Worker Engagement in the Health and Safety Regulatory Arena under Changing Models of Worker Representation

The Health and Safety Regulatory Framework in the United States

The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act ¹ directs Federal OSHA and its affiliated state programs to establish and enforce standards designed to protect workers from recognized workplace hazards. Employers within the agencies’ jurisdictions are required to comply with those standards, and enforcement is pursued through a combination of complaint-driven inspections and targeted investigations of industries identified as high hazard. Labor unions have historically played an important role within this regulatory framework—educating workers about their rights, enhancing enforcement of health and safety standards and worker protection through collective bargaining, filing complaints when violations are identified, accompanying OSHA representatives during worksite inspections, and participating in the appeals process when employers appeal citations. Labor unions have also advocated for industry-wide improvements and new standards that benefit the entire workforce (Robinson 1991; Brown 2006; Leopold 2007; Slatin 2009; Weinstock and Failey 2014; Delp et al. 2014).

However, the decline in union density, restructured employment relations, and other changes in the nature of work have reshaped the types of hazards workers encounter on the job and eroded the foundations upon which the regulatory framework for safety and health protections was built. Union jobs in the manufacturing sector have been replaced with low-wage nonunion jobs, many in service industries (Hatch and Clinton 2000). Labor market restructuring has led to the decline of a traditional employer-employee relationship and its replacement with various forms of contingent work arrangements (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2006). Misclassification of workers as independent contractors, vertical disaggregation of firms accompanying the rise of network supply chains, and the increasing use of temporary staffing agencies across all sectors have rendered ambiguous employers’ responsibility for mitigating or eliminating hazards and created a means for employers to shirk workplace safety responsibilities (Frumkin 1998; Quinlan 1999; Cummings and Kreiss 2008; Howard 2010; Hatton 2011; Lamare 2011; Fine 2013). ² This “fissuring” of employment relations (Weil 2014) has also undermined labor’s ability to organize and represent workers and has complicated OSHA enforcement efforts. Meanwhile, shifting power dynamics in the workplace have dampened workers’ willingness to speak out about safety concerns. Economic pressures among nonunion and contingent workers to retain work and earn a livable income mean workers are less likely to report unsafe conditions, injuries, and illness if they fear retaliation (Quinlan, Mayhew, and Boyle 2001), while immigrant workers without legal documents confront the additional threat of deportation (Brown, Domenzain, and Villoria-Siegert 2002).

This context presents serious challenges to enforcement of workplace safety and health standards, which relies on accurate data on injuries and illness to direct targeted inspections, an employer entity responsible for complying with standards, and workers’ willingness to report hazards, injuries, and illness and to file complaints. Like many other states, current Cal/OSHA enforcement activities are triggered “in response to … a complaint about a hazard or as part of an inspection program targeting industries which have a high rate of occupational hazards, fatalities, injuries or illnesses.” ³ However, data-driven targeting strategies may be based on flawed data, given evidence of widespread underreporting of injuries and illness (Azaroff, Levenstein, and Wegman 2002; Leigh 2011). Reliance on workers to initiate complaints is similarly problematic. Weil and Pyles (2005) found gaps between the high incidence of injuries and illnesses in key industries and the incidence of complaints filed, indicating that reliance on complaints alone will fail to protect workers.

While mechanisms for workers to have a voice in the regulatory process, the focus of this paper, are highly contested and will not alone solve the problem, they are a critical ingredient of an effective enforcement system (Weil 2006; Yassi et al. 2013). Obstacles to worker participation permeate the system. Azaroff, Levenstein, and Wegman (2002) and Alexander and Prasad (2014) diagram the complex series of steps expected of workers in a regulatory system that is based on accurate reporting of injuries and illness and on worker-initiated complaints and highlight the multiple levels at which legitimate problems may escape the system. Moreover, once an investigation is initiated, worker participation is critical to inspectors’ ability to uncover unsafe processes or faulty equipment that may be out of operation at the time of inspection. In the event of an employer appeal, worker participation is critical to substantiate citations, confirm employer knowledge of a violation (for a willful violation) and verify the abatement of hazards. OSHA gives a “representative authorized by his [sic] employees” the right to participate alongside an employer representative and the OSHA compliance officer in walk-around inspections. ⁴ That right, however, is ambiguous in settings where workers lack union representation. A Federal Standard Interpretation letter issued in 2013 clarified that workers without a collective bargaining agreement are afforded a voice through their right to “authorize a person who is affiliated with a union or community organization to act as their representative under the OSH Act.” Exercise of this right, however, is at the discretion of the inspector. ⁵

