You work for a small electrical services firm that employs under 30 people. It’s privately held, and all four owners held a meeting with all of the employees yesterday. The company has never fully recovered from the COVID-19 shutdown, even with the federal bailout money and loans.
The owners go on to say they have cut costs in various areas, but it wasn’t enough. This is the point where a company executive announces layoffs, but they can’t lay anyone off until next year because of the conditions of the Employee Retention Credit under the CARES Act — nor can they cut pay. But once the conditions expire, employees who did not follow the austerity program will be terminated. And even before then, management reserves the right to fire for cause employees who go through the progressive discipline process and CARES does not prevent them from doing that.
The owners listed several things that comprise the austerity program. Taking clients to lunch, for example, is not allowed anymore. The tools program is suspended for six months, so take good care of the tools you have. Company vehicles will not get new tires until at least the middle of next year. The company will no longer provide safety glasses, particle respirators, or ear plugs.
They concluded this session by telling the electricians to “Take NFPA 70E with a grain of salt. We can’t afford to comply with all of its bells and whistles.” How do you respond to this, in terms of how you treat NFPA 70E?
First, let’s put their comments in perspective. They held a meeting, and told you these things. They did not produce a written statement or provide a written policy. That’s called “plausible deniability,” which means if someone is hurt they will claim they were misunderstood.
They are OK with bald tires on company vehicles? Going into winter? If the tires are unsafe, they are unsafe. Don’t ride in a vehicle that has damaged or worn tires. The comment about the PPE and tools also shows they want the employees to take the risks while they enjoy the savings.
Regarding NFPA 70E, it doesn’t have “bells and whistles.” It’s a safety standard, period. What some people don’t understand is that by working in a prescribed, methodical manner, the work is more efficient — not less efficient. The same goes for practicing good communication. The job briefing, for example, isn’t just a good safety measure. It’s an excellent tool for preventing costly mistakes, schedule delays, and rework.
If the owners were unable to make the finances work despite the low-cost government loans, that’s their problem not yours. It may even be true they did everything right, and just had bad luck. But heaping unnecessary risk onto employees with the threat of job loss for not accepting that risk is unconscionable.
Going forward, you need to document every instance of “encouraging” you to put your safety at risk. But don’t put your safety at risk. While you’re still working, seek a job with another firm. When discussing the new opportunity, don’t bring this problem up as your reason for wishing to change. Take a close look at the competing firm, find something you like about it, and use that as your reason for wanting to come onboard with them.
No matter what kind of pressure an employer puts on you to compromise your safety or that of your coworkers for expediency, profit, or whatever “reason,” you always have other options. And remember, firms like this are the bane of the industry. Good firms are almost always looking for good people.
