Certainly with the exposures to a number of different substances in the workplace, the definition that is being proposed will, in our opinion, be limiting that. If you have a worker such as a mason who has dust exposure, it may be that the employer will believe that it is not dangerous, and you will need to have a lot of “proof” to show that it is dangerous, whereas the current definition will have that sort of longer-term application to it, to look at the long term, because there is a latency period in certain exposures to chemicals. That may not happen overnight. It will take a number of years for it to become known as a health effect in your system and to manifest itself in various health conditions.
The current definition certainly takes that into account, but we believe the changes to the definition will be limiting workers' ability to bring forward those kinds of circumstances. That will limit their ability to enforce this or to utilize the right to refuse in their knowledge that there is a potential down the road in terms of a health condition and health effects.