These challenges—incomplete data, widespread employer retaliation, frequent employer appeals, and the protracted appeals process—are further exacerbated by resource limitations facing many OSHA programs around the country and outdated standards that do not adequately address risks found in contemporary workplaces (McGarity and Shapiro 1993; Lobel 2005; McGarity et al. 2010; Lewchuk 2013). The resulting crisis in labor standards enforcement within the health and safety realm necessitates further defining worker representation in nonunion settings and creating and testing effective avenues for worker participation absent an authorized collective bargaining representative.

The Southern California Landscape

The challenges facing effective health and safety standards enforcement are especially acute in Southern California due to the size and demographics of the region and the constraints facing Cal/OSHA. The Los Angeles metropolitan area is home to 13.1 million residents and a civilian workforce of 6.6 million—about 60% of the workforce statewide (California Department of Finance 2013; U.S. Census Bureau 2014). The region features a large population of workers in low-wage, nonunion jobs, many of whom are immigrants and people of color. Approximately 17% of LA County workers are employed in the low-wage labor market in industries such as garment manufacturing, domestic service, restaurants and hotels, residential construction, building services, and transportation and warehousing. These workers are predominantly Latino (73.4%), and over half (56.4%) are foreign born and undocumented (Bernhardt et al. 2010). This workforce constitutes a large pool of working poor; about one in four workers in LA County live below twice the federal poverty level, and nearly 30% of full-time workers earned less than $25,000 per year (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy [LAANE] 2009). About one in six workers in Los Angeles and Orange counties (16.5%) is currently represented by unions, with private-sector unionization rates at 9.5%. Union representation dips to 3.2% among hotel and other hospitality workers in the region, 6.5% in manufacturing, and 8.1% in wholesale and retail trade (Adler and Tilly 2014).

A recent study of workers in Los Angeles’ low-wage labor market found widespread violations of labor standards. Almost 30% of workers were paid less than minimum wage in the prior work week, and over three-quarters who worked more than 40 hours for a single employer in a week were not paid overtime. Nearly half of respondents who had made complaints of these violations or attempted to organize reported retaliation from their employer or supervisor as a result. And among workers who had experienced a serious work-related injury within the previous three years, 42% reported they were required to work despite their injury, 30% said their employer refused to help them with the injury, and nearly 13% were fired shortly after the injury. Only 4.3% of these respondents filed a workers’ compensation claim (Bernhardt et al. 2010). Similar results have emerged for low-wage and immigrant workers across industries nationwide (Wallace, Guendelman, and Padilla-Frausto 2007; Zoeckler et al. 2014).

The effectiveness of Cal/OSHA inspections in lowering injury rates in California has been documented (Levine, Toffel, Johnson 2012). ⁶ However, Cal/OSHA resources are severely constrained. While the actual number of compliance officers is disputed (Thompson 2014), the need for additional staff is not. Employers in California face few deterrents to violating standards given an inspector-to-worker ratio of 1:109,000 (Worksafe 2013) and an estimated 179 years needed to inspect each workplace. ⁷ Few Cal/OSHA enforcement field inspectors speak a language other than English ⁸ despite the linguistic diversity of the California workforce and the importance of communicating directly with workers during inspections. ⁹

