The Daily Beagle Receives Comment From OSHA

No, we don't know why it is mangled with question marks either

We wrote a query to OSHA back on July 22nd asking OSHA if they had any Federal regulations that protect workers from dangerously fatal temperatures at work, after writing about OSHA’s failings for delivery drivers in vehicles.

We received comment from OSHA on the 26th July… if you could call it that. To us it reads like a mangled incoherent statement. Empahasis added for the sheer insanity.

Also we love the random question marks littered through-out, as if they weren’t even sure of what they themselves were espousing.

Thank you for your email to the U.S. Department of

Labor Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA). It appears that you are outside of OSHA?s jurisdiction, and we do not have the resources to assist you or cannot answer your question based on your location. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651 et seq. (OSHA), requires U.S. employers to adhere to certain safety standards in the workplace. The statute?s application is expressly limited to ?employment performed in a workplace in a State, the District of Columbia, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Lake Island, Outer Continental Shelf lands . . . Johnston Island, and the Canal Zone.? 29 U.S.C. ? 653(a) (1990).

Apparently the personal location of the asker has such a detrimental, oppressive impact on how OSHA internally functions as an agency that they’re unable to answer a basic question about how the Federal regulations work for temperature which they themselves wrote.

We read this as ‘no, we don’t have any suitable provisions for collapsing, exhausted, overheated drivers, but rather than say that, we’ll just discriminate as to where you’re from’. Good job OSHA. So subtle in execution. Also, have you guys heard of a thing called ‘paragraphs’ and ‘formatting’? Might want to avoid unicode symbols next time.