Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through David Sarvadi, Esq, filed this statement regarding the Senate HELP Committee’s hearing “Time Takes Its Toll: Delays in OSHA’s Standard-Setting Process and the Impact on Worker Safety”
Today, the Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS), a broad coalition comprised of associations and employers dedicated to improving workplace safety through cooperation, respectfully submitted this letter in response to today’s hearing titled, “Time Takes Its Toll: Delays in OSHA’s Standard Setting Process and the Impact on Worker Safety.”
The Coalition for Workplace Safety has issued CWS Letter to OIRA on OSHA GHS-HCS reg
By Marc Freedman – Jan. 17, 2012 (originally posted at FreeEnterprise.com)
On January 10, OSHA inaugurated the New Year by issuing a white paper extolling the virtues of Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (also known as IIPPs, I2P2, or just safety and health programs). The paper discusses the key components OSHA has found in common with effective programs and makes the case that implementation of these programs has resulted in significant, and even dramatic, reductions in work related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. What the white paper fails to do is make the case for a regulation from OSHA mandating these programs which we know is OSHA’s top regulatory priority.
We agree with OSHA that safety and health programs have shown significant benefits for the employers who have implemented them. Notwithstanding OSHA’s analysis that these programs share certain common elements, how these employers implemented these elements is unique to each employer and their workplaces. Such flexibility and individuality is anathema to a regulation mandating these programs. By definition, a regulation entails enforcement. Were OSHA to complete a regulation mandating these programs, they would instantaneously change from being a good idea to being required by law. At that moment, the threshold question is no longer, “How best to implement a safety and health program to improve my workplace’s safety?,” but, “What do I have to do to satisfy OSHA’s inspectors and how will they view my version of these components?” All those who believe OSHA inspectors have the best handle on improving workplace safety in the myriad different types of workplaces covered by the agency, raise your hand.
Employers should be duly skeptical about the enforcement possibilities that such a regulation would trigger. At a minimum, this approach would subject employers to second guessing by an OSHA inspector as to whether they had satisfied the elements of a program as spelled out by OSHA. At a maximum, this could mean that employers would be subject to “double dipping” where OSHA would issue two citations for one hazard–one for the hazard, and one for the faulty safety and health program that failed to flag it.
And let’s not forget the likelihood that OSHA’s mantra of requiring employers under these programs to “find and fix” all hazards would mean that employers would be responsible for “finding and fixing” all ergonomic related hazards. Pity the poor employer whose employee doesn’t sleep well and wakes up with back pain the day the OSHA inspector visits.
That OSHA is determined to move forward with the I2P2 regulation was made clear just days after the release of the white paper when the agency announced it plans to convene the small business review panel of its proposal for a regulation sometime before March 6. Merely claiming that these programs are good ideas is not enough to support this rulemaking.
We recently told you that a Coalition for Workplace Safety spokesperson was set to testify about the priorities for the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. To follow up, here is the written testimony of Stuart Sessions, who received this write-up from Bloomberg:
Stuart Sessions, president of Environomics Inc. in Bethesda, Maryland, whose clients including the American Portland Cement Alliance and American Petroleum Institute, criticized a proposal that would require employers to shield workers from loud noises. The measure was withdrawn Jan. 19 amid complaints and the agency is reviewing alternatives.
The noise requirements would have cost, on average, $3,000 to $10,000 per employee a year for manufacturers with similar expenses for transportation companies, he said.
“This is a very large cost for a policy,” said Sessions, who spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Workplace Safety.
“Business and labor are preparing to wage a lobbying battle over a new rule expected later this year that could have a profound effect on how health and safety are handled in the workplace,” reports The Hill. At stake is the future of a potential Occupational Safety and Health Administration plan requiring workplace managers to institute a Injury and Illness Prevention Program (or I2P2). In the story on the coming debate, The Hill kindly includes the voice of the Coalition for Workplace Safety:
OSHA’s focus on the rule has caught the attention of a number of business groups. Members of the Coalition for Workplace Safety, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, have grown concerned about the rule.
“This would be the most sweeping regulation that OSHA has ever put out,” said Marc Freedman, the Chamber’s executive director of labor law policy.
Freedman believes the rule could require employers to identify all hazards in the workplace, even ones not already mitigated for by OSHA.
“There is one school of thought that they would not have to issue another regulation ever again,” Freedman said.
For the rest, click over to The Hill.
