OSHA’s demise after 40 years

OSHA is 40 years old. Can you believe it? For those of you who do not know that OSHA stands for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and is the safety newspaper of the US federal government, there are also state OSHAs, but since I am not and have never been a US resident. In the US, I’m not sure about the relationship between state and federal OSHAs.

OSHA, along with its research partner, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, made the US the international leader in regulating workplace safety. Oh, how things have changed. Internationally, OSHA is a shadow of what it once was. Not only is it no longer a leader in the field of workplace safety regulation, it is largely irrelevant. Let’s come back to this later.

Knowing OSHA

I first learned about OSHA in 1973 when, shortly after finishing my apprenticeship, I was elected shop steward to my task force. Two weeks later, one of the boys (they were all men in those days) was seriously injured when he fell off a scaffold, but that’s another story. All the union officials I contacted referred to the OSHA and NIOSH publications because it was far superior to anything that was available locally and it was these documents that helped me get some changes to the way things were done to improve site security and sparked an interest in job security that led me to work full time in the field. In all that time, I have monitored the situation in the US which has been made a little easier with the creation of the Internet and I have had enormous regard for OSHA and the work it has done, as well as disappointment in the way in what has changed and the reasons why I believe they have caused those changes.

OSHA achievements

The most significant achievement that can be directly attributed to OSHA is the reduction in the death toll in the U.S. workplace. In 1971, the year OSHA was formed, an estimated 14,000 workers died in the workplace. That’s 14,000. By 2009, that number had dropped to 4,340, while the workforce had more than doubled. Even if the workforce had remained the same size, this would have been an astonishing achievement. Its:

• 10,000 fewer families a year suffering the loss of a loved one.
• God knows how many children that still have a father or mother or brother or sister or whatever to relate to and learn from.
• Thousands of families do not have to make do with social assistance.

From a business perspective, it is:

• 10,000 fewer fatality claims per year in workers’ compensation.
• A huge reduction in workplace disruption that inevitably brings fatality.
• Millions of dollars in training and skill acquisition costs that have not been lost.
• Avoid the nightmare of public relations and loss of reputation that result from workplace fatalities.

And the list goes on.

So who loses in improving workplace safety? Workers win, bosses win. What is the problem here? Why has OSHA become so looked down upon by businesses, politicians, and, to some extent, workers?

The demise of OSHA

From my perspective as an outsider, answering these questions also provides the reasons for OSHA’s loss of international reputation.

OSHA has become an inward-looking defensive organization, more concerned with its political survival and preserving the status quo than complying with its statute to protect the well-being of American workers.

In 1971 there were many low fruits on the tree to improve safety in the workplace. It was obvious to all who were searching and easy to choose. However, as each layer of fruit was collected, it became increasingly difficult to collect the next level. At the same time, the progressive social movements of the 1970s gave way to greater conservatism that reduced public support for workplace reform in light of growing job cuts, industry rationalization, and rising employment. foreign competition.

These changes in the social and industrial landscape gave further credence to company complaints that improving safety was costing too much money and was costing jobs. Politicians too committed to business to be independent were too willing to sacrifice worker safety to appease business interests and save the jobs that remained in their constituencies. 1971) had to adjust their priorities as their members became more concerned with declining jobs and manufacturing. At the same time, the reduced membership also reduced their influence in the government.

While it is likely an exaggeration to say that OSHA’s existence was threatened, its job was already becoming more difficult and these factors combined to reduce the necessary social, industrial and political support vital to meeting its agenda of making it happen. workplaces in the US become safer in the future. moment when he needed all the support he could get.

Budget cuts, downsizing, increased accountability (how does a security regulator hold itself accountable for administering whistleblower legislation?), More public interest in catastrophic security events that appear to be increasing. How would the organization manage? He did so by focusing more on defending himself from attacks on his existence and credibility, which made him fear making controversial decisions or pursuing a reform agenda.

OSHA became more conservative, more concerned with bureaucratic compliance than safety improvements (you can more easily use the former than the latter to defend yourself), and ultimately more interested in preserving the status quo than seeking necessary changes to be able to choose the highest position. Fruit.

International developments

While this was happening within the US, other countries were moving. They adopted more radical reform programs to improve workplace safety. The 1972 Robens report established a framework that exists today for a consultative approach to improving workplace safety that involved workers in decision-making processes. The pre-existing customary law expectation that employers had a duty to protect their employees from hazards in the workplace was enshrined in legislation.

Violations of security laws became offenses in many cases punishable by imprisonment (they are rarely enacted, but still exist). Economic sanctions have steadily increased, as has the legal capacity to sanction those who run organizations. Prescriptive and rule-based safety regulations have largely given way to results-based and risk-oriented models that assign responsibility to the employer to ensure that the work environment does not unduly threaten the safety of those who work there.

OSHA Final Chapter?

Recent attempts by OSHA to introduce diluted versions of these internationally accepted standards can be seen in the proposed requirements for Engineering Controls for Occupational Noise and Illness Prevention Programs. These, however, have been howled forcing OSHA to back off embarrassingly as they retreat back to their bunker to lick their wounds. OSHA has lost another battle and appears to be slowly losing the war and the ultimate victims will be American workers.