The constraints of Cal/OSHA enforcement are especially acute in Southern California. Research (Mendeloff and Seabury 2013) demonstrates a markedly lower number of complaint inspections per 1,000 establishments in Southern California counties compared to those in Northern California. A similar disparity in the rate of targeted inspections appeared after controlling for industry. The Labor Employment Task Force is the current iteration of an innovative multi-agency collaboration to confront noncompliance with a range of labor standards in the underground economy; targeting is based on a combination of data and input from stakeholders. ¹⁰ The location of meetings in Northern California, however, precludes consistent participation of worker organizations from southern parts of the state. Given incomplete data to effectively target inspections, multiple obstacles to worker-initiated complaints, and a dearth of inspectors, the Southern California labor-community-university partnership has emerged to advocate for greater government responsiveness to workers in the region, especially those in the large nonunion low-wage labor market.

The Pain Has a Name: Repetitive Motion Injuries among Hotel Housekeepers

Hotel industry restructuring in the 1980s led to consolidation of ownership, a decline in union representation, and cost-cutting strategies such as “lean” staffing (Stuart 2010). Simultaneously, workload demands increased with upgraded luxury amenities. Heavier mattresses, thick down comforters stuffed between sheets, and multiple pillows substantially increased the strain experienced by housekeepers, who are expected to prepare between 16 and 30 rooms per shift. Occupational injury rates among hotel housekeepers, many of whom are immigrant women from Mexico and Central America, now exceed the national service sector average (Krause, Scherzer, and Rugulies 2005; Buchanan et al. 2010).

In response to hotel housekeeper complaints of workplace pain and injury, UNITE HERE developed its “The Pain Has a Name” initiative, a component of the national Hotel Workers Rising Campaign that began in 2005 (Rosskam 2009). The initiative sought to collectively identify and document work-related neck, back, and other musculoskeletal pain among hotel housekeepers across multiple cities (Lee and Baker 2002). In Los Angeles, injured workers’ names and photos were compiled into a colorful quilt by hotel housekeepers and featured in rallies to highlight the personal impact of the excessive workload. UCLA-LOSH, SoCalCOSH, and UNITE HERE conducted education sessions with hotel workers that included using body maps to collectively identify patterns of injury and reviewing OSHA-mandated Logs of Injuries and Illnesses and Incident Reporting Forms at hotels of concern.

In a common strategy to dampen worker reporting of injuries and illness, the LAX Hilton responded to reports of injuries with a new program described in a March 14, 2007, memo from hotel management to “The Families of All Our Team Members”:

To emphasize our concern for safety, we are introducing a new injury prevention awards program. Every month you will have the chance to win money or prizes, if you are injury-free. Some month the prizes will be items that are designed to be enjoyed in your home, or by your children. Most months the prizes will be money. Our intent is to encourage everyone to think about safety. … Your potential rewards will be greatest in those months when no injuries occur. (Emphasis in original memo)

Partners created a factsheet to counter the pressure on workers at LAX Hilton not to report injuries, and after extensive review of medical records and worker interviews, two nonunion, immigrant women housekeepers submitted a Cal/OSHA complaint in person signed by them and by the SoCalCOSH coordinator who accompanied them to submit the complaint. While researchers and workers had documented back and other disabling musculoskeletal injuries (Lee and Krause 2002; Krause, Scherzer, and Rugulies 2005), applying Cal/OSHA’s repetitive motion injury (RMI) prevention standard ¹⁴ to this worksite was challenging due to the standard’s restricted scope; that is, it does not require employers to comply with protective measures until two or more workers performing the same task sustain and report, within a one-year period, an RMI that is diagnosed as an RMI and as predominantly work related by a licensed physician. Workers’ active participation in the process at every step of the way laid the groundwork for Cal/OSHA to successfully enforce the standard at LAX Hilton. Six months after the initial complaint was submitted, Cal/OSHA issued the first citation in the hotel industry for violations of its RMI standard. The support of community, university, and labor advocates provided opportunities to educate and mobilize workers about hazards, permitting them to access a regulatory system not easily navigated by workers. ¹⁵

