A mask provides more protection than a metal fabricator realizes

Wearing masks during this pandemic has turned into a political statement. In the eyes of a judge, however, masks might be viewed as an attempt to protect workers. That keeps businesses safe from another possible scourge: lawsuits. Getty Images

We’ve entered that phase of the American experience in which the wearing of medical masks in public is an affront to one’s personal liberty. I’m not sure what the Founding Fathers would think of this, but they might surprise some people. After all, men wore powdered wigs in those days.

This is my plug: If you want to reduce the chance of catching or transmitting the coronavirus, you’ll want to practice social distancing and wear a mask when in the presence of others who are not a part of your immediate family. Doctors wear masks for a reason.

Having said that, I understand that a large portion of employees in the metal fabricating community live and work in places that are sparsely populated and question the need for masks when COVID-19 cases are few and deaths from it nonexistent. Why worry about something that is not present? If people were prevented from attending parties in other cities, vacationing at lakes in nearby states, or just hitting the road in general, communities with no real evidence of COVID-19 infections likely would stay that way. Alas, freedom of movement allows for the freedom to pick up a virus somewhere else and take it back home. The coronavirus is not respectful of borders or even signage suggesting that it’s not welcome.

So it’s not completely surprising to hear reports of shops where masks are not being worn. Employees are probably local residents, and not a lot of people are doing long-distance traveling nowadays. Also, the metal fabricating shop floor accommodates social distancing because process areas don’t sit on top of each other, which means that ample space is available between people.

But operating without masks does introduce a risk that any business would be smart to recognize—a lawsuit. If you don’t believe it, spend some time watching daytime television. In the midst of the ads from lawyers asking television viewers if they suffer from mesothelioma or if they were injured in a car wreck, ads have a new question for viewers: “Did you contract the coronavirus while at work?”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is well aware of what is happening. “Even as the entire country is rallying behind health care workers and small businesses, trial lawyers are already looking for ways to line their pockets by suing the very people we are bending over backwards to help,” he said in early May.

That fear of a tsunami of lawsuits has motivated McConnell and his like-minded colleagues to push for targeted liability reforms that will be limited to the scope of the current pandemic. Organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers are asking Congress to create legislation that would protect those manufacturers that are trying to keep employees safe to the best of their ability and those companies that have completely retooled their operations to address critical supply chain shortages from lawsuits. But that won’t necessarily protect all manufacturers.

“We’re not interested in protecting bad actors, which is why we’re not looking for a blanket liability shield,” said Linda Kelly, general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, in a CNBC article published in late June. This would not be a “Get Out of Jail” card for manufacturers that are doing little to protect their workers.

Admittedly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration hasn’t been aggressive in issuing official guidance on how to react to the pandemic. The agency has released nonbinding guidelines and seems comfortable with each state developing its own coronavirus response plans, which is in keeping with the administration’s general desire for deregulation at the federal level.

Metal fabricators could wait for Congress to pass legislation providing liability protections for manufacturers, but waiting on the government to do anything is never a good plan. State governments could step in and offer a similar type of protection, but the focus in these instances appears to be the health care sector. That leaves the metal fabricator in charge of its own destiny.

While a mask mandate inside the office and on the shop floor might not sit well, you should make the decision that is good for business. It’s not immunity from a lawsuit claiming that an employer was responsible for an employee being exposed to the coronavirus at work, but the wearing of masks inside the facility does indicate that company management was taking steps, no matter how small, to reduce the risk of spreading the virus. Evidence like that puts the business on the right side of the legal argument.

It’s an uphill battle for anyone to prove in court where they might have contracted the COVID-19 bug. A metal fabricating company shouldn’t make it any easier for a lawyer looking to make a quick score during this pandemic.