While President Trump has launched a campaign against undocumented immigrants, his administration has not spoken out about the employers who hire them, notes the New York Times in an editorial today. Faulty enforcement and high evidentiary hurdles make holding employers accountable difficult. The Times faults the administration’s one-sided focus on demonizing immigrants while not providing a path to citizenship and putting money into (controversial) solutions to verify employment eligibility, like E-Verify.
Trump’s push to bring back coal jobs (“a delusion,” according to the New York Times in a separate editorial) is prompting Republican legislatures in coal country to reenact looser mine safety laws. Some lawmakers claim that the “federal government can do the inspections just as well as the states”—a seemingly out-of-character stance, until one looks at the current federal government, which has no interest in regulating coal companies and plans to cut the Department of Labor budget by 21%. Other legislatures are passing laws that cut down on annual safety checks (in exchange for a “‘safety analysis’ based on conversations with miners”) and proposing bills that lower standards.
A former law student of Neil Gorsuch claims that the Supreme Court nominee implied that women manipulate companies during interviews to gain maternity benefits, according to NPR. The former student wrote a letter detailing her class experience to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, which was posted by the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Women’s Law Center last night.
Labor secretary nominee Alex Acosta will be heard before the Senate HELP Committee this Wednesday, reports The Hill. Acosta, whose hearing was delayed once already, hasn’t faced the same level of criticism as former nominee Andy Puzder. Many are eager to learn more about the Labor tap, who has managed to avoid the spotlight and is a “blank page on policy,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
This is the second part of a 2-post examination of driver safety in both the taxi and ridesharing spheres. Part 1, which contains an extensive list of unsettling incidents that have threatened the safety of ridesharing drivers, makes it pretty clear that increasing driver safety is (or should be) a pressing concern. This post will detail the regulatory measures that have been taken to protect taxi drivers and discuss whether similar protections would be feasible and/or beneficial in the ridesharing context.
In the taxi cab context, OSHA has responded to these same kinds of dangers by identifying risk factors and making various recommendations. The risk factors identified include:
- Working with cash;
- Working alone and in isolated areas;
- Working at night and in poorly lit settings;
- Working in high crime areas; and
- Interacting with people who are under the influence of alcohol.
To help employers reduce these risks, OSHA has suggested several action steps. Although the recommendations are “advisory in nature,” OSHA can issue citations for violations of standards, regulations, and the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, which requires employers to furnish employees with a place of employment free from recognized hazards causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.
This raises the question of whether Uber, Lfyt, and other ridesharing companies should be subject to similar oversight from OSHA.
This is the first part of a 2-part post. Part 1 will highlight the heightened safety concerns that come along with being a taxi driver and examine anecdotal evidence raising similar concerns for workers who drive for ridesharing companies. Part 2 will examine the steps that OSHA has taken to protect drivers in the taxi context and discuss whether and to what extent such measures would be helpful in increasing driver safety in the ridesharing context.
Relatively speaking, earning a living as a taxi driver is a dangerous endeavor – the homicide rate for cab drivers is about 30 times higher than the national homicide average for all workers. In fact, according to Bloomberg, taxi driving is the occupation with the largest number of deaths due to violence, higher than both police officers and security guards. Between the years of 1994 and 2013, an average of 34 cab drivers were murdered on the job every year. From 1998 to 2007, the homicide rate for drivers ranged from 9 to 19 deaths per 100,000 workers, putting it at 21 to 33 times that of the national average (0.5 deaths/100k).
Yet still, as of January 2015, there were 239,900 people working as taxi drivers nationwide. In New York City, where there are about 42,000 taxi drivers, 180 drivers have been killed since 1990. To put that number into perspective, that averages out to more than 2 NYC drivers murdered per month, every month, since 1990. That is jarring.
The aforementioned statistics alone illustrate the perilous nature of driving a cab. Yet those numbers don’t even account for the thousands of other crimes that are committed against taxi drivers annually – battery, assault, robbery, carjacking, and threats of violence. Although national statistics are elusive, a snapshot of such crimes in Chicago illuminates the seriousness of the problem.