Search Our Site

March 10, 2026 Milwaukee — Inconsistent training and pedestrian-forklift interactions top the list of dock operator safety challenges, according to a  new report  from Rite-Hite. The manufacturer of loading dock equipment and other in-plant products commissioned a survey of 168 facility managers, operations leaders and safety professionals across multiple industries throughout North America. Its aim: Provide peer benchmarking data to help dock operators evaluate their facility’s performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Nearly 1 out of 5 respondents cited worker turnover and inconsistent training (19%) or pedestrian/forklift interactions or vehicle impact risks (19%) as the biggest safety challenge faced by their dock team. Those were followed by: Pressure to maintain throughput while ensuring safety (18%) Lack of visibility into trend data (16%) Near misses not reported or tracked (14%) Equipment overrides or noncompliance with procedures (8%) The report features a self-assessment for facility operators and recommendations for safety managers. “We designed this report to help you benchmark your operation, identify gaps and learn from peers who are making meaningful progress.” Rite-Hite CEO Micaela Bomhack says in the report. “Whether you’re just beginning to track key metrics or already investing in connected equipment, I hope these insights provide clarity and confidence as you plan your next steps.”

March 3, 2026 LAKE WORTH, FL  – The U.S. Department of Labor has cited a Land O’ Lakes-based petroleum tank services contractor for exposing workers to chemical and respiratory hazards after an employee was fatally exposed to benzene and toluene when they entered a fuel storage tank at a Lake Worth worksite in July 2025. Investigators with the department’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  cited PCE Petroleum Contractors Enterprises Inc. with 12 serious violations for failing to develop and implement a written  permit-required space entry program , ensure those authorized to enter the space knew the hazards, and signs or symptoms of exposure. The agency also cited the employer for allowing employees to enter a confined space without an atmospheric evaluation or a required permit, not having a written respiratory program for workers required to wear full-face respirators, and not implementing a hazard communication program when exposed to chemicals.  OSHA proposed $60,242 in penalties. PCE Petroleum Contractors Enterprises Inc. has contested the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Penalties and citations may be adjusted throughout the course of the case process.

March 9, 2026 New analysis from Traceone finds 5.6 violations per 100,000 workers. Where U.S. Employers Fail to Warn Workers About Chemical Dangers Millions of U.S. workers handle, store, or work near hazardous chemicals every day—from cleaning solvents and industrial adhesives to flammable gases and corrosive substances. Without proper training, clear labeling, and accessible safety data sheets, employees may not fully understand the health risks they face, including respiratory illness, chemical burns, or fire and explosion hazards. Federal regulators and occupational health experts widely view hazard communication as a foundational component of workplace safety because it determines whether workers have the information needed to protect themselves. To address these risks, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established the Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom) in 1983. Often referred to as the “right-to-know” rule, the standard requires employers to classify chemical hazards, label containers, maintain safety data sheets, and train workers on safe handling procedures. Yet more than four decades after its adoption, HazCom remains one of OSHA’s most frequently cited workplace safety standards, indicating persistent compliance gaps across industries and regions. To identify where U.S. employers are failing to warn workers about chemical dangers,  Trace One —an SDS, regulatory compliance, and PLM software company serving the chemicals, food & beverage, and cosmetics sectors—analyzed OSHA enforcement data from 2021 through 2025. The analysis investigates which states and industries account for the most HazCom violations, as well as how these citation trends have evolved over time. Key Findings HazCom violations remain widespread nationwide.  OSHA recorded 36,984 Hazard Communication violations from 2021–2025, equal to 5.6 violations per 100,000 workers. Maryland leads the nation in total HazCom violations.  