The Top 13 Worst Jobs with the Best Pay

These are dirty jobs and somebody has to do them. At least they get paid well for their efforts
Think you have a lousy job? You're not alone. So do about half of your fellow workers—and about a quarter of them are only showing up to collect a paycheck, according to a survey conducted by London-based market information company TNS. Grumbling over the size of that check is common, too. About two-thirds of workers believe they don't get paid enough, says TNS—even though many of them may actually be overpaid, compared to average compensation data

Crime-Scene Cleaner
Average pay: $50,400
If crime-scene cleanup was just wiping blood off the floors—well, that would be easy. But CSI fans with get-rich-quick dreams should note the job involves more than handiness with a mop and a tolerance for the smell of decomposing flesh. Getting rid of bodily fluids typically calls for more rough-and-ready methods, such as ripping up carpet, tile, and baseboards. It also sometimes means working in confined spaces (if someone was electrocuted in an attic, for example). And when tearing up old houses, workers face exposure to hazards such as lead paint and asbestos—not to mention the combustible chemicals involved in drug-lab abatement.

Risks of Using In-house Employees for Environmental Cleanups

By Gerard M. Giordano, Esq.

In an attempt to save money, property owners may be tempted to use their own Employees to clean up contamination at their facilities in order to comply with state or federal environmental laws. However, there may not be any real savings because when property owners (as employers)do commit to such a venture,they must comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)regulations that may be applicable. These are designed to protect employees from occupational injuries and illnesses,and failure to comply with these regulations could result in fines that may offset any savings.

A property owner who orders his employees to clean up or work with hazardous substances must comply with a number of precautionary regulations. The most comprehensive is 29 CFR 1910.120, which deals with hazardous waste operations and emergency response. An employer is required to develop and put into writing a safety and health program for any employees engaged in hazardous waste cleanup operations.

The elements of an effective program include requiring an employer to identify and evaluate specific hazards and to determine the appropriate safety and health control procedures to protect employees before any work is initiated. Likewise, protective equipment must be utilized by employees during the initial site entry and, if required,during subsequent work at the site. The employer must also periodically monitor employees who may be exposed to hazardous substances in excess of OSHA ’s regulations.

Once the presence and concentration of specific hazardous substances and health hazards have been established, employees involved in the cleanup operations must be informed of any risks associated with their work. Under certain ircumstances,regular ongoing medical surveillance of employees by a licensed physician, and without cost to the employees or lost pay, may be required.

Numerous other safeguards are also required by OSHA. For example, OSHA’s hazardous communications program, 29 CFR 1910.120, requires an employer to establish and implement a hazard communication program if, during the course of the cleanup, employees may be exposed to hazardous chemicals.

The requirements are essentially the same as those in workplaces where employees are routinely exposed to hazardous chemicals. The program must include container labeling, production of material safety data sheets and employee training. The employer must also provide a full description of the OSHA compliance program to employees, contractors and subcontractors involved with the cleanup operations as well as OSHA,and to any other federal,state or local agency with regulatory authority over the cleanup.

Regulation 29 CFR 1910.120 also requires an employer that retains the services of a contractor or subcontractor to inform them of any identified potential hazards of the cleanup operations. Generally, it is the involvement of employees that triggers an employer’s obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. If contractors were retained, it would be the contractors’ responsibility to comply with these OSHA requirements on behalf of their employees, assuming that the employer
retaining the contractor has neither employees involved in the cleanup nor employees potentially exposed to health hazards arising from the cleanup.

In addition to the contractor’s required compliance with OSHA regulations, it is imperative that a property owner include in any agreement with the contractor that the contractor must comply with all pertinent OSHA regulations. If possible,the agreement should also provide for indemnifications from the contractor to the property owner for claims arising from the cleanup. These indemnifications will be important if the employees of the contractor are injured or subsequently become ill because of such work. The indemnifications should survive the completion of the work. These precautions will help insulate the property owner from both governmental actions and potential third-party claims.

Failure to comply with OSHA regulations on the part of the property owner who uses his own employees to perform a cleanup or work with hazardous substances may result in substantial penalties. Under OSHA, fines can be levied for each violation found by an inspector. These violations can result in non-serious, serious or willful violations with penalties as high as $70,000 for each violation. If a subsequent inspection is performed and violations are found which have not been corrected from an original inspection,daily penalties could be levied resulting in substantial fines.

Compliance with OSHA regulations should be a factor when a property owner decides to use in-house employees for cleanups. In the long run, there may not be any savings to the employer. Furthermore, because of the employer’s lack of familiarity with the OSHA regulations governing the cleanup of hazardous sites,the employer could be subject to fines as a result of its failure to comply with the OSHA regulations.

Therefore, it may be prudent in the long run to retain a company whose business is devoted to doing only cleanups. This company will have the expertise and continuing obligations to protect its employees.

Gerard Giordano is special counsel at the law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A., based in Hackensack, NJ. He is a member of the firm’s Environmental Department, and his practice focuses particularly on OSHA matters. Prior to practicing law, Mr. Giordano worked at the U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as an industrial hygiene compliance officer.

Planning Board gives green light to medical waste treatment facility

By BILL O'CONNOR
boconnorfosters.com

ROCHESTER— The Planning Board has approved a medical waste treatment facility on Rochester Neck Road from Waste Management.

Waste Management officials are hoping to build the new facility at its Turnkey Recycling and Environmental Enterprise site on Rochester Neck Road.

"This is good news for us, and now we'll be moving on to getting the other three approvals we need," said Alan Davis, a regional manager with the company.

Davis said Waste Management still needs to obtain a wetlands permit, a solid waste permit and an alteration of terrain permit from the state Department of Environmental Services before beginning construction on the facility, which would use autoclaving — in which medical waste can be sterilized using steam — to treat waste from nursing homes, dentist offices, veterinary clinics and private physician practices.

The process of securing those necessary permits has already been started, he said, and the goal is to begin construction sometime this summer with an anticipated completion date in the Spring of 2010.

Planning Board Chair Terry Desjardins said there were no issues raised by board members or residents relating to the plan, and it was also unanimously approved.

The Planning Board also instituted some new user fees for 2009.

The board decided to extend the $100 user fee which applicants requesting an alteration to an already approved site plan are required to pay. Under the new policy, this fee will be extended to all applicants requesting any type alteration or modification, whether the plan is approved or not, Desjardins said.

Alterations and modifications differ in that alterations are large enough changes to a site plan to affect abutters, and therefore a public notice must be issued and another public hearing held if a request for an alteration is made on a previously approved site plan, said Chief Planner Michael Behrendt. The $100 fee was initially only associated with this type of alteration because of the additional work involved, he said.

However, members of the Planning Department determined that it takes just as much work on their part if a modification — a change that will not affect abutters — is made or if an alteration is requested to a plan yet to be approved by the board, Behrendt said. As a result, it made sense to extend the fee to those areas as well, he said.

"Some modifications are very simple ones that I can approve in office, like if someone wanted to change the type of shrubbery in a plan," Behrendt said, noting that those small types of modifications would not be subject to the fee. "Anything that rises to the level of the board for approval will be subject to the $100 fee."

In other business, Desjardins was re-elected as chair of board by a unanimous vote at the meeting, and Tim Fontneau, formerly the board's secretary, was elected to the position of vice-chair that was left open with the unexpected resignation of Lance Powers earlier this month.

Nel Sylvain, who was promoted from a Planning Board alternate member to a full member after Powers' departure, was elected to the secretary position previously held by Fontneau. The election of both Fontneau and Sylvain were unanimous.