Significance: Using the Cal/OSHA enforcement mechanism in the context of a largely nonunion, female, immigrant workforce in an industry of importance in Southern California proved daunting and was possible only through the partnership that educated workers, supported worker complainants, and included SoCalCOSH as a third-party designee in the investigation. Housekeepers from LAX Hilton were engaged throughout the entire two-year-long process, reviewing injury data and medical records, filing the complaint, and meeting with Cal/OSHA representatives before, during, and after the inspection. They also obtained party status as “affected employees” when their employer appealed the citations, allowing them to be at the table with Cal/OSHA and their employer—to share their expertise, provide collective input gathered from their coworkers about changes needed to prevent future injuries, and express concerns about the accuracy and hazard-reduction potential of the employer’s proposed abatement plan. Efforts continue by workers at the hotel to confront other labor standards violations. A $2.5 million lawsuit victory in 2012 focused on wage theft, including missed meal and rest breaks, which contribute to the causation of strain injuries.

The outcomes of this case have implications in the broader occupational health and safety regulatory arena, as California is the only state in the country with a standard, albeit weak, to address pervasive and debilitating musculoskeletal disorders. ¹⁶ The groundbreaking citation at LAX Hilton affirmed the employer’s responsibility to protect hotel housekeepers under the RMI standard, a feat even in unionized workplaces and more so in this nonunion setting. It also laid the groundwork for future housekeeper OSHA complaints that resulted in Cal/OSHA information memos issued to two Los Angeles–area Hyatt Hotels in 2011, identifying bed making and on-knees floor cleaning as RMI risk factors. Later, in 2012, Federal OSHA issued a letter to the Hyatt Corporation detailing strikingly specific ergonomic guidelines, building on and extending the Cal/OSHA housekeeper memos by adding laundry and banquet departments and broadening its application to all Hyatt Hotels based in part on emerging research (Buchanan et al. 2010; Ohio State University 2010). The letter also stipulated that worker representatives, such as UNITE HERE, must be invited to participate in Hyatt’s request to form an OSHA-Hyatt Alliance. And it reminded the hotel corporation of its recordkeeping responsibilities for job-related injuries and illnesses at hotels where Hyatt directly supervises contracted or seasonal employees, an increasing trend in the hospitality industry.

The LAX Hilton case also highlighted the use of employer safety incentives that effectively discourage workers from reporting injuries, increasingly common across industries in union and nonunion settings alike. Federal OSHA ultimately responded to this and similar cases with a 2012 memo denouncing the practice on the grounds that such incentives put the entire workforce at risk. ¹⁷ Most recently, the challenges applying the RMI standard in the LAX Hilton case and subsequent housekeeper complaints led UNITE HERE in 2012 to petition the California Occupational Safety and Health Board for a housekeeper injury prevention standard. The Cal/OSHA Hotel Housekeeping Advisory Committee released a working draft of proposed language for such a standard in early 2014 ¹⁸ and received comments from stakeholders. Members of a growing community-labor-university partnership await the next steps in this rulemaking process, supporting housekeepers in their fight to prevent injuries at work.

Carwasheros and the CLEAN Carwash Campaign

In contrast to the national hotel chains described in the previous case study, the carwash industry comprises small single-owner establishments. In Los Angeles, approximately 500 carwashes employ an estimated 10,000 workers, predominantly male Latino immigrants, the majority of whom lack legal documents (Garea and Stern 2010). The work is fast paced, with workers frequently exposed to caustic chemicals, heat, heavy machinery, and poor sanitation. Violations of state wage and hour laws and other forms of worker exploitation have been well documented within the industry, and employers have threatened termination and deportation against workers who attempt to speak out. Headlines such as “Carwash supervisor wields machete, LA City attorney wields charges” (Cal/OSHA Reporter 2009), while not common, nonetheless reflect an atmosphere in the industry that is not conducive to individual workers stepping forward to report hazards to their employer or to a government agency.