There were 4,370 violations during the 2021–2025 period, equal to 39.0 violations per 100,000 workers, one of the highest rates in the country. Manufacturing and construction account for half of all HazCom violations.  Manufacturing recorded 10,021 violations and construction reported 8,678, together making up 50.6% of all HazCom citations nationwide during the five-year period. Inspection rates vary significantly by industry.  The construction industry is by far the most highly-inspected sector, accounting for 42.8% of all inspections. HazCom violations have declined substantially since their peak.  Citations reached 37,134 in 1989 and fell to 6,130 in 2025, declining 83.5% over that period. Which Industries Have the Most Hazard Communication Violations? The manufacturing and construction industries account for more than half of all HazCom violations in the U.S. HazCom violations are heavily concentrated in a small number of industries. From 2021 to 2025, the manufacturing industry recorded 10,021 violations—the highest total of any sector—followed by the construction industry with 8,678 violations. Together, these two sectors account for 50.6% of all HazCom violations nationwide during the five-year period. The next tier of industries reported significantly lower totals, including Accommodation & Food Services (2,189 violations), Retail Trade (2,005), and Public Administration (1,756), while sectors with less frequent exposure to chemical hazards, such as Finance & Insurance (13) and Information (81), recorded comparatively few citations. Inspection totals provide additional context.  OSHA  does not inspect workplaces solely on a fixed schedule. Instead, the agency prioritizes inspections based on imminent danger situations, severe injuries or fatalities, and formal complaints—many of which originate from employees or labor representatives. In addition, 22 states and jurisdictions operate OSHA-approved  State Plan   programs that conduct their own inspections and share enforcement data with federal OSHA. From 2021 to 2025, OSHA conducted 150,832 inspections in construction, more than twice the 64,971 inspections in manufacturing, reflecting construction’s size and risk profile. Yet despite this heightened scrutiny, only 2.5% of construction inspections resulted in at least one HazCom violation—one of the lowest rates among major industries. By contrast, 8.8% of manufacturing inspections led to a violation, suggesting that while construction is inspected more frequently, manufacturing inspections are more likely to uncover HazCom deficiencies. Read more

March 9, 2026 Chicago — More construction workplace injuries occur around 9 a.m. than at any other time of the day, according to an analysis conducted by construction safety software provider HammerTech. That insight, gained from a review of more than 75,000 construction incidents that occurred from 2018 to 2024, was published in Hammertech’s  Safety at Scale 2025: Construction Insights from the Field  report. “It’s not an overwhelming spike,” the report states about the 9 a.m. statistic, “but it’s consistent enough to warrant attention. This timing generally sits just after site start-up, when crews are mobilized, work has ramped up and early planning is giving way to physical tasks. In many regions, it also coincides with the first scheduled break. “The data doesn’t tell us why, but could prompt practical questions: If risk is predictably higher at this point, could teams adjust supervision, scheduling or communications to help offset it? As with all patterns in this report, the value lies less in the number itself and more in what it might reveal about the conditions surrounding it.” Another insight: three “injury mechanisms” comprised more than 60% of the injuries: Striking objects with a part of the body (33%) Being hit by moving objects (17%) Falls on the same level (13%) In addition, the number of injuries relative to the number of incidents decreased 23% from 2018 to 2024. “Site safety is never static,” the report states. “It’s shaped by thousands of daily decisions, countless processes and the lived experiences of everyone onsite. By drawing on years of usage data from the global HammerTech community, this report aims to make these trends more visible. “These trends do not prescribe what must happen next but help give contractors the clarity and confidence to ask the questions to deliver most impact. Whether it’s refining morning briefings, focusing training or targeting investments, the goal is the same: to ensure everyone gets home safely at the end of the day.”

