Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Essay Example

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) Increasing and rapid industrialization saw as well an increase in labor force to man those industries. Even as technology progressed to such a point that several industrial processes are fully-automated, man and machine continue to work together and in close proximity. Undeniably, this has led to accidents in the work place – sometimes injurious and sometimes fatal. Not only does occupational hazard exists where machines are present but the advances that science and technology is making at the chemical front have also spelled health risk to workers who have been directly exposed to them. Prior to the 1970s, such risks were left to the companies to handle and there was minimal intervention from the federal government by way of work safety-related policies and regulatory standards. By the late 1960s, workplace accidents resulted to the death of an average 14,000 workers per year while an estimated two million more were harmed or disabled. Furthermore, there was too little known about the health effects of the variety of chemicals that were being churned out of factories even as environmental advocates have been raising the alarm on the possible dangers of exposure. This disturbing rates and figures prompted President Nixon to sign the Occupational Safety and Health Act in Dec. 17, 19701. The establishment of OSHA The enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) marked the first time that a federal program was established to protect and ensure the health and safety of the entire country’s work force by reducing job-related illness, injury, disability, accidents, and death. Then-Secretary of Labor James Hodgson’s first step was to establish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a special agency within the United States Department of Labor tasked to implement and enforce the said Act; OSHA was established effective April 28, 19712. In order to carry out the mission which it was set out for, OSHA had to start from scratch, using the Bureau of Labor Standards as the nucleus from which to build up the program3. The OSH Act also established the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the agency to conduct researches on known and possible work-related safety and health problems and to recommend regulatory standards which OSHA should consider based on their findings; as well as that, NIOSH was also to provide technical assistance to OSHA4. OSHA’s principal client groups are mainly organized labor and the business community; as such, they have played active roles in the shaping of OSHA throughout its almost 40 years of history. In fact, the passage of the OSH Act was influenced strongly by organized labor and labor leaders and workers’ advocates continue to be the most vocal critics of OSHA’s conducts and policies5. The encompassing role of OSHA is to “assure the safety and health of America’s workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health”6. The standards that OSHA establish and enforce are disseminated to employers and employees through consultation programs and by providing them with technical assistance. In order to assure the health and safety of workers, OSHA provides employers with assistance to help reduce, prevent, or eliminate workplace fatalities, injuries and illnesses. Most employees in the United States are under OSHAs jurisdiction7. Those who are not covered by the OSH Act include the following: self-employed; members of immediate family of farm employers; workers whose conditions are regulated by other agencies such as those in the mining and transportation industries; and most state and local governments employees. Although OSHA covers the private sector only, the agency also conducts federal workplace inspections if employees complain of work hazards; federal agency heads, however, shoulder the responsibility of ensuring a safe and health risk-free environment, complying with standards similar to those provided by OSHA. OSHA’s standards and responsibilities In order to meet the legislative intent of the OSH Act for which OSHA was established, OSHA uses three basic strategies to assist employers and employees increase occupational safety and reduce risks. These strategies are stated as follows: “Strong, fair, and effective enforcement; Outreach, education, and compliance assistance; and Partnerships, Alliances and other cooperative and voluntary programs”8. To ensure workers’ safety, OSHA formulates and enforces regulations called “standards”9. The OSH Act established only one, yet all-encompassing standard: the “general duty standard”. It states that “each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his [or her] employees"10. OSHA was given the authority to create the specific rules that would further implement the general duty standards. OSHA consults with representatives from the industry as well as the labor sectors when drafting a proposal for permanent standard11. OHSA also collects the needed scientific, medical and engineering data that would sufficiently reflect real conditions in the workplace. Proposed standards are then published in the Federal Register where comments may be received. The final and legally binding standard is compiled and published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Enforcement of mandatory job safety and health standards are carried out through inspections of worksites; if such workplaces are proven to have failed in complying with the set standards, citations