As employers know all too well, the American economy is dynamic. In other words, any given snapshot or analysis of a policy has to be the best possible estimate of the consequences of any legislation or regulation. In looking at that challenge, the Associated Press (via CNBC) was kind enough to include a reference to a recent Coalition for Workplace Safety effort:
Researcher Stuart Sessions studied potential costs of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise-reduction plan that has now been withdrawn. Hired by the Coalition for Workplace Safety, composed of employers and trade associations, Sessions said he did take into account jobs that would be created if new noise-reduction equipment would be required.
Click through for more information.
From the House Education and Workforce Committee:
On Tuesday, February 15 at 10:00 a.m., the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), will hold a hearing on “Investigating OSHA’s Regulatory Agenda and Its Impact on Job Creation” in room 2175 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Since 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been charged with enforcing federal safety and health standards in America’s workplaces. With nearly 14 million individuals out of work, members of the committee will examine OSHA’s current policies and priorities and how they affect job growth.
Among those testifying is Stuart Sessions on behalf of the Coalition for Workplace Safety.
More information is available from the Committee’s website.
The Coalition for Workplace Safety is pleased that OSHA has announced that they will be withdrawing their proposal that would have required employers to implement costly and disruptive new controls for employee exposure to noise. OSHA indicated that they received a tremendous of amount of feedback from employers that have detailed their concerns with the agency’s ill-conceived and unworkable proposal. The CWS was preparing extensive comments and an economic analysis that would have reinforced the concerns OSHA has already heard. We were also concerned that the agency had sought to implement these sweeping changes to OSHA policy outside the traditional rulemaking process with none of the protections of that process in place.
In OSHA’s announcement the agency explained that they will be performing additional research and outreach to stakeholders. Such outreach had not been performed prior to the agency’s initial announcement of their proposed changes. Additionally OSHA indicated that they have become aware of the possible costs of complying with the proposal – which are estimated to be in the billions of dollars.
While OSHA finally offers some data about hearing loss injuries, the numbers they provide do not indicate that existing employer efforts have led to the steady decline of work related hearing loss injuries since this OSHA began collecting such data in 2004. This hearing loss data does not reflect the widespread use of personal listening devices and other personal habits which are now being identified as a major source of hearing problems in the population.
Additionally, the agency’s announcement details that OSHA’s on-site consultation program as a resource for small and medium size businesses to seek advice on noise exposure problems. However, this is the same program about which OSHA has an open rulemaking which will clarify that employers in this program are subject to inspections and enforcement.
Finally, OSHA commits to providing “a robust outreach and compliance assistance effort to provide enhanced technical information and guidance on the many inexpensive, effective engineering controls for dangerous noise levels robust outreach and technical assistance.” We will be interested to see what OSHA promotes as “inexpensive” engineering controls, and whether OSHA uses this as a way to impose engineering controls on employers who are already providing effective noise protection through other means.
The AFL-CIO posted an open letter to Rep. Issa (R-CA) from California Labor Federation Legislative Advocate Mitch Seaman reacting to an article in POLITICO about the Congressman seeking input from companies, business groups and think tanks on federal regulation. The AFL-CIO snidely and incorrectly cited part of the article that reported the National Association of Manufacturers’ call for oversight of OSHA’s regulatory proposals that would gut employer compliance programs (e.g. on-site consultation).
The National Association of Manufacturers responded to your request for marching orders by naming OHSA consultations as “high-priority regulations that can cost manufacturing jobs.” Not to nitpick, but OSHA consultations are free services provided by OSHA—or a state OSHA program—that identify potential hazards before they happen. This is a win-win that creates both safer and less expensive work environments. As workers, we are curious as to exactly how jobs are created by eliminating a free service that saves employers money and reduces workplace injury.
Marching orders? What silliness.
Still, we’re pleased to see the labor group’s apparent agreement with the NAM about the value of the consultation program, as the blogger describes them as “a free service that saves employers money and reduces workplace injury.” Absolutely. We feel strongly that OSHA should not hinder a successful program that allows small businesses to voluntarily approach OSHA for advice on how to make their businesses both more productive and safer for their employees. The NAM joined with numerous other organizations in the Coalition for Workplace Safety’s comments to OSHA which urged the agency not to remove important aspects of the program that encourage company participation. It’s rare when the AFL-CIO and the NAM can find common ground on policy, but we were optimistic that we may have found a new ally in our effort to protect an important OSHA program.
Labor’s newfound support is especially welcome since the AFL-CIO submitted comments to the agency’s regulatory proposal calling for major changes that would have made it much more difficult for employers to use the OSHA program effectively. Let’s hope that the members of the California Labor Federation can make AFL-CIO’s staff in Washington aware of why they agree with the NAM when they describe the program as a “win-win that creates both safer and less expensive work environments.”