the maximum annual cost sharing limitations for large group and self-insured employers)
  • Forty Hours is Full Time Act of 2015 (S.30)
  • Fair Labor Standards Act
  • Future DOL Overtime Rulemaking
  • Meeting with Department of Labor's Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Staff Regarding the Department's Priorities this Year
  • wellness program proposed rule (RIN 3046-AB01)
  • potential paycheck fairness legislation
  • FLSA issues and future DOL overtime rulemaking
  • maximum annual cost sharing limitations for large group and self-insured employers
  • Misc. education and immigration (met with House committees on annual priorities)

Lobbying on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces E.O., 2014:[88]

  • Meeting with staff from the offices of Sens. Shelby and Cochran regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from the House Small Business Committee regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from Sen. Patrick Leahys office regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from House Speaker and Majority leaders offices, regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce regarding executive order #13673.
  • Meeting with staff from the Senate HELP committee regarding executive order #13673
  • Meeting with staff from the House Committee on Small Business regarding executive order #13673
  • Official White House & Department of Labor listening session with employer groups regarding executive order #13673
  • Letter to the Secretary of Labor and the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council regarding implementation of executive order #13673

Personnel

Board of Directors

As of 2015:[89]

Executive Committee

Board Members

  • William S. Allen, Chief Human Resources Officer, Macy's, Inc.
  • Maureen K. Ausura, Chief Human Resources Officer, Lowe's Companies, Inc.
  • Marcia J. Avedon, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Communications and Corporate Affairs, Ingersoll Rand Company
  • Mark F. Biegger, Chief Human Resources Officer, The Procter & Gamble Company
  • William A. Blase, Jr., Senior Executive Vice President, Human Resources, AT&T Inc.
  • Benito Cachinero-Sánchez, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
  • Kenneth J. Carrig, Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, SunTrust Banks Inc.
  • Rizwan Chand, Vice President, Human Resources and Medical, Chief Human Resources Officer, BNSF Railway Company
  • Charles E. Columbus, Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer, Kaiser Permanente
  • Timothy M. Crow, Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer, The Home Depot
  • Peter M. Fasolo, Chief Human Resources Officer, Johnson & Johnson
  • Jorge L. Figueredo, Executive Vice President of Human Resources, McKesson Corporation
  • Roger C. Gaston, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Avaya Inc.
  • Diane J. Gherson, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, IBM Corporation
  • Kimberly S. Hauer, Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Caterpillar Inc.
  • Anne Hill, Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources and Communications Officer, Avery Dennison Corporation
  • Mark R. James, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Procurement and Communications, Honeywell International Inc.
  • Michael G. Johnson, Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer, United Parcel Service, Inc.
  • Tracy Keogh, Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Hewlett-Packard Company
  • Pamela O. Kimmet, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
  • Angela S. Lalor, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Danaher Corporation
  • Alan R. May, Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise
  • Marlene M. McGrath, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, 3M Company
  • Denise Merle, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Weyerhaeuser Company
  • John M. Murabito, Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Services, Cigna Corporation
  • Anthony M. Parasida, Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, The Boeing Company
  • Denise M. Peppard, Corporate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Northrop Grumman Corporation
  • Susan P. Peters, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, General Electric Company
  • Marc C. Reed, Chief Administrative Officer, Verizon Communications Inc.
  • David A. Rodriguez, Executive Vice President and Global Chief Human Resources Officer, Marriott International, Inc.
  • John M. Steele, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, HCA Inc.
  • Larry E. Steward, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, DTE Energy Company
  • Susan M. Suver, Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Delphi Automotive PLC
  • Sharon C. Taylor, Senior Vice President, Human Resources, Prudential Financial, Inc.
  • Johnna G. Torsone, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Pitney Bowes Inc.

Executive Staff

As of 2015: [90]

  • Jeffrey C. McGuinness, CEO
  • Daniel V. Yager, President and General Counsel
  • Charles G. Tharp, Executive Vice President and CEO, Center on Executive Compensation
  • Timothy J. Bartl, President, Center On Executive Compensation, Secretary, HR Policy Association

Finances

Core Finances

2013:[91]

  • Total Revenues: $8,379,447
    • $4,430,496 to McGuinness & Yager LLP for consulting
  • Total Expenses: $10,431,195
  • Net Assets: -$1,587,077

Compensation of Officers and Board Members

HRPA reported paying no compensation to board members or officers; however, several officers were also partners in McGuinness & Yager, receiving compensation for the firm's consulting services. In 2013 they received:[91]

  • Jeffrey McGuinness, $468,000
  • Daniel Yager, $468,000
  • Timothy Bartl, $468,000

HR Policy Foundation

HRPA has a related tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, the HR Policy Foundation, which received a contribution of $1,993,372 from HRPA in 2013.[91]

Contact

HR Policy Association
1100 13th Street NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.789.8670
Fax: 202.789.0064
Email: info@HRPolicy.org

