Two things.
1) Here are two e-mails I got today and yesterday from the Department of Buildings. Forgive the basic nature of the questions I ask. I actually asked them about a week ago but they've been slow to reply ("Hi! I'm Andrew, from the Washington Square News!"). Included is a link to Patricia Lancaster's testimony in the first graf.---- email 1, begin ----
In [DoB Comish. Patricia Lancaster's] testimony [on Feb 4th, the topic of the NYT article we read last week], the Commissioner recommends the City pursue three pieces of legislation:
1) a law for general contractors to be licensed through a
registration requirement,
2) a law for concrete contractors to be licensed through a
registration requirement, and
3) a law requiring a concrete safety manager to oversee
concrete operations on high-rise construction sites.
The impetus here is the absence of an accountability scheme
amongst the contractors on a job site.
A registration requirement for GCs and concrete contractors
would obviously provide sharper enforcement teeth, as there would be the threat of revoking the registration if contractors are found after to due process to routinely violate or disregard safety rules and regulations.
The registration requirement would also empower the Department to track contractors’ performance across job sites. Currently, this is nearly impossible to do because a corporation can change its name from
job site to job site. For recent example, you can look at the permits issued for the new building under construction at 525 Clinton Street, the site in Brooklyn where the scaffold worker died last week. A general contractor called Clinton Court Development LLC pulled the permits issued for that job site. When we search our data as it relates to Clinton Court Development LLC, we find only violations and permits issued related to work at 525 Clinton Avenue. It is possible the owners of Clinton Court Development LLC also own corporations that are building developments in other parts of the borough or the city, but there is no way to know for sure. With the infrastructure we have in place today, we cannot holistically track contractors’ performance across job sites and hold them accountable, unless the general contractor retains the same name across job sites.
As the Commissioner said in response to a question at the
hearing, it is surprising that in this day and age, of the 29 trades licensed by the Buildings Department, general contractors are not one of them. Requiring a general contractor to register would empower the Buildings Department with a tool to track a contractor’s performance across job sites and hold him accountable for his actions.
Carly Sullivan
Assistant Press Secretary
NYC Department of Buildings
T: (212) 566-3473
F: (212) 566-3865
www.NYC.gov/buildings
---e-mail 1 ends -----
---e-mail 2 begins ---
Andrew: See Below. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
On Background:
RE: Who has the DOB consulted in creating this new proposed set of regulations? Labor? Industry? Immigrant groups? Builders who use non-union workers? Other jurisdictions?
Please specify which regulations you are referring to.
RE: Who has opposed this new set of regulations, and who is for?
Please specify which regulations you are referring to.
RE: Was the DOB planning on making these changes beforehand?
Since November, the Buildings Department has been working to devise legislative and non-legislative solutions to address the problem of concrete operations on high-rise construction sites. On January 23, 2008, Commissioner Lancaster sent a memo to the industry outlining best practices to avoid concrete-related accidents.
RE: Unions say that non-unionized work is to blame for the majority [73%] of accidents during construction. Is this true?
The Buildings Department does not track this data. Buildings data shows that construction incidents on high-rise construction sites, which comprise union and non-union labor sites, increased 49% over the last year, from 69 in CY 2006 to 103 in CY 2007
RE: Do you have any data that bears this out, or disproves it? How does the DOB intend on tackling this issue?
See above.
RE: Does the DOB see illegal immigrant and non-English workers as a major concern for construction safety? How does the DOB intend to address these issues, if so?
In 2006, the Buildings Department, Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs and Occupational Safety and Health Administration convened a Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force after a series of scaffold-related incidents. The Task Force found speaking English as a second language or speaking a language different than that spoken at the job site was often a factor in fatal construction accidents. Since 2006, Buildings, MOIA and OSHA have conducted outreach events across the five boroughs to distribute safety information in multiple languages to day laborers and discussed with workers how to stay safe on the job. Under the Task Force, the training requirements for suspended scaffolds are being streamlined, the Buildings Department and OSHA are conducting cross-trainings and performing joint inspections, and a Scaffold Safety Team, which proactively inspects scaffold, was created at the Buildings Department in August 2007.
RE: Why were concrete workers not required to register with the City in the past?
There was no law requiring them to do so.
RE: What problems do you foresee in this registration process? (For example, I hear that the DCA sometimes has problems registering home renovation contractors to any effect because businesses appear and disappear to evade accountability.)
First of all, the Commissioner has recommended the Council seek legislation requiring concrete contractors to register. She has expressed her support for such legislation. But let’s be clear, the legislation hasn’t been proposed yet or signed into law. We are well aware of the issue you bring up here with the HIC contractors. The Department is exploring ways in which it can avoid this evasion of responsibility and accountability.
---- end e-mail ----
2) Here's an e-mail from Prof. Richard Greenwald, NYU grad and professor at Drew University in Madison, NJ. He's an expert on the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. Of course this is just an overview: most important is his contact information, below. The NYU History faculty has not been so helpful. The link to his book on the fire is below.
---- begin e-mail. -----
>> Could you please describe very briefly the significance of the 1911 fire, and what it helped change in city government and regulations in the following years?
The Triangle Fire, which was the subject of my 2005 book, had an enormous effect on both labor policies and regulations over building in NYC and beyond. After the fire, the state of NY created the Factory Investigating Committee, a committee chaired by Al Smith and Robert Wagner, then leaders of both the state assembly and senate repressively. Smith and Wagner were joined by public members of the FIC. From 1911-1915, the FIC rewrote NYS factory regulations, including occupancy rules, fire safety rules and significant labor regulations. The uproar in the city and state and the death of so many mostly young immigrant women, created a political atmosphere where quick action was possible. Part of the answer is that Tammany Hall, then in firm control of both the state and city government was moved by the fire and working-class political action. Many scholars look at the fire as one of the moments in the creation of modern liberalism.. Frances Perkins, then a lead investigator for the FIC, later a New deal Sec of Labor, said that the new deal was born on March 25, 1911. So, part of the reason for the change was a change in political sensibilities.
Richard Greenwald, Dean Caspersen School of Graduate Studies Director, Business, Society & Culture Program Associate Professor of History Drew University Madison, NJ 07940 Ph: 973/408-3958 Email: rgreenwa@drew.edu
----- e-mail done----