In 2008, the Community-Labor-Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) emerged, supported by a coalition to advance the “CLEAN Carwash Agreement,” designed to create an industry standard for wages, working conditions, and the right to organize. Simultaneously, the United Steelworkers Union supported worker organizing among carwasheros; worker education focused on rights, and collective action and advocacy confronted wage theft. The campaign soon expanded to include the right to safe jobs through partnership with UCLA-LOSH and the Instituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA).

LOSH and IDEPSCA involvement brought a combination of technical expertise about chemical hazards and a popular-education approach to the campaign. Through hazard-mapping activities, workers collectively identified, mapped, and prioritized hazards that were affecting their health and formed a health and safety committee to strategize across worksites. A series of Train the Trainer and leadership development courses prepared committee members and other worker-leaders to educate their peers about their rights and to collaborate with OHIP interns to gather data about “mystery” chemicals causing skin rash and respiratory problems. In 2010, CLEAN staff and worker-leaders participated in a UCLA-LOSH Train the Trainer Heat Illness Prevention program to educate workers about their rights under Cal/OSHA’s standard (Riley et al. 2012). They adapted outreach and education tools for their peers, modified water bottles to include labels with information about prevention strategies and workers’ rights under the California standard, and produced an educational comic book and heat illness–related skit. The campaign reached about 1,000 workers, many of whom began to monitor their worksites with the assistance of interns to assess compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements to provide agua, sombra, y descanso (water, shade, and rest) and to document employer violations.

Early in the campaign, it was clear that many carwash owners were out of compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations. Three initial complaints submitted in 2008 against targeted owners alleged violations of basic health and safety standards that prevent exposure to chemical, electrical, and heat hazards and that require protective equipment and Injury and Illness Prevention Programs. Campaign leaders compiled data generated through hazard-mapping activities and research into chemical and safety hazards, integrating it into a series of detailed Cal/OSHA complaints. The complaints were signed by representatives from CLEAN and SoCalCOSH as well as workers (who requested that Cal/OSHA keep their names confidential) and were submitted in person by workers and advocates from partner organizations.

The resulting citations were in large part due to the persistence of CLEAN representatives who participated as third-party worker representatives throughout the process—from the initial stages of filing the complaint through the inspection and citation and a protracted series of appeals. With legal support from a Worksafe attorney, worker representatives negotiated settlement conditions that required employers to provide protective equipment and to contract with an outside party to ensure quality training about chemical hazards.

Significance: The CLEAN Carwash Campaign’s health and safety activities are embedded in a comprehensive approach to wage theft and health and safety labor standards violations in an industry characterized by vulnerable workers and small, dispersed businesses. The strategy combines grassroots efforts to engage worker-leaders in uncovering flagrant violations with participation in the enforcement to support high-profile citations that create a deterrent effect in the industry. The success of the campaign has been possible through the collective and sustained efforts of partners. With support from UCLA-LOSH, SoCalCOSH, and Worksafe, the campaign has educated and mentored worker-leaders, providing them with the confidence and expertise to engage in all stages of the enforcement process. The information and guidance that workers and advocates provide to Cal/OSHA officials has been critical to effective enforcement.

Meanwhile, workers at more than 20 carwashes in Los Angeles, and now San Diego and Northern California, have voted for a voice in their working conditions through union representation with the United Steelworkers Union. They subsequently negotiated collectively bargained agreements that sustain and go beyond what was achieved through hazard-specific settlements negotiated as part of the Cal/OSHA appeals process. The agreements require employers to furnish protective equipment, establish and implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program, provide training for all workers concerning workplace hazards and safe work practices, and abide by other federal and state laws respecting occupational health and safety. They also prohibit employers from retaliating against workers who speak up about hazards, participate on union health and safety committees, or refuse unsafe work assignments, a particularly important protection to address workers’ reality in this industry.