Related Articles

Related Articles: Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces

Danger Osha violators600px.jpg

Key Articles

PR Watch Series on OSHA Violators

Reports

Other Resources

References

  1. ↑ HR Policy Association, "About," organizational website, October 20, 2015.
  2. ↑ President Barack Obama, "Executive Order --Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces," government document, July 31, 2014.
  3. ↑ HR Policy Association, "RE: Notice of Proposed Guidance for Executive Order 13673, 'Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces'," filed comments, August 26, 2015.
  4. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection Documentation," government documentation, accessed October 2015.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 HRPA Policy Association, "Our Board," organization website, accessed January, 2016.
  6. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Search results: Dupont," inspection case records, database accessed January 2016.
  7. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Search results: E.I. Du Pont De Nemours," inspection case records, database accessed January 2016.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Nina Satija and Jim Malewitz, "OSHA Chief: Fine for Deadly Leak "Petty Cash" for DuPont," The Texas Tribune, May 23, 2015,
  9. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1008319.015 - E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  10. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Proper protections could have saved four DuPont workers killed by gas: Federal safety investigators find serious failures in 2014 toxic release in Texas," OSHA Regional News Release: Region 6, May 14, 2015, accessed January, 2016.
  11. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1019650.015 - E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  12. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 977332.015 - E.I. Dupont Denemours Incorporated Chambers Works," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  13. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "DuPont's chemical safety systems inadequate at Deepwater, New Jersey, plant: OSHA cites company for failure to protect workers from hazardous materials," OSHA Regional News Release: Region 2, December 1, 2014, accessed January 2016.
  14. ↑ U.S. Chemical Safety Board, "CSB Investigation Finds Three DuPont Accidents in Belle, West Virginia, Resulted from Numerous Safety Deficiencies including Lack of Safe Equipment Design, Ineffective Mechanical Integrity Programs, and Incomplete Investigations of Previous Near Misses ," press release, July 7, 2011.
  15. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Labor Department's OSHA cites DuPont for exposing workers to hazardous chemicals following a fatal accident at the Belle, W.Va., plant," OSHA Regional News Release: Region 3, July 19, 2010, accessed January 2016.
  16. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 313371924 - E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company - Belle Plant," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  17. ↑ U.S. Chemical Safety Board, "Hot Work: Hidden Hazards," safety video, April 20, 2012, accessed January, 2016.
  18. ↑ U.S. Chemical Safety Board, "CSB Releases New Safety Video on Fatal Hot Work Explosion at DuPont Facility in Buffalo; “Hot Work: Hidden Hazards” Shows Danger of Inadequate Gas Monitoring Safety Video Follows Release of the CSB’s Investigative Report ," press release, April 20, 2012.
  19. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Labor Department's OSHA cites DuPont's Yerkes Plant and Buffalo contractor following fatal explosion for welding, hazardous energy violations," press release, May 5, 2011.
  20. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: Inspection: 315004101 - Yerkes Plant E.I. Dupont De Nemours Company," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Honeywell International Inc., "FY 2014 Form 10-K," SEC filing, February 13, 2015. See p. 2.
  22. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Search results: Honeywell," inspection case records, database accessed January 2016.
  23. ↑ Sarah Bloom, "Tank ruptures at Hopewell Honeywell plant; no injuries," NBC 12 WWBT Richmond News, February 7, 2015.
  24. ↑ Honeywell, "Honeywell’s Hopewell Facility," corporate website, accessed January 2016.
  25. ↑ Rex Springsteen, "Honeywell agrees to $13 million in improvements and $300,000 penalty in Hopewell spills," Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 24, 2015.
  26. ↑ "Honeywell plant in Hopewell must make changes after Nov. 2014 spill," WRIC, August 24, 2015.
  27. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1024985.015 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  28. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1046067.015 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  29. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 316979269 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  30. ↑ Honeywell, "Honeywell’s Chesterfield Facility," corporate website, accessed January 2016.
  31. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 994185.015 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  32. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 994264.015 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  33. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317129252 - Honeywell Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  34. ↑ Honeywell, "Minnesota Location," corporate website, accessed January 2016.
  35. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317710481 - Honeywell International Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  36. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317327559 - Honeywell International Inc Dba Honeywell Acs," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  37. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317806297 - Honeywell International Inc Dba Esg," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  38. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317327666 - Honeywell Aerospace - Minneapolis," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  39. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1055988.015 - Uop A Honeywell Company," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  40. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Labor Department's OSHA cites Honeywell Electronic Chemicals for multiple process safety management violations in Mansfield, Texas," press release, December 10, 2012.
  41. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 470719.015 - Honeywell Electronic Chemicals, Llc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  42. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Labor Department's OSHA proposes $119,000 in fines to Honeywell International in Metropolis, Ill., for safety violations following vapor release," press release, June 22, 2011.
  43. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 313017774 - Honeywell International, Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, "Acting Responsibly? Federal Contractors Frequently Put Workers Lives and Livelihoods at Risk," U.S. Senate committee report, December 11, 2013.