March 6, 2026 The Fifth Circuit recently  reaffirmed  an important limitation on overtime liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): an employer is not liable for unpaid overtime unless it  knew or should have known  that the employee was working overtime. This rule extends to situations where a worker was misclassified as an independent contractor, instead of an employee. Employers should take note of the Fifth Circuit’s decision and its effect on overtime hours, especially those who hire independent contractors, particularly in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Jerry Merritt worked as an Agency Manager for Texas Farm Bureau (TFB), overseeing insurance agents across multiple agencies. TFB classified Merritt as an independent contractor and paid him on commission rather than hourly wages. Merritt controlled his own schedule, decided how many hours to work, and was not required to track or report his time. TFB did not supervise his daily activities or monitor hours worked. Merritt sued TFB under the FLSA, alleging he had been misclassified as an independent contractor and was owed unpaid overtime. The district court summarily agreed that Merritt should have been classified as an employee and that he had worked at least 816 hours of overtime. The sole issue for trial was whether TFB had notice of that overtime work. Following jury arguments, the jury found that TFB lacked both actual and constructive knowledge of Merritt’s overtime. Merritt challenged this finding, but it was denied. The district court denied Merritt’s post‑trial motions, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit assumed that the district court correctly decided that Merritt was  not  an independent contractor, but an employee. Further, TFB and Merritt agreed that, throughout his employment, Merritt was paid on commission with no obligation to report hours worked. 1. Misclassification Alone Does Not Create Overtime Liability Even though the Fifth Circuit proceeded on the assumption that Merritt was misclassified as an independent contractor, the court emphasized that FLSA overtime liability still requires proof that the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the overtime work performed. Allowing an employee to work flexible or unlimited hours does not automatically establish employer knowledge of overtime. 2. No Timekeeping System Does Not Equal Constructive Knowledge Merritt argued on appeal that TFB’s failure to maintain a timekeeping system amounted to constructive knowledge of his overtime. The court rejected this argument, holding that the absence of a timekeeping system does not, by itself, show a lack of reasonable diligence by the employer. Constructive knowledge exists where an employer could have discovered overtime through reasonable diligence. Those facts were not present here: because Merritt worked independently, without direct daily supervision, and in a different location from TFB management, and because TFB did not require Merritt to track his time, nor pay him hourly, TFB had no reason to conceptualize his work in terms of overtime hours. 3. Employee Has a Duty to Notify Employer of Overtime The Fifth Circuit also upheld the district court’s jury instruction stating that an employee has a duty to notify the employer when working extra hours. The instruction tracked the Fifth Circuit’s pattern jury instructions and Merritt did not cite any authority to support his argument that the jury charge incorrectly cited Fifth Circuit law. Practical Takeaways for Employers This decision provides helpful guidance for employers, particularly those with highly autonomous or commission‑based roles. Practical takeaways include:  Even where an employee is misclassified, overtime liability depends on proof that the employer knew or should have known about the overtime work. Employees who set their own schedules, work off‑site, and do not report hours make it more difficult to establish employer knowledge. The absence of a timekeeping system, by itself, does not automatically create constructive knowledge. Employers should ensure that employees understand how and when to report overtime if it occurs and remind them to notify payroll or a supervisor if overtime hours are unpaid. Merritt v. Texas Farm Bureau  confirms that FLSA overtime claims remain fact‑intensive and that misclassification alone does not guarantee liability. Employers who allow flexibility and autonomy may still successfully defend overtime claims where they lack knowledge of the work performed.

March 6, 2026 Cannabis can’t qualify as reasonable and necessary medical treatment under the Longshore Harbor and Workers’ Compensation Act because it remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Growing acceptance of cannabis having some medicinal value — and an apparent willingness of the federal government to entertain rescheduling — are irrelevant in Luis Peña Garcia’s request for reimbursement for edibles recommended to treat chronic pain, according to  Luis Peña Garcia v. Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs et al. All that matters is that Schedule I drugs have no accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the court ruled, writing that “(f)ederal law thus categorically bars marijuana from being deemed a reasonable and necessary medical expense for the purposes of the LHWCA.” Mr. Peña Garcia is permanently and totally disabled after injuring his neck, back and upper and lower extremities in May 1994. The Department of Labor in 1998 ordered his former employer, Calzadilla Construction Corp., and its insurer, IMS Insurance Co. of Puerto Rico, to provide medical care and treatment pursuant to the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. In 2019, a doctor treating Mr. Peña Garcia said he responded well to edibles and that they were one of the few treatments that worked well to manage his pain at night. Later that year, Mr. Peña Garcia asked IMS to reimburse him for payments made for cannabis-infused edibles. The insurer denied the request, and the Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges held that cannabis is a Schedule I drug that has no accepted medical use and cannot be a reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The department’s Benefits Review Board affirmed. On appeal, the 2nd COA said Mr. Peña Garcia’s argument that medical cannabis is a reasonable and necessary treatment for his pain is foreclosed by the plain text of the Controlled Substances