ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues to GFIor not to is the question

I guess that's where the inspector can support you. Can't guaranty it will work but can prove code compliance.

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 07-13-2006).]

So you guys have the expense of testing in your quotes?? Seems like it would cost some dough to keep up with all the regs and testing.
I agree a GFI is good idea, I just wonder about the compliance. Seems to me it would be less of a liability to provide a regular outlet and let the other trades worry about their GFIs and the testing etc.

Iwire Wrote:
I have to point out that twenty four of the fifty states have no state OSHA law. That leaves only the federal OSHA rules for nearly half the states. Those rules do not cover firms with fewer than twenty five employees. According to the department of labor the average electrical contractor has only twelve persons on the payroll.
--
Tom Horne

Tom do you have any reference for that?

I believe that is false.

As I understand it OSHA applies to any employee regardless of the business having one or ten thousand employees.


OSHA Act of 1970

Iwire, I have also encountered the "25 or less" rule. I suspect it has the same source as was the basis of my earlier statement about the limits to OSHA jurisdiction.

In our system, the Federal government is severely limited in what powers it may exercise, with the vast majority of governmental powers belonging to the states. (See "The Constitution")
The Constitution does contain a phrase that reserves to the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate commerce. This phrase has been the basis for probably 90% of all Federal government regulation since Roosevelt.

Courts have interpreted the clause to also cover things that "affect interstate commerce." Further rulings defined that such "affect" could be determined by the size of the business.

There have been a number of other limits applied to OSHA. The right to refuse inspector access, absent a warrant, being one . The need for OSHA to defer to other governmental regulations being another.

Back on point: I have seen the "25 employee" rule applied by Federal agencies when a fired employee claimed discrimination.

There is an ideology taught that "Federal trumps State- so State can be more restrictive, but not less." Strictly speaking, this is not true. Our Constitution defines areas where the different bodies have powers, and these divisions are exclusionary. The Feds have their sandbox...while the States have a different one to play in.

As it stands right now in this thread the 25 rule is only hearsay, can anybody post the backup.

Reno, I have seen an OSHA inspection team stay on a job site until a search warrant was obtained, (only a matter of a couple hours) all the refusale to let them inspect did was, delay them and make them mad, which made the fines maximum for the particular contractor.

Here in NC we do have a state OSHA and I know of a case where they were refused access to a site on federal controlled land, the very next morning Federal OSHA was on the site. I must of only taken a phone call.

Roger

Can you point to any reference that can back that up?

Not being a wise guy I just don't feel that is the case.

Bob

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 07-16-2006).]

In Cea V Seattle, Camera V San Francisco the Supreme court of the United States held that the need to conduct public safety inspections is sufficient probable cause for a warrant to issue. Given that decision refusing entry to public safety inspectors is just no smart.

No as it turns out I don't. It was a restriction placed on the OSH Administration through the appropriations process during the years when I was learning the little employmet law I have read. Since each appropriations bill only last for one fiscal year it may well have died. I lack the legal research skills to wade through the presently applicable appropriations bill to see if that restriction survives to this day. So it would appear that every employee is covered unless they work for a non OSHA plan state government or a political subdivision thereof.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

[This message has been edited by tdhorne (edited 07-16-2006).]