  45. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Search results: Verizon," inspection case records, database accessed January 2016.
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1057006.015 - Verizon," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Labor Department's OSHA cites Verizon NY Inc. for repeat and serious safety violations following utility worker's death in Brooklyn," press release, March 19, 2013.
  48. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Verizon to Pay $20 Million to Settle Nationwide EEOC Disability Suit," press release, July 6, 2011.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, "DFEH v. Verizon Class Action Settlement," state government website, accessed January 2016.
  50. ↑ Chris Thompson, "Subsidizing Contractor Misconduct: Alma's Story," CorpWatch, January 2015.
  51. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection Detail: 1065955.015 | 1042948.015 | 974900.015 | 317010213 | 880023.015," inspection case records, accessed January 2016.
  52. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Establishment Search Results: Caterpillar Global Mining," inspection records database search results, accessed January 2016.
  53. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1044497.015 - Solar Turbines Incorporated," inspection case record, accessed January 2016.
  54. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Establishment Search Results: Progress Rail Services," inspection records database search results, accessed January 2016.
  55. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1065955.015 - Caterpillar, Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  56. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317010213 - Caterpillar Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  57. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 881684.015 - Caterpillar Global Mining Llc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  58. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 880023.015 - Caterpillar, Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  59. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "US Department of Labor's OSHA cites Caterpillar Inc. in East Peoria, Ill., with safety violations for failing to lock out equipment; fines total $66,000," press release, June 27, 2011.
  60. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 314848771 - Caterpillar Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  61. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317643898 - Progress Rail Services Corporation," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  62. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317861870 - Progress Rail Services," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  63. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317190437 - Progress Rail Services Corp," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  64. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317246841 - Progress Rail Services Corporation," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  65. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 316980929 - Progress Rail Services Corporation," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  66. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 940888.015 - Progress Rail Services Corporation," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  67. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 316917350 - Progress Rail Services Corporation," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  68. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1044497.015 - Solar Turbines Incorporated," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  69. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Violation Detail," accessed January 2016.
  70. ↑ Rick Barrett, "Court orders Caterpillar to give union access to fatal accident site," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 5, 2015.
  71. ↑ "Caterpillar v. National Labor Relations Board," U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, court filing, respondent's brief.
  72. ↑ National Labor Relations Board, Caterpillar, Inc. Case No. 30-CA-064314, government website, accessed January 2016.
  73. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 98550.015 - Bucyrus International, Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  74. ↑ 74.0 74.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection Detail: 1065212.015 | 317884658 | 317627917 | 316878388 | 317143337 | 315347377," inspection case records, accessed January 2016.
  75. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 1065212.015 - Manpower Group Us Inc.," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  76. ↑ Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "Inspection: 317627917 - Manpower Us Inc," inspection case record, database accessed January 2016.
  77. ↑ Lisa Nagele, "Court Preliminarily OKs $8.7 Million Deal Settling Manpower Workers' Wage Claims," Bloomberg BNA, January 6, 2015.
  78. ↑ HR Policy Association, "Business Groups Call for Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order (E.O. 13673) to be Withdrawn by the President," press release, November 7, 2014.
  79. ↑ HR Policy Association, "Blacklisting Amendments to Funding Measures Threaten the Jobs of Employees of Federal Contractors," organizational document, July 15, 2014.
  80. ↑ HR Policy Association, "New "Blacklisting" Executive Order Will Increase Workplace Litigation, Add Unnecessary Subjectivity to Federal Contracting Process, press release, August 15, 2014. Archived by Center for Media and Democracy.
  81. ↑ HR Policy Association, "Congressional Democrats Urge President to Require Federal Contractors to 'Ban the Box'," press release, June 5, 2015.
  82. ↑ HR Policy Association, "Research and Analysis," see Summary of Concerns with the Fair Pay & Safe Workplaces Executive Order; organizational document, April 3, 2015.
  83. ↑ Associated Builders and Contractors, The Associated General Contractors of America, HR Policy Association, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, "Letter to General Services Administration and Department of Labor," June 16, 2015.
  84. ↑ HR Policy Association, "HR Policy Contests Flawed Cost/Benefit Assumptions Under Proposed Blacklisting Rules, Challenges $12.99M Cost Estimate," press release, June 26, 2015.
  85. ↑ HRPA, "Letter to the Department of Labor, Re: Notice of Proposed Guidance for Executive Order 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces,” August 26, 2015.
  86. ↑ Center for Responsive Politics, "HR Policy Association: Lobbying," Open Secrets Database, accessed January 12, 2016. Database updated December 18, 2015.
  87. ↑ Center for Responsive Politics, "HR Policy Association: 2015 Lobbying," Open Secrets Database, accessed October 14, 2015
  88. ↑ Center for Responsive Politics, "HR Policy Association: 2014 Lobbying," Open Secrets database, accessed October 14, 2015.
  89. ↑ HR Policy Association "Board of Directors," organizational website, accessed October 20, 2015.
  90. ↑ HR Policy Association, "Officers and Staff," organizational website, accessed October 20, 2015.
  91. ↑ 91.0 91.1 91.2 HR Policy Association, 2013 IRS Form 990, organizational tax filing, November 12, 2014.
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HR_Policy_Association&oldid=720943"