Act, which says Schedule I substances, including cannabis, have no currently accepted medical use. The appellate court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in  Gonzales v. Raich  similarly held that the effect of the federal scheduling of cannabis shows that there are currently no accepted medical uses. The court was not persuaded that the references in congressional riders to “medical marijuana” require a different decision because the riders don’t address whether the drug is a reasonable and necessary medical expense for federal workers’ compensation programs. Whether some states allow cannabis to be used for medical purposes is irrelevant to questions about federal law, the court said. Similarly, whether reimbursement for cannabis would violate the prohibition on possession or distribution is also immaterial. The fact that Congress has allowed research into medical uses of cannabis demonstrates only a willingness to explore whether medical value exists and does not denote a congressional finding that the drug has legitimate medical uses. And, while President Donald Trump in December signed an executive order directing the attorney general to take steps to move cannabis to Schedule III, the drug remains a Schedule I substance today. “It may very well be the case that the federal government will at some point — perhaps even in the near future — remove marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA,” the court said. “But that is a decision for the political branches of the federal government, not for the judiciary. This court is obliged to apply the law as it currently stands.”

March 5, 2026 Workplace safety is a core priority for every organization that cares about its people and its performance. Many employers talk about safety and display slogans like  Safety First  or  Zero Harm  in their break rooms. These messages can be helpful in setting expectations. However simply saying safety matters is not enough in most workplaces. To truly protect workers and prevent incidents, employers need both an intentional  safety culture  and a robust  safety management system  that guides daily operations, processes and decisions. What safety culture really means Safety culture refers to the shared perceptions, values and attitudes that people in an organization hold about safety. It is how workers and leaders view risks and how they act on those perceptions every day. In essence, safety culture reflects whether safety is integrated into work practices or simply treated as a slogan. A strong safety culture makes safe behaviors the norm and encourages workers to speak up about hazards. It involves leadership visibly supporting safety, employees feeling responsible for their own and others’ well-being, and proactive communication about risks. When these elements are present in daily work, safety becomes part of  how work is done , not just what is written in a manual. Why slogans alone fall short Many organizations fall into the trap of focusing on motivational statements rather than measurable actions. These slogans can create a perception of concern for safety without delivering real changes in risk control or outcomes. Without structured systems behind them, slogans can feel empty to frontline workers and fail to drive measurable improvements. Workplace safety guidance emphasizes that phrases like  Zero Harm  or  Safety First  are merely starting points unless they are backed by concrete expectations, procedures and support mechanisms. When safety is seen only as a value but is not supported by systems that help people manage risk, organizations often revert to compliance-only thinking. This can lead to a reactive approach to incidents where hazards are fixed only after harm occurs instead of being prevented in the first place. What a safety management system does A  safety management system (SMS)  provides a structured and systematic framework for managing risk and improving safety performance. It defines how hazards are identified, how controls are selected and applied, and how performance is measured and improved. An effective system helps organizations: Set clear safety goals and accountabilities Identify and assess hazards consistently Implement and track control measures Analyze incidents and near misses for learning Communicate expectations and results across all levels Without this structured approach, safety efforts tend to be inconsistent, vary by team or shift, and may not actually reduce risk even if everyone  intends  to work safely. Systems turn values into actions and create repeatable, measurable processes for continuous improvement. How culture and systems reinforce each other Culture and systems are interdependent. A strong safety culture motivates people to follow systems and speak up when something is wrong. At the same time a well-designed and effectively implemented safety management system reinforces culture by giving employees clear, reliable methods to carry out safety expectations. In some cases a well-run SMS can help strengthen safety culture by making safety easier to practice and more predictable in its outcomes. Practical steps for workplaces Build systems that support culture Document hazard identification procedures, inspection schedules, training requirements and incident investigation practices. These clear structures make safe behavior easier to achieve and sustain. Lead with action Leadership must visibly act on safety data and system outputs, not just speak about safety. Regular reviews of safety metrics, investment in training and participation in safety discussions signals that safety is non-negotiable. Encourage meaningful participation Involve workers in developing and improving safety systems. When employees feel heard and see their input reflected in processes, culture strengthens. Measure and improve Use audits, observation programs and incident data to see if systems are working. Adjust systems based on what the data shows, not only based on how things felt or what employees say they want. Creating Safety That Lasts Safety culture and safety management systems are not alternatives. A workplace that relies solely on slogans or intentions without a structured risk management system will struggle to achieve consistent, measurable safety performance. Conversely, a system without cultural buy-in may become a set of ignored checklists. Combining culture and systems creates a workplace where safety is not only valued but it is practiced and improved every day.

