Why NO on SB553?

According to recent data from OSHA, Workplace violence is the second-to-last cause of fatal occupational injuries. On an average 750 fatal injuries were reported nationally relating to workplace violence annually for last five years. This figure is less than the “slip and fall” category (above 800 annually). This bill will add millions of dollars of expenses to struggling small businesses and will also cost the State of California an enormous amount of money to implement and oversee. Our government should be enforcing existing laws, and eliminating or revising laws that promote crime in order to make a real impact on workplace violence.

Background

Cal/OSHA identified four types (Type1 through Type4) of workplace violence in their Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care Title 8, Section 3342, and in their most recent draft for all businesses. For Type1 and Type2 violence (which includes a random person with an intent to commit a crime and crimes by a customer, visitor, shoplifter, etc.), According to the bill, “Threat of violence” means “any verbal or written statement, including, but not limited to, texts, electronic messages, social media messages, or other online posts, or any behavioral or physical conduct.” “Workplace violence” includes, but is not limited to “psychological trauma, or stress, whether an employee was physically injured or not.”

The Problem with this Bill

SB 553, which is an amendment and extension to Cal/OSHA WVP in Health Care Title 8, Section 3342, deceptively encompasses “workplace violence” and groups Small Business Owners with Large Venues. SB 553 undermines the fact that there are generally not going to be Violent acts at small venues. Does a mattress store need Active Shooter training? Do we see plenty of violence at the local tire shop? In contrast, the employees at small businesses do not have the ability to implement these plans and programs. They cater to the general public for their everyday needs at minimum wage standards. SB 553 unnecessarily burdens California small businesses with financial, work, regulatory, and legal requirements, with a threat of criminal prosecution and fines by:

  1. Requiring employers to maintain Violent Incident Logs and post-incident investigation records. The requirement to keep an incident log does not prevent violence, but the extent to which a post-incident investigation is required can be costly and should be the job of law enforcement. What exactly is the State of California going to do with this information other than punish businesses for not keeping or maintaining a log?
  2. Requiring non-healthcare employers to provide active shooter training adds more costs to small businesses that cannot afford it. If this training is provided by the State of California, and employers subsidize their employees being off work for this training, the argument against it will only be that the State of California will have to spend millions of dollars to implement it. Instead, this buck is passed to the employer. The better way to prevent active shooters is to have laws that deal with gun ownership, better background checks on gun owners, and enforcement of existing laws.
  3. It passes authority to a board to add anything they want into the plan by December 31, 2025.  Anything Cal/OSHA “deems necessary and appropriate.” What if they deem that everyone must buy a specific metal detection equipment to comply with the appropriate standards? What if they just re-implement the shoplifting standards we just opposed?
  4. Assessment of staffing levels as a cause for workplace violence does not translate well to mom-and-pop businesses that can’t afford to hire many employees. This legislation is nothing more than a direct effort to pass the buck to the employer when prevention of criminal violence against retail employees and customers is law enforcement’s job. The State of California should spend resources funding police departments and assessment of staffing levels of our first responders in law enforcement, more patrols, and putting criminals behind bars instead of worrying about whether their feelings and rights are being trampled upon.
  5. Although the legislation language about employee representatives being a petitioner for workplace violence is well-meaning, it does not actually prevent the violence it seeks to eliminate when the court system places such a high burden on imposing restraining orders. Without police corroboration, these roles do not amount to much in the eyes of the judicial system.
  6. As before, restraining orders without police corroboration are seldom granted by the court. Criminals and shoplifters do not care about these pieces of paper. They will move on to another store at another location to continue with their criminal activities.