Nevada Worker Safety Training Proposal

On Monday, the San Jose Mercury News reported on a proposal in Nevada that all employees complete an OSHA 10 hour class and all supervisors complete a 30 hour class. Further, it would require that employers "drop" workers "who don't get the training in a timely manner."

This sounds like a great plan. But, original plan was to give employers 60 days to complete the training. And there is a proposed amendment that would reduce that 60 days to 15. When I'm wearing my safety hat, I should say that the training should be completed before they even begin working. But from a practical sense, this may not be practical.

Although I take no position against such a bill - I see it as job security for us safety guys - I do believe that the Nevada legislature's assessment of the cost of such training is flawed. While it is true that the cost of such courses ($130 and $300 respectively) is pretty close to accurate, their analysis did not account for the salaries of the employees while attending nor the cost in terms of production (or the lack thereof). Remember, if an employee is required by his employer to take these classes, they must do so during working hours (wages/hour and loss of production), or after hours (at overtime?). Unless, of course, we should visit these costs on the employee.

Before we enact these types of requirements, we need to do a valid assessment of the cost in terms of "unintended consequences." That said, once the bugs are worked out, this may be a great way to battle the "unintended consequences" of not educating our workforces. And, if it passes in Nevada, will it set a national trend? We should all be working towards these educational goals anyway. So, my advice is that we do it now - before it is "required" by legislation.

To read the article, click here.