or penalties or both will be imposed on the offending party12. Employers and employees alike are thereby encouraged to be cognizant of the standards set by OSHA and to reduce workplace hazards. OSHA assists in implementing new safety and health management systems or improving the existing programs of company. Companies are also encouraged to participate in cooperative programs such as the Voluntary Protection Programs, OSHA Strategic Partnerships, and Alliances. OSHA is also tasked with the following responsibilities: establishing responsibilities and rights for employers and employees to achieve better working conditions; establishing the requirements for recording injury and illnesses by employers; establishing requirements for employers to monitor work-related sickness; providing compliance assistance; and establishing training programs that will build the capabilities and improve the competence of occupational safety and health personnel. Enforcement is an important part of OSHA’s mandates and through the agency’s Site-Specific Targeting and Enhanced Enforcement programs, focus is trained on businesses who have a history of having the most dangerous work conditions or the most severe health and safety violations. In general, OSHA standards require employers to be familiar with the standards applicable to their businesses and to comply with those standards13. Employers also have the responsibility to maintain working conditions and adopt practices that are necessary to protect the workers at the worksite; this may require the use of personal protective equipment and such should be supplied by the employers. OSHA standards are meant to address a wide variety of hazards that may be found in the workplace which include the following: “Toxic substances; Harmful physical agents; Electrical hazards; Fall hazards; Trenching hazards; Hazardous waste; Infectious diseases; Fire and explosion hazards; Dangerous atmospheres; Machine hazards; and Confined spaces”14. When no specific standards are yet established but that employers recognize a particular risk, they must still comply with the OSH Act’s “general duty standards” clause. OSHA throughout the years Organizing and establishing the agency within the Department of Labor went smoothly but its formative years were not without some difficulties and confusion15. During the first couple of years of OSHA, enforcement was loosely focused on investigating the worst offenders – catastrophic accidents and the most dangerous workplaces. Voluntary compliance was encouraged to avoid punitive enforcement approaches and that decision was well received among business communities; moreover, health safety was emphasized at the urging of the organized labor. The small businesses, however, were not as supportive of OSHA’s initial efforts and were in fact strongly opposed to the agency’s interventions16. Big corporations were relatively tolerant because they have safety programs already and place prior to OSHA and were experienced in dealing with federal regulations. This is not to say that they were not as critical. Businesses were concerned about the “competence of OSHA inspectors, the cost of compliance with federal standards, and the burden on business of meeting the Act’s requirements to report and record injuries, illnesses and deaths on the job”17. OSHA attempted to address the concerns by easing the requirements but despite that, small businesses saw OSHA as a looming threat to their survival. As a consequence, amendment to the Act was sought to exempt small employers and this came within presidential veto in 1972. The next OSHA head steered the agency towards a new direction: the development of new safety and health standards and placing tough enforcement on the highest priority18. The agency was battered more than ever by criticisms and this time, it was coming from all sides. Criticisms were especially heightened on agency administration and the slow standard-setting process. OSHA, however, was proving to be strong on the following fronts: “inspections, federal-state relations, promotion of voluntary compliance, and safety and health training”19. But while Congress was pushing OSHA to enforce its regulations effectively in 1974 and 1975, the tide among businesses was turning towards easing the regulatory burden which President Nixon was also supporting. According to Nixon, regulatory agencies were being prohibitive on production instead of encouraging; Nixon stressed that a trade off must be met so that safety standards do not unduly sacrifice economic gains. President Ford, who succeeded President Nixon concurred with his predecessor, making deregulation one of his main goals20. This further slowed the already-slow standard-setting process to a snail’s pace that by 1975, the agency was in very serious trouble with the White House, Congress, the business leaders, and the labor organizations. A tag team composed of Marshall Miller and Bert Concklin was brought in to provide interim OSHA leadership while the mismanagement problems were assessed. Miller and Concklin have different backgrounds and they concentrated on different aspects of the agency’s management. Together, they revised the management, studied the policies, streamlined standard development, and promote better education among workers and employers regarding their obligations to the OSH Act. One of the most important reforms introduced was to have OSHA focus their inspections more effectively on the most dangerous and unhealthy workplaces. As a capstone to the changes they have been