NEW YORK CITY—The Building Trades Employers' Association, the General Contractors Association of New York and the Allied Building Metal Industries jointly oppose Intro 1419-A and Intro 1399, bills included in the Construction Safety Act legislation to go before the City Council today.

The groups urge revisions in these bills prior to the council's vote.

Intro 1419-A imposes penalties for immediate hazards or major violations of chapter 33 of the NYC Building Code where the violation results in a fatality or serious physical injury. The civil penalty would be a maximum of $500,000 for businesses and no more than $150,000 for individuals. The legislation directs the court to consider the defendant's financial resources when determining the amount of the penalty.

BTEA president and CEO Louis J. Coletti says, “Ability to pay should not be a consideration when enforcing construction safety regulation. This provision was written ostensibly to prevent companies from being penalized out of business, but why should we be protecting companies that have deaths occurring on their construction sites?”

BTEA is the largest contractor association in New York, representing 1,800 construction managers, general contractors and subcontractors.

GCA executive director Denise M. Richardson argues that Intro 1419-A sends a message that workers' lives at larger, more established companies are more valuable than workers' lives at smaller, less influential firms. “This is an egregious policy for any legislative body to put into legislation,” she says.

GCA represents the unionized heavy construction industry in the city that constructs building foundations and public works infrastructure. The GCA's 300 members employ 26,000 professionals and trade workers.

Intro 1399 gives employees the right to seek flexible work arrangements. However, the associations point out that creating flex-time in the construction industry causes unique problems.

Most workers are attached to a crew, working on a specific aspect of the construction. They function as a unit—so any member of the crew arriving early or staying late could create safety risks for the rest of the team. This danger is exacerbated if only one person on the team is on-site.

The associations are pushing to exempt the construction industry from the flex-time provision in the bill. Richardson points out that the council exempted the motion picture industry because that industry does not allow for the type of work options required by the bill. She urges the council to afford the construction industry this same consideration.

Allied's executive director and general counsel, William I. Shuzman, criticizes Intro 1399 as having been drafted without an understanding of the way the industry operates. To enable employees to establish flexible work schedules would compromise a contractor's ability to efficiently and safely perform its work, according to Shuzman.

“Furthermore, the negative safety impact on the remaining members of a worker's crew are substantial since the remaining crew members will be required to work short-handed or with replacement workers unfamiliar with the particulars of the job in question, thereby increasing the risks of accident,” he says.

Allied is a trade association of the city's unionized iron working contractors. The group states that their members perform work on almost every building and heavy construction site within New York City's five boroughs.

Coletti emphasizes that construction sites are complex, dangerous and demand highly trained professionals with specific technical skills and experience.

“From crane operators to safety managers, a construction site work schedule is demanding, complicated and has little room for error,” says Coletti. “The bill as written will wreak havoc on construction sites across New York.”

Instant Insights /

Industry Associations Argue Construction Safety Bills Pose Grave Dangers

Related Stories

Recommended For You