Warehouse Worker Campaign: Disposable Workers along the Goods Movement Supply Chain

The counties of San Bernardino and Riverside in Southern California—known collectively as the “Inland Empire”—are home to the largest concentration of warehouse facilities in the world. These warehouses serve as a critical link in the global movement of goods; products from overseas manufacturers are imported through the massive Los Angeles/Long Beach ports complex and make their way to these facilities where they are stored, sorted, and repackaged for distribution to major retail chains around the country. The estimated 100,000 workers in these facilities are employed as forklift operators, packers, shipping and receiving clerks, stock clerks, and order fillers and are often hired through temporary staffing agencies. Estimates of temp worker employment in the industry range from 15 to 30% (DeLara 2013).

Work-related hazards in warehouse facilities include exposure to chemicals, diesel exhaust, and dust; fast-paced repetitive jobs such as scanning and packaging; falls and falling objects; dangerous machinery; extreme temperatures; and production pressures to move heavy pallets of goods quickly. In addition, temporary employment arrangements have resulted in unclear employer responsibilities regarding training, protective equipment, and other health and safety requirements, while temp workers themselves experience pressure not to report injuries in a context where many feel disposable (Warehouse Workers United and Cornelio 2011).

The warehouse worker health and safety campaign integrated popular education, peer-led research, and development of worker-leaders through a collaboration between Warehouse Workers United (WWU), Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice, UCLA-LOSH, and Worksafe. UCLA-LOSH developed a worker health and safety education program in 2010, training 20 current and former worker-leaders in an extensive 24-hour curriculum and guiding them with the development of a peer worker education and community outreach program. A key component of the program included assessing workplace hazards of concern; the 20-member worker team, WWU, and UCLA-LOSH staff developed a 52-question assessment tool to document hazards and work-related injuries and illness through interviews with over 100 current workers. A report of the results was subsequently distributed at a Community Accountability Commission meeting in 2011 and at a 2012 hearing about contingent work sponsored by the California State Assembly on Labor and Employment and the California State Federation of Labor.

Survey findings also laid the groundwork for a series of Cal/OSHA complaints. OHIP students placed with WWU and mentored by UCLA-LOSH compiled the worker team’s survey results and researched Cal/OSHA regulations to determine if hazards violated existing standards. WWU identified warehouse workers with health and safety concerns and assisted them in developing the Cal/OSHA complaints. The first complaint submitted in 2011 named both the warehouse operator and temp staffing agency. Two key worker-leaders were fired; one was subsequently recalled to work after workers protested outside the facility, and the other was ultimately hired as an organizer for the campaign. The resulting groundbreaking citations, summing over $250,000 in fines, held both employers jointly responsible for failing to protect workers from excessive indoor heat and other serious hazards. A complaint asserting violations of health and safety standards at another warehouse facility that shipped exclusively for Walmart was submitted by WWU in May 2012. The 16 worker signatories had participated in training and role-plays, spoken with the inspector offsite, and were prepared to point out hazards in their respective work areas during the investigation. Cal/OSHA issued citations later that year asserting joint employer responsibility for more than 60 violations with penalties exceeding $60,000. ¹⁹

Significance: A review of the citations against warehouse facilities in the Inland Empire demonstrates the value of worker involvement in identifying violations. Citations were issued for exposure to chemical, safety, heat, and unsafe machinery hazards and for lack of protective equipment—all issues identified through peer-led worker interviews. Citations were supported by worker engagement in documenting hazards, speaking with inspectors during walk-around investigations, and testifying during appeals hearings. This case also raised questions about the applicability of the Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention standard, given its limited scope to cover only outdoor workers. Warehouse workers’ testimony about strenuous work unloading containers in triple-digit temperatures and inside warehouses with no air conditioning provided the basis for citations of excessive heat exposure under both the heat standard and Cal/OSHA requirements that employers maintain an effective Injury Illness Prevention Program. The challenge of citing hazards for which specific standards do not exist emerged in this case; to date, all citations and penalties appealed by one or both of the dual employers have been settled with the exception of this citation.

