Note: OSHA Inspections and The Fourth Amendment: Balancing Private Rights and Public Need

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) is the result of the Federal government\u27s concern about safe working conditions. The purpose of OSHA is to assure safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources. To effectuate its goal of promoting industrial safety, OSHA authorizes the Secretary of Labor to establish mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce. It also authorizes the Secretary to enter and inspect any work place during regular working hours and at other reasonable times to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards. The inspection provision of OSHA has been attacked on the ground that warrantless OSHA inspections violate the search and seizure safeguards of the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. This Note will explore recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with administrative searches and seizures and consider the effect of these decisions on fourth amendment challenges to the OSHA inspection provisions

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and COVID-19

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not currently have a specific standard that protects healthcare or other workers from airborne or aerosol transmission of disease or diseases transmitted by airborne droplets. Some in Congress, and some groups representing healthcare and other workers, are calling on OSHA to promulgate an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect workers from exposure to SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) gives OSHA the ability to promulgate an ETS that would remain in effect for up to six months without going through the normal review and comment process of rulemaking. OSHA, however, has rarely used this authority in the past—not since the courts struck down its ETS on asbestos in 1983. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), which operates California’s state occupational safety and health plan, has had an aerosol transmissible disease (ATD) standard since 2009. This standard includes, among other provisions, the requirement that employers provide covered employees with respirators, rather than surgical masks, when these workers interact with ATDs, such as known or suspected COVID-19 cases. Also, according to the Cal/OSHA ATD standard, certain procedures require the use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPR). Both OSHA and Cal/OSHA have issued enforcement guidance to address situations when the shortage of respirators may impede an employer’s ability to comply with existing standards. H.R. 6139, the COVID-19 Health Care Worker Protection Act of 2020, would require OSHA to promulgate an ETS on COVID-19 that incorporates both the Cal/OSHA ATD standard and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) 2007 guidelines on occupational exposure to infectious agents in healthcare settings. The CDC’s 2007 guidelines generally require stricter controls than its interim guidance on COVID-19 exposure. The provisions of H.R. 6139 were incorporated into the version of H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, as introduced in the House. However, the OSHA ETS provisions were not included in the version of legislation that passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law as P.L. 116-127. A group representing hospitals claims that because SARS-Cov-2 is primarily transmitted by airborne droplets and surface contacts, surgical masks are sufficient protection for workers coming into routine contact with COVID-19 cases, and that the shortage of respirators may adversely impact some hospitals’ patient capacities. H.R. 6379, as introduced by the House, also includes a requirement for an OSHA ETS and permanent standard to address COVID-19 exposure

Developing a Framework for Sensible Regulation: Lessons from OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Rule

Injuries caused by workplace activities that involve repetitive motion, known as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), increasingly concern workers, employers, and regulators because of their frequency and high treatment costs. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently proposed a national rule designed to reduce the workplace risk of MSDs. OSHA estimates there were about 626,000 MSDs in 1997, representing about one-third of all serious nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA estimates the proposed rule will cost $4 billion per year and generate$9 billion per year in benefits. Yet, OSHA does not provide sufficient evidence that private markets are failing to reduce MSD risk without government intervention and does not convincingly demonstrate that the rule will result in more good than harm. Unless OSHA effectively addresses some of the more serious flaws in the proposed rule, OSHA should not proceed with the final regulation. OSHA should more carefully evaluate the nature and extent of MSDs in the workplace than it did in the proposed rule and use improved economic analysis to target serious MSDs that employers can reduce at low cost. Furthermore, OSHA should include new provisions to improve employer access to information about reducing workplace risk of MSDs. The rule's ergonomics program requirements should apply only to those MSDs which employers do not have sufficient incentive to reduce without government intervention.

Workers at Risk: Regulatory Dysfunction at OSHA

This white paper explores the causes of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s regulatory dysfunctions and describes their negative impacts on OSHA and America’s Workers. With the decreasing power of unions to organize and press employers to implement strong health and safety programs, employees in every occupation rely on OSHA to protect them from occupational hazards. Yet, in the last decade, OSHA has dropped more standards from its regulatory agenda than it has finalized, largely due to insufficient budge authority. And the agency’s enforcement program has assessed such paltry fines for even fatality-related violations of the law that many employers see no incentive in addressing hazards, much less developing precautionary health and safety programs. After describing OSHA’s problems in detail, this paper outlines a number of reforms that could enhance the agency’s performance. Although certain aspects of the Occupational Safety and Health Act could use improvement, the recommendations in this paper focus on regulatory reform—administrative actions that OSHA could implement in the short term.The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Busines

OSHA Enforcement, Industrial Compliance and Workplace Injuries

This paper develops and tests a three-equation simultaneous model of OSHA enforcement behavior, industrial compliance and workplace injuries. The enforcement equation is based on the assumption that OSHA acts as a political institution that gains support through the transfer of wealth from firms to employees; the empirical results are largely consistent with this notion. Contrary to previous work, we find that OSHA enforcement efforts have, indeed, had a statistically significant impact on industrial compliance and, further, that this compliance has led to a statistically significant decrease in worker injuries. The point estimate of the elasticity of the lost workday rate with respect to the OSHA inspection rate is -.04.

