To a spokesman for the family of Ronald Silver II, the state’s response after his on-the-job death seemed like “a slap on the wrist.”

Baltimore government was charged last Friday with a single safety violation – with no financial penalty – seven months after Maryland Occupational Safety & Health (MOSH) began an investigation into the sanitation worker’s death following a shift he worked in crushing August heat.

The outcome was essentially preordained by Maryland’s failure to enact laws and policies to protect people working in hazardous environments, including a workplace heat standard similar to the kind that’s been in place in California, Oregon, Minnesota and other states for years.

If the heat standard Maryland finally enacted last September had been in effect on August 2 when Silver died, MOSH would have had grounds to charge Baltimore City and the Department of Public Works (DPW) with multiple violations.

“Baltimore could have been cited for every part of the standard that the city was in violation of,” explained Jordan Barab, who served as a deputy assistant secretary at the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) between 2009 and 2017.

But Maryland’s workplace heat standard, which mandates specific protections at certain temperatures among other provisions, didn’t go into effect until eight weeks after the 36-year-old father of five collapsed on a resident’s doorstep, begging for water.

This meant that MOSH was only able to cite Baltimore under what’s known as the General Duty Clause, which simply requires employers to provide a safe workplace and is used when there is no existing standard.

Public Sector Exemption

Speaking with The Brew, Barab pointed to another regulatory hole in Maryland – state law does not allow MOSH to issue financial penalties to public employers.

“Most states do provide for financial penalties when public employers are cited, but there are about half a dozen states, including Maryland, that don’t,” said Barab, who now writes a newsletter about workplace safety and labor issues.

If Baltimore DPW had been a private employer, the state violation in connection with Silver’s death could have meant a $16,000 fine.

Legislation in Annapolis this year, called the “Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act” (House Bill 176/Senate Bill 26), aims to strengthen protections for public sector workers.

Named after a Maryland parole agent who was killed on the job in 2024, the legislation would add new safety standards for government workers and allow a newly created “Public Employees Safety and Health Unit” to cite and fine public employers who violate regulations.

If Baltimore DPW was a private employer, Silver’s death could have resulted in a $16,000 fine.

At a hearing before a Senate committee earlier this year, public employees’ unions spoke in favor of the bill, recounting threats and physical injuries suffered by their members, including teachers, bus drivers and clerical workers.

A union leader representing correctional workers described dangerous working conditions that included mold, broken fire equipment, malfunctioning security radios and falling down fences.

“There have been multiple staff assaults requiring correctional officers to be life-flighted to other hospitals,” said Tony Stiles, a correctional officer with the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Several witnesses cited not only Silver but another Baltimore DPW Solid Waste Bureau worker, Timothy Cartwell, who died on the job last year after being struck by a garbage truck.

“These tragedies illustrate the dire consequences workers face when our laws fail to hold public employers accountable for their public servants’ workplace safety,” said a statement submitted on behalf of AFSCME Maryland Council 3 President Patrick Moran.

An Incentive to Comply

Some witnesses opposed the Davis Martinez legislation, theough their reasons appeared to be mostly procedural.

The Maryland Municipal League (MML) argued “it would be difficult to comply” with the bill’s requirement to email certain document to employees, since some don’t have email.

“Employees are familiar with finding information on workplace safety posted in highly visible locations in the workplace as opposed to via email,” the MML statement on the bill noted.

Some of these reporting requirements “are redundant to requirements already in place with MOSH and could lead to confusion or noncompliance,” the statement warned.

The Office of Attorney General Anthony Brown also criticized the bill, warning that, if it is charged with advocating for the Labor Department’s enforcement actions, it “may be unable to simultaneously defend the cited public body.”

This would be a conflict of interest and a burden, Brown’s office asserted.

“Representing both sides would strain the OAG’s resources and require robust ethical screens, complicating the resolution of disputes and delaying enforcement or compliance,” the agency said.

The Maryland Judiciary also opposed the bill, arguing that since it has its own policies on standards of conduct that address workplace violence and other issues, “this bill is unnecessary.”

The judiciary further asked that it be exempted “given its current policies and its constitutional authority to separately manage its branch of government.”

Bill supporters said such concerns can be easily accommodated, and that the value of strengthening worker safety protections make these issues worth navigating.

Barab, who testified in favor of the bill, lauded its tougher provisions, particularly the ability to hit public employers with fines.

“It doesn’t make up for someone’s life being lost, of course,” he told The Brew. “But the point of penalties is to provide some deterrent to cutting corners on safety and health. And in the Baltimore case, it would have been an additional incentive for DPW to comply with the law.”