THE SCAFFOLD LAW

Page 4

WHAT IS THE CASE FOR
RETAINING THE CURRENT LAW?

A prominent member of the newly formed Scaffold Safety Coalition, which is fighting efforts to "cripple a vital safety regulation" and seeking to have insurers release more data on the actual costs directly related to Scaffold Law cases and awards, is the BCTC.

Mr. LaBarbera said the organization agrees that insurance premiums have increased substantially. Unlike reform advocates, BCTC does not believe the fault lies with the Scaffold Law. BCTC contends, as does Assemblyman Moya, that insurers need to open their books to demonstrate the direct costs of the Scaffold Law. Assemblyman Moya has introduced legislation that would require such reporting. Mr. LaBarbera called this a necessary first step to really analyze data and figure out what is going on saying, "Businesses involved in construction suffer from a Stockholm syndrome of sorts where they believe insurers holding them hostage with absurdly high premiums are their allies." He added, "Instead of taking their fight to the insurers, these businesses have joined them in a campaign against the Scaffold Law, which talks about everything but the fundamentals that drive insurance costs."

BCTC also contends that even though New York City is statistically among the safest places to work, there are still too many accidents where workers are killed, disabled, and injured because of failures to provide adequate safety for work at heights. To this point, the organization refers to a Center for Popular Democracy report, which finds that "86% of Latino and/or immigrant fatalities from a fall from an elevation in New York were working for a non-union employer." (http://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/CPD_Debunking_report_final.pdf)