Are OSHA Health Inspections Effective? A Longitudinal Study in the Manufacturing Sector

We examine the impact of OSHA health inspections on compliance with agency regulations in the manufacturing sector, with a unique plant-level dataset of inspection and compliance behavior during 1972-1983, the first twelve years of OSHA enforcement operations. Two major findings are robust across the range of linear and count models estimated in the paper: (1) the number of citations and the number of violations of worker exposure restrictions decrease with additional health inspections in manufacturing plants; and (2) the first health inspection has the strongest impact. The results suggest that prior research focusing on the limited impact of OSHA safety regulations may under-estimate OSHA's total contribution to reducing workplace risks.

Hazard identification, risk assessment and risk control: a study at construction site

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is an Act to make further provisions for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to safety or health in connection with the activities of persons at work, to establish the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, and for matters connected therewith. This study focuses on infrastructure construction in Pagoh Education Hub. In present days, despite of knowledge in OSHA act, workers often proceed the work without considering any safety precaution or act at workplace as stated in OSHA Act. Due to ignorance of workers and employee on OSHA Act, workers are exposed to danger and hazard at their workplace causing them minor or worst fatal injury. The data collection was carried out through site investigation using Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), HIRARC form and interview session with several workers in the constructio. The main objective of this study is to support the idea to coordinate and redefined the practice of occupational safety and health as workers discipline at their workplace based on existing potential hazard. This study was conducted to identify the hazard that occur at the workplace and analyse the safety precaution taken by the workers and employer to avoid accidents. As a result, this study listed several suggestions to improve the practice of occupational safety and health among workers in the workplace

Facts About Worker Safety and Health - 2012

[Excerpt] This year marks the 41st anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the effective date of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Act – which guarantees every American worker a safe and healthful working environment – created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set and enforce standards and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct research and investigations. This year also marks the 43rd anniversary of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, and 35th anniversary of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act

Is OSHA Unconstitutional'

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Secretary of Labor is authorized to issue whatever standards are "reasonably necessary or appropriate" to provide safe or healthful places of employment. More than any other provision in federal regulatory law, this language is subject to a plausible nondelegation challenge, because it seems to ask the Secretary to choose among a wide array of "intelligible principles" for standard-setting. The constitutional challenge raises serious and unresolved questions for both regulatory policy and administrative law. In answering those questions, courts have three principal alternatives. The most aggressive approach would be to invalidate the statute in the hopes of encouraging, for the first time, sustained legislative deliberation about the proper content of occupational safety and health policy. The most modest approach, rooted in the Avoidance Canon, would be to construe the statutory language to produce floors and ceilings on agency action; that approach would require the Secretary to ban significant risks while forbidding the Secretary from regulating trivial or de minimis risks and also requiring the Secretary to show that any regulations are "feasible." The third and preferable approach, also rooted in the Avoidance Canon, would be to construe the statute so as to require the agency to engage in a form of cost-benefit balancing. Such a construction would have the advantage of promoting greater transparency and accountability at the agency level. At the same time, it would raise difficult questions about the precise nature of such balancing in the context of occupational safety policy and also about legal constraints on agency assessment of both costs and benefits. Because of the distinctive nature of workplace safety, the best approach would give the agency considerable flexibility on questions of valuation while also permitting serious attention to distributional factors.

The Declining Effects of OSHA Inspections on Manufacturing Injuries: 1979 to 1998

This study compares the impact of OSHA inspections on manufacturing industries using data from three time periods: 1979-85, 1987-91, and 1992-98. We find substantial declines in the impact of OSHA inspections since 1979-85. In the earliest period we estimate that having an OSHA inspection that imposed a penalty reduces injuries by about 15%; in the later periods it falls to 8% in 1987-91 and to 1% (and statistically insignificant) in 1992-98. Testing for different effects by inspection type, employment size, and industry, we find differences across size classes, but these cannot explain the overall decline. In fact, we find reductions in OSHA's impact over time for nearly all subgroups we examine, so shifts across subgroups cannot explain the whole decline. We examine various other hypotheses concerning the declining impact, but in the end we are not able to provide a clear explanation for the decline.