instilling in OSHA, Concklin and Miller established the "National Emphasis Program" in November 1975; this program “would employ a combination of enforcement and educational activities to reduce casualties in highly hazardous industries”21. At around this time, there were also several new standards proposed. The reforms mollified the critics and a new leadership was brought in22. Labor Secretary Dunlop chose a health and safety professional for the job – Morton Corn. Corn’s overriding goal was to focus on serious work hazards, particularly health risks but he was also concerned with OSHA’s outside relationships. Corn worked hard to improve the image of OSHA by raising the professional competency of the agency’s manpower. But election time put a strain on the Corn’s administration of the agency. Ronald Reagan was a staunch critic of federal regulation; facing such a challenge, President Nixon also became increasingly critical of OSHA especially on its spending millions of government money on safety measures that gave very little abatement of accidents. Joining the fray were the labor organizations who watched OSHA closely to make sure that they did not deregulate too far. Corn’s tenure was short but it was marked by a flurry of activities and innovations. One important action was the controversial standard on coke emission and a revised standard for cotton dust which required companies to put in place new engineering controls that were extremely costly for the companies to comply. Corn, however, recognized the economic considerations and one of his policies was that companies be given a sufficient period of time to comply with the standards to ease the financial burdens somewhat. President Jimmy Carter brought in Eula Bingham to head OSHA during his entire administration and Bingham, given the length of time she was in office, was able to follow through with most of the policies she established, unlike her predecessors23. At the onset, Bingham redirected OSHA to follow new “Common Sense Priorities”. Under this program, OSHA was all about focusing on really serious workplace hazards that 95% of its resources were redirected to inspections of industry groups with the worst work-related safety problems; as well as that, the size and expertise of health inspection staff were augmented and the process of adopting new standards was accelerated. Another “Common Sense” goal was to help small businesses comply with the standards. Under Bingham, OSHA also tried to simplify the safety rules by revising unclear ones and eliminating unnecessary and irrelevant rules. Labor organizations were supportive of the goals and many critics backed off, even praising Bingham and then Labor Secretary Marshall for giving OSHA more focus and force. Although Bingham carried on with the other goals – helping small businesses and simplifying safety rules – OSHA devoted most of its energies on major workplace health and safety hazards. President Ronald Reagan’s main goals was to provide industries with a respite from burdensome federal regulations and, as OSHA have always been perceived by businesses as the principal source of such a burden, it became the principal agent of reducing it24. Reagan brought it a new OSHA under secretary – Thorne G. Auchter. Auchter sought to eradicate the "prevailing adversary spirit among labor, management and government”25 by promoting cooperation among them and involvement in the formulation of OSHA’s programs and policies. The states were also encouraged to develop their own plan to be approved by OSHA. Overall, Auchter sought to improve agency management and to make law administration more effective with such measures. Great pressure to implement Regulatory Relief shaped the agenda of OSHA under Auchter and this brought changes in enforcement and compliance. As a result, less punitive approaches to penalties were instituted and volunteerism was strengthened. A new system was established to exempt firms with excellent safety records from rigorous inspections and the target was more on those with poor records. The development of state programs was strongly encouraged as well as voluntary efforts by employers and employees to abate workplace hazards. OSHA in 1984 also promulgated the Hazard Communication Standard which differed from the traditional stance of OSHA; workers were given access to information regarding the health risks of chemical substances they may be exposed to at work26. This was provided in the form of a Material Safety Data Sheet which included a description of the physical hazards of handling the particular material and the limits of exposure. Also, containers of hazardous substances were to be properly labeled and must bear appropriate warning. Whereas President Reagan’s successor (and incidentally his vice president), President George H.W. Bush basically followed through with the Reagan’s regulatory Relief which was seen as an effort to weaken OSHA’s authority as an enforcement and rule-making agency, President Clinton steered OSHA in a different direction and the focus became stakeholder satisfaction. One instance was the strengthening of protection of whistleblowers from discrimination by employers27. It has been revealed that employees who filed complaints regarding the conditions and safety of their work places were often demoted, penalized or dismissed from their jobs despite the stipulations in the OSH Act that prohibits such retaliatory actions. When George W. Bush ascended to the presidency, OSHA’s strategy once again changed, relying instead on lawsuits and