I don't think anyone is arguing about the benefits of worker safety training. One problem of this regulation is that the requirement (and therefore the cost)of the training is on the employee not the employer. Traditionally, and under most if not all OSHA regs the employer is the one responsible to train their employees in the hazards associated with their work. This law says that employers must verify within 15 days that the employee has a 10 or 30 hour card or they must be fired. If the employer fails to do this, they are subject to fines by OSHA. The emergency reg cited in the article says that current employees must also have the card. So how does a municipal employer who has employees who may "occasionally" do work that could be construed as "construction" and are covered under a union contract require them to pay for the training? Mr. Coffield says that employers "may" pay for the training. So, eventually the City (you and I) will pay for the training. Thats not necesarily bad mind you...as long as everyone knows where the money is coming from. There are many other things that are wrong with this reg that are more about how to implement it and run it, fund it and who it actually applies to. There is a very thin line between construction and maintenance and OSHA assures us they know the difference but the fact of the matter is there is no defintion of maintenance in the OSHA regs. If as the Federal Report on OSHA says that Nevada OSHA inspectors failed to recognize hazards on construction sites...are we going to trust them to know the difference between the two? But not to worry...the legislature will have another chance to screw it up in a about a year and half.

Someone with a name of GOD? I guess we had all better listen to the word of "GOD"! Talk about Obama being a rock start and being full of himself....! Why someone who calls themself "GOD" makes Obama seem like a shrinking violet by comparison.

You are such a pompous ass!

I have been following this saga from afar since being in Las Vegas for a brief spell awhile ago. My take...Nevada OSHA is not corrupt,the politico's above them are. OSHA just lacked the guts to do what was right. Mr. Atha is right, the Feds would have issued willful citations and received concessions from Boyd instead of giving them a sweetheart deal with consultation and a huge break on the penalties. Nevada OSHA in general and their attorneys in particular were intimidated by Boyd. Probably because they (the attorneys),were not proactive in the initial investigation, did not know OSHA law well enough so gave OSHA poor legal advice, and finally they did not have the money in their own pitifully underfunded budget to fight the rich Boyd empire. (and heaven knows they must save the taxpayer's money..right?) What a disgusting settlement! The settlement and subsequent "deal" was most likely mandated by self-serving appointed administrators and written by individuals who didnt have a clue on how to draw up an airtight agreement. From what I know and word through the grapevine it is clear; OSHA in Nevada is underpaid, undertrained and poorly managed at all levels. I say clean house at Nevada OSHA their solicitor's office, and the corrupt officials above them. Then get someone to administer at OSHA who understands the big safety and health picture and is not just another self serving appointed official who is more interested in keeping their job than protecting employees. And finally pay and train the hardworking dedicated OSHA inspectors who really DO care about protecting the worker.

Pathetic!

A visiting "Fed"