Top 10 OSHA violations : same old tune?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator>Karr, Al</dc:creator>
<dc:date>1997-12-01</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang="es">Sumario: The Plant of AMP'experience involved OSHA's PPE standard, which ranks high on its list of most frequently cited rules. It is but one example of employers'common argument that the administration strives to jack up the score of penalty points, often without regard to real safety or health concerns. The latest top 10 list includes the five most cited safety standars and the five most cited health standars</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>https://documentacion.fundacionmapfre.org/documentacion/publico/es/bib/51486.do</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:rights xml:lang="es">InC - http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Seguridad e higiene en el trabajo</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Prevención de accidentes</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Programas de seguridad</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Casos prácticos</dc:subject>
<dc:type xml:lang="es">Artículos y capítulos</dc:type>
<dc:title xml:lang="es">Top 10 OSHA violations : same old tune?</dc:title>
<dc:title xml:lang="es">Título: Safety & health</dc:title>
<dc:relation xml:lang="es">En: Safety & health. - Itasca. - Vol. 156, nº 6, December 1997 ; p. 46-50</dc:relation>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>