Safety Talks

Interloc

Ya that happens,around here the employee and employer git it...IMO there a waste of money,..personally i think it should be employers responsibilty to make sure employee has his own ins.then there covered 24/7 the rest is just 95% common sense...and yes there is accidents but thats where ins. pays off...

Grumpy

Then what would happen is the employee, who is now a sub contractor since he has his own insurance, would get a policy but then because it's cheaper he would exempt himself. He'd provide you with a certificate of insurance showing he has insurance, you'd provide that at your insurance audit, and you'd now be exempt from paying insurance on him... all is fine and well until he falls off the roof. His insurance doesn't cover it because he's exempt, then the lawyers get involved, you get sued and in turn refer it to your insurance... And then Canada becomes the United States becsause that seems to be how 99% of United States roofing companies seem to operate.

I feel the employer should be responsible for the insurance, like you said, that way you know the worker is covered. But it's expensive, that's why people look for loop holes. I also think negligent employers should be responsible for fines if there is an injury or unsafe working enviroment. But at the same time an employer who can prove their commitment to safety with documented safety meetings, documented internal safety write-ups etc... should have some degree of protection against a negligent employee who knows the rules but chooses to ignore.

Around here get caught without the proper fall protection? $5,000 fine. That opens up a can of worms. 2nd offense? Well double it. Have a written safety manual? NO, 5k fine. Have documented weekly safety meetings? No, $5k fine. At the end of the day one offense can cost upwards for $20k or more. However if you have the documentation to prove you carry safety meetings, have a safety manual, and your employee was trained on the specific offense and he was negligent, not you, I have heard tale of OSHA throwing away those citations/fines. We got tagged once, and out of 4 citations they dismissed all but one and we negotiated that down to less than half what they originally were asking.

__________________
-Grumpy
Chicago Gutters Chicago Roofing

Interloc

This would be part of employers responsibilty to make sure there not exempt. Theres guys here who do have ins. and there covered at work/play 24/7 and they dont have to deal with WCB. You get some pencil pushing office geek showing up on jobs telling ya how to run the show,its a joke and a waste,just another way for the govt. to get money from us.IMO

RooferJim

I agree with you interloc, just another way to get in your wallett.

Grumpy

I'm not sure if you are saying the employer should pay for the insurance or the worker should pay for the insurance. I'm also assuming we are talkign GL/WC when we use the word "insurance". Can you clarify?

Over here, there are way way too many loop holes if the worker gets his own WC and GL.

__________________
-Grumpy
Chicago Gutters Chicago Roofing

Interloc

I'm saying that the responsibilty of employer is to make sure employee has his own non exempt insurance, and the employee should have to sign something that clearly states that he is going on roof and takes full responsibilty of any injuries,which if he has his insurance he'll be alrite finacially,hopefully its not a bad fall,but as i've said before safety is 95% common sense...