March 5, 2026 Risk normalization occurs when repeated safe experiences lead workers to underestimate hazards, increasing the likelihood of accidents. Key Highlights Experience can create blind spots, making seasoned workers more prone to shortcuts and complacency, which can be mitigated through targeted retraining focused on reflection and storytelling. Leadership plays a crucial role; by modeling humility and encouraging open conversations about near misses, managers can foster a culture of continuous awareness and learning. Using stories and peer learning helps make safety lessons memorable and relevant, especially for experienced employees who may tune out traditional training methods. Regular reflection and the strategic use of technology reinforce safety awareness, ensuring that familiarity doesn’t dull perception and that workers stay present and vigilant.   The road between Glendale and Kingman, Arizona, cuts through some of the most breathtaking desert landscape in North America. But that night, I couldn’t see any of it.   It started innocently enough. I’d just wrapped up a presentation at EHS Today's Safety Leadership Conference 2025 —a long day, a good day. I was tired but restless, buzzing from the conversations and the energy of people who care deeply about keeping others safe. I had rented a Triumph Bonneville T120—a perfect blend of power and grace—and I was itching to ride.   The plan had been simple: get a head start toward the Grand Canyon. I’d make it to Kingman before midnight, grab a cheap motel, and head north at sunrise. I figured I’d beat the morning heat and check a lifelong goal off the list—reaching the Canyon by bike. The sun had already started dipping behind the desert ridges as I rolled out of Glendale. I should have stopped. Anyone who’s ridden a motorcycle long enough knows that riding at night in unfamiliar territory is asking for trouble. But I’d ridden in worse, I told myself. I knew the risks. I could handle it. That’s the thought that gets us every time. Within an hour, the light was gone. The desert swallowed the last of the sun, and I found myself surrounded by an ocean of black. The air, which had been comfortably warm when I left, dropped fast. It’s the kind of cold that doesn’t hit all at once—it creeps in, seeping through your jacket, numbing your fingers one joint at a time. The Triumph’s engine hummed beneath me, steady and strong, but even that warmth couldn’t fight the chill clawing up my arms. I was alone. Really alone. No lights behind me. No gas stations ahead. The occasional glow of an 18-wheeler approaching from the opposite direction was the only thing that broke the darkness—and when it did, the flood of blinding headlights erased the road entirely. Each time a semi passed, the wind tore at me, shaking the bike and rattling the bags I’d tied down to the seat. The Bonneville’s headlight—usually my lifeline—suddenly felt small, weak, swallowed by the desert. My eyes strained to see the lines on the asphalt, the subtle dips that hinted at uneven pavement or the shimmer of sand across the road. Every mile felt like a gamble. It was so dark that I couldn’t even tell when I was climbing. Later I’d realize that somewhere in that stretch, I crested a mountain. I never saw it. Just a gradual incline into black, no horizon, no point of reference—only instinct and faith that the road would keep curving where the map said it would. The temperature dropped again. My hands cramped around the handlebars until my knuckles ached. My shoulders were locked tight, frozen in that defensive posture that every rider knows—the kind that sets in when your adrenaline won’t let you relax because you know, deep down, one mistake could end it. There was fear, but it was quiet. The kind that doesn’t shout. It whispers. It asks:  What are you doing out here? But I pressed on. Because that’s what experience tells you to do—you keep going. You think, “I’ve done this before. I’ll be fine.” You think you’ve got this handled. And that’s the problem. The Moment of Reflection I made it to Kingman sometime after 10 p.m. I don’t even remember pulling into town—only that the glow of streetlights felt surreal after hours of black. When I finally parked, I sat there for a while, the engine ticking in the cold, my hands still clamped around the grips. It took several minutes before I could even