The WWU made a decision to file each complaint against all conceivable employment entities, challenging the industry’s strategy of shifting responsibility for workers to other employers. They provided crucial information to Cal/OSHA regarding the employment structure of the warehouse industry and day-to-day supervision inside the workplace. This information enabled the agency to hold both warehouse operators and temporary staffing agencies jointly responsible for controlling hazards under Cal/OSHA’s dual-employer policy and procedures. ²⁰ The resulting citations, beginning in 2011, signaled to warehouse operators the agency’s intolerance of employers who turn to temporary staffing agencies as a means to avoid health and safety liability. A recent citation likewise signaled the agency’s expectation that employers will abate hazards. ²¹ Based on worker reports, Cal/OSHA issued a failure to abate notification with a penalty of more than $300,000 in response to a WWU complaint alleging a lack of foot protection, a violation that had been previously cited by the agency. This series of complaints and ongoing communication between WWU and Cal/OSHA has resulted in the agency’s recognizing the high-hazard nature of the warehouse industry and in attention to the undue risks facing temp workers hired through this employment structure.

Somos Humanos, No Somos Basura: Waste Hauling/Recycling Workers

The City of Los Angeles generates in excess of 10 million tons of trash per year, a large proportion of which makes its way to waste-recycling facilities throughout the region. Workers at these facilities sort recyclable items from nonrecyclable waste, ultimately contributing to municipal efforts to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills and incinerators. Much of the work in these facilities is conducted by hand, with workers’ laboring at long conveyor belts. The potential for hazardous materials to make their way along these conveyor belts combined with improper machine maintenance and inadequate personal protective equipment has raised concerns about the health and safety of workers at these facilities, many of whom are Latino immigrants.

In 2010, LAANE convened a broad-based labor-community-environment coalition to support a “Don’t Waste LA” (DWLA) campaign with a multipronged approach that includes outreach, education, organizing, and policy change. The campaign sought to increase the proportion of Los Angeles waste diverted to recycling facilities while simultaneously improving conditions for workers in those facilities. In 2011, LAANE reached out to UCLA-LOSH, SoCalCOSH, and the LA County Federation of Labor to research workplace hazards and educate waste-recycling workers. OHIP student interns supervised by UCLA-LOSH interviewed sorters and drivers at waste recycling facilities throughout the region, and representatives from the three partner organizations educated workers to map hazards at their worksites and to practice, through role-plays, talking to a Cal/OSHA inspector.

Building on these research and education efforts, workers decided to contact Cal/OSHA. SoCalCOSH ultimately submitted a complaint to the agency cosigned by eight current and former workers from a waste collection and sorting facility. Representatives from the cosigners submitted the complaint in person to the Cal/OSHA district manager, and SoCalCOSH convened offsite meetings between workers and inspectors with the support of health and safety staff at the LA County Federation of Labor. In 2012, Cal/OSHA issued citations to three employers—the waste hauler, recycling facility operator, and temp staffing agency—for violating standards to protect workers from unguarded machines, unsanitary conditions, confined space and heat hazards, and health and safety program requirements.

During the campaign, a key worker-leader and signatory to the complaint was fired on trumped-up charges, and two of the three employers appealed the citations. SoCalCOSH representatives obtained third-party status and included the fired worker in the appeals process and settlement hearings. This proved critical as she was able to educate the Cal/OSHA attorney about the hazards facing sorters in the recycling facility, rebut employer assertions that workers had been “prepped” to invent hazards to convey to the inspector, and by maintaining contact with current workers, refute inaccurate employer testimony that hazards had been abated. Ultimately the case was settled with some, but not all, improvements in workplace conditions. Now hired as a Teamsters organizer, the former worker brings firsthand experience with the Cal/OSHA enforcement process to her job. After two years, she won her National Labor Relations Board retaliation case and became eligible for work authorization through her successful application for consideration under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. ²² The case she filed with DLSE, the state agency responsible for investigating cases of worker retaliation, is still pending.

Significance: As with warehouses, the waste recycling industry is another example of enforcement challenges in multiemployer settings as Cal/OSHA was forced to determine which employer entity controlled workplace conditions for which workers and then respond to appeals from two of the employers. Citations were ultimately issued against all three employer entities for specific violations, again demonstrating the agency’s intent to hold multiple employers responsible for worker health and safety.