voluntary compliance by industry to reduce work-related injuries28. Democrats, favoring mandatory rules such as that of Clinton’s administrations, lamented the killing off of existing and proposed regulations and the delayed adoption of others and criticized Bush’s “toothless” guidelines, saying that such voluntary compliance will only be ignored by industries. This was especially highlighted in the administration’s ergonomics policy; the guidelines were undeveloped at the time of its introduction and the government underscored voluntary steps the concerned businesses may take to reduce musculoskeletal disorders – e.g., carpal tunnel, tendinitis – resulting from repetitive actions. Then Labor Secretary Elaine Chao defended the administration’s position by claiming that voluntary approach “would do more and work faster”29 as opposed to the cumbersome process due to multiple and specific steps required by rules such as those set by Clinton’s administration. The present administration – President Obama’s – has chosen a scientist to head OSHA. There’s some indication that such a person may be the one needed to steer the agency back to protecting worker’s rights instead of playing favoritism to industry with lax standards which marked the Bush administration30. Dr. David Michaels – the person Obama chose for the job – is an occupational health expert and has conducted studies on health risks due to toxic chemical exposures as well as studies that highlighted the use and misuse of science in the formulation of regulatory decisions. Dr. Michaels aims to give OSHA a new direction and philosophy: instead of focusing on enforcement, he would rather “campaign to change the workplace culture of safety”31. Unlike Bush’s appointee, business leaders may find something to oppose in Dr. Michaels. But then again, his policy on culture reform in the workplace should be viewed as a promising effort to ease the tension between business groups and labor organizations. As well as that, Dr. Michaels’ emphasis on science should lend better credibility to OSHA’s standard-setting processes and decisions. The importance of OSHA to employees and employers Since the implementation of OSH Act in 1970 and the establishment of OSHA in 1971, work-related illnesses, injuries and fatalities have been declining steadily32. Other factors – business cycles, economic downturns that shift the workforce to more experienced workers, changes in record collection, employer initiatives, and compensation payments – may very well have contributed to the observed decline in the recorded work-related incidents33. Thus, identifying and measuring the direct impacts of OSHA regulations is a complex analytical process. Nevertheless, overall trend is suggestive that substantial progress has been made since OSHA’s creation and more could still be done. Throughout its 40 years of history, OSHA was at the center of the tug of war between government, businesses, and labor organizations. OSHA had to juggle criticisms from all sides and accommodate the various and opposing sectors with compromises in order to survive as an agency. Obviously, the strategy, agenda and general direction of OSHA depends highly on the incumbent administration. Businesses are also sensitive to the regulations imposed by OSHA, deeming the new controls to be too costly to comply with; small employers are especially vulnerable, lacking the capacity and necessary resources to comply with OSHA standards. Labor organizations are just as sensitive to the reforms that OSHA has made through the years to conform to what seemed the most urgent concerns of that specific period. But these concerns need not be opposing; nor should one be compromised to accommodate another. The history of conflicts within OSHA and the variability in the direction it is taking may be due to the fact that the necessary balance among all stakeholders has not been found. It is evident, however, that such as balance is being sought throughout the evolution of OSHA and continuous progress is along that line. BIBLIOGRAPHY MacLaury, Judson. “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration: A History of Its First Thirteen Years, 1971 – 1984.” 1984. United States Department of Labor. March 22, 2010 http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/mono-osha13introtoc.htm. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All About OSHA. (US Department of Labor, 2006). “Occupational Safety and Health Administration”. Encyclopedia of Business (2nd ed.) 17 Mar 2010. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Mail-Op/Occupational-Safety-and-Health-Administration-OSHA.html. Pear, Robert. “Clinton wants to strengthen US whistleblower shield.” 15 Mar 1999. The New York Times. 17 Mar 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/15/us/clinton-wants-to-strengthen-us-whistle-blower-shield.html?scp=114&sq=&st=nyt. Greenhouse, Steven. “Democrats question Bush policies on workplace injuries.” 19 Apr 2002. The New York Times. 17 Mar 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/19/us/democrats-question-bush-policies-on-workplace-injuries.html?scp=81&sq=&st=nyt. “A champion for workers’ safety”. 9 Aug 2009. The New York Times. 17 Mar 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/opinion/06thu2.html?scp=5&sq=&st=nyt. US Congress, Office of the Technology Assessment, Gauging Control Technology and Regulatory Impacts in Occupational Safety and Health: An Appraisal of OSHA’s Analytic Approach, OTA-ENV-635. (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995) Read More