straighten my fingers. My shoulders were so tight that I could feel the pulse of blood pushing back into the muscles. I was exhausted, mentally and physically. I’d made it. But I also knew—really knew—that I’d made a huge mistake. And sitting there in that parking lot, still shaking from the cold, it hit me: This is exactly how risk normalization feels. You don’t see it coming. It creeps in when you stop respecting the danger. You start believing that your experience exempts you from risk. It’s not arrogance. It’s human nature. Risk Normalization: When Experience Becomes the Hazard Risk normalization is one of the most dangerous forces in workplace safety. It’s the process by which repeated exposure to risk without negative outcomes leads people to underestimate that risk over time. In plain language: You get away with something enough times, and your brain starts to believe it’s safe. Every industry has its version of this. The warehouse worker who lifts without asking for help because “I’ve done this for 20 years.” The electrician who skips the test light because “I can tell when a line’s hot.” The construction veteran who doesn’t tie off for a quick job. They’re not being reckless. They’re being human. They’ve been there before. They’ve done the job safely a hundred times. The risk feels theoretical—until it isn’t. Researchers have studied this for decades. In 1998, psychologist Dr. Judith Komaki found that  experienced workers are more likely than new employees to take shortcuts —not because they don’t care, but because they believe they can manage risk better. Another study published in  Safety Science  found that  tenured employees in high-risk jobs are twice as likely to engage in unsafe   acts  compared to new hires. The researchers called it “the paradox of expertise.” In other words, what makes you good at your job can also make you vulnerable to complacency. Read more

March 4, 2026 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL  – The U.S. Department of Labor has cited a Florida plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractor for exposing workers to struck-by hazards after an employee suffered a fatal injury at a Bal Harbor Shops worksite in August 2025. The department’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration  found that on Aug. 28, 2025, a Hyvac Inc. pipefitter installing a new air-conditioning system for a mall expansion construction project was fatally injured from a pressurized HVAC piping system.  The employer was cited with two serious violations for exposing workers to  struck-by hazards  by not verifying piping was free from stored pressure before employees performed work on the system and did not train workers to recognize and avoid hazards associated with removing HVAC end caps on pressurized pipping systems. OSHA proposed $28,135 in penalties. Hyvac Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of the citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Penalties and citations may be adjusted throughout the course of the case process.

March 4, 2026 "This progress shows that when employers focus on serious injury and fatality risks, invest in prevention and build strong safety cultures, lives are protected," said Lorraine Martin, CEO, NSC. The  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics'  2024 fatal occupational injuries data showed 5,070 worker deaths – a second consecutive year of decline. The fatal work injury rate was 3.3 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2024, a decrease from a rate of 3.5 in 2023. The decrease in fatal injuries in 2024 was largely driven by a 16.2% drop in fatalities due to exposure to harmful substances or environments (to 687 cases from 820). This decrease was in turn driven by a decline in drug or alcohol overdoses, which accounted for 59.7% of fatalities in this category, dropping to 410 fatal injuries in 2024 from 512 fatalities in 2023. Key findings include --A  worker died every 104 minutes from a work-related injury in 2024  compared to 99 minutes in 2023.--Workers in  transportation and material moving occupations represented the occupational group with the most fatalities  with 1,391 fatal work injuries in 2024, though this was a 7& decrease from 2023(1,495). The fatality rate for these workers was 12.5 fatalities per 100,000 FTE workers in 2024, down from 13.6 in 2023.