This case illustrates the very real threat of employer retaliation, the vulnerability of workers without legal documents, and the constraints and protracted legal process of a system theoretically designed to assist workers who have experienced retaliation. However, as with the other cases, it also demonstrates the remarkable courage and tenacity of workers and the value of cross-campaign support and knowledge-sharing that the Southern California partnership has been able to foster. During a popular education session with waste-recycling workers who were preparing their Cal/OSHA complaint, role-play activities about the Cal/OSHA process generated consternation about talking to government agency representatives, especially among sorters who were immigrants. A CLEAN campaign advocate and a carwash worker who participated in the training described their earlier experiences with Cal/OSHA, allaying some of the fears in the room while preparing workers for the realities of the process. CLEAN and other campaign representatives were similarly present at meetings where employer retaliation was addressed with representatives from Cal/OSHA and DLSE, urging greater interagency collaboration and DLSE responsiveness in the event of retaliation.

At a regional policy level, the DWLA coalition achieved recent success as the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance supported by DWLA to revamp the waste-hauling franchise system to ensure that haulers exercise greater responsibility over working conditions along the waste stream, requiring successful bidders to develop effective health and safety programs to identify and correct the hazards in waste-processing facilities. This policy initiative will sustain and extend workers’ rights and protections across this key industry.

Airline Service Workers at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

Mechanics, ramp operators, cargo handlers, and other “below-the-wing” airline service workers at LAX endure dangerous working conditions related to fast-moving tugs and conveyor belts, high noise levels, and exposure to diesel exhaust and jet fumes. They also work in outdoor heat and other adverse environmental conditions. While workers in these job classifications were once employed directly by airlines and protected under union contracts, industry restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in most such jobs’ being contracted out to private nonunion firms. Today, most below-the-wing workers at LAX are Latino immigrants and African Americans employed by large contracting firms at a fraction of the wages offered three decades ago.

In 2012, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Service Workers West (USWW) launched a campaign to improve conditions for airline service workers, connecting the campaign to larger questions about the appropriate management of the city-operated Los Angeles World Airports (which oversees operations at LAX and other airports in the region) and its vision for a modern international airport for the twenty-first century. Of particular concern was the failure of LAX to monitor safety conditions at its terminals and its reluctance to penalize contractor companies for failure to comply with health and safety regulations.

UCLA-LOSH recruited OHIP students who were placed with SEIU-USWW to research hazards and Cal/OSHA standards that might apply to this work setting and develop a survey in English and Spanish for workers to document violations. The union trained worker-leaders to administer the survey over subsequent months and gathered sufficient evidence to submit a Cal/OSHA complaint against Menzies Aviation, one of the largest aviation contractors with a significant presence at airports throughout the West Coast. SoCalCOSH and the LA County Federation of Labor assisted union representatives in their role as third-party participants on the complaint and during the inspection process. In 2013, Cal/OSHA issued citations and fines totaling $94,550 against Menzies Aviation for numerous violations including one cited as willful; that is, the contractor was aware of the hazard and failed to comply with the standard.

Significance: Worker engagement in documenting hazards at terminal worksites and worker advocate involvement in the complaints and inspection process were influential in providing sufficient evidence to Cal/OSHA to substantiate their determination of a willful violation. The LA County Federation of Labor, Worksafe, and UCLA-LOSH continued to support SEIU-USWW efforts to educate workers and engage them in the subsequent appeals process. The death of a cargo handler at LAX in February 2014 who was employed by Menzies further spurred the union to expand its campaign around health and safety for this vulnerable workforce. Partners highlighted the fatality during annual Workers’ Memorial Day events, with the worker’s family members participating in a press conference in front of Los Angeles City Hall. In August 2014, Cal/OSHA cited Menzies an additional $77,250 for five safety violations, four of which were designated as serious. ²³