What's Your Opinion: Do you believe that most employers view their relationship with OSHA as adversarial?

Most employers are not proactive. The only dealings they have is when OSHA issues a citation and then it becomes adversarial.

OSHA like the Supreme Court have become too political, reflecting the views of the current administration. View the appointees and associated in-fighting to verify that.

It may be perceived as adversarial due to the broad range of interpretation of OSHA regulations, even among inspectors. However, the actual relationship depends on the personalities involved and their willingness to work together.

They show up unannounced and can cite you for anything they see regardless of the purpose of the inspection. It is not a question - it is adversarial. We have a very solid safety program backed up by our OSHA 200 log and Worker's Comp Mod. We have done two voluntary OSHA level compliance audits through New York State, completing the last one two months before an unannounced OSHA audit. The auditor found three items none of which were part of the target audit. It is adversarial.

Michaels has made it adversarial. He would rather brag about his high-dollar fines than actually work toward safety improvements. His speeches are offensive.

Many employers find OSHA somewhat out of step or behind the times when accepting current, modern safety technology that make conditions safer, particularly under certain applications. Take for example 1910.147 (LOTO), OSHA is still only accepts mechanical isolating devices while new electrical isolating devices have been tested and validated for their intended use as referenced in UL 6420. To add to the confusion, OSHA recognizes UL as a National Recognized Testing Laboratory. Go figure--

Employers generally only care about employee safety in relationship to whether the employee shows up for work, not whether the employee is safe.

The system is setup (or run) that way. Real life example: Employee upset for mot getting a raise makes formal complaint to OSHA, Inspectors arrives with list of 6 complaints. All complaint are found to be invalid, but fines are issued for other items. Inspector stated that her boss expects her to find issues. Now the employee is protected even though the claims were false. With this system how can the relationship be anything but adversarial.

There is a "cause" to every incident and it is often committed by the employee. Good companies spend large amounts of $ on solid safety programs. OSHA is a "business". Solid safety programs result in fine REDUCTIONS only. I do not expect OSHA to ever say "Good Job", or simply give suggestions for improvement without a "catch". It always appears as if the goal is "We caught you not being Perfect 100% of the time".

Safety managers have such a role that no matter what they do it is not enough. Production needs to run, QA in food industry tops all due to the nature of illnesses that can occur, OSHA is never satisfied and will give fines for items not even related to why they came in and interpret the regulations to meet their need to fine. The best a company can do is to make the safety culture one that the employee will not be afraid of mentioning unsafe conditions/behaviors, and keep a diligent eye out as a management team for the same. Yes, it is adversarial.

My organization works at having a good relationship with OSHA, but they are an exception. I teach OSHA and I find most employers cut enough corners that put their employees in danger and then cry because they are held responsible. OSHA is one of the few government entities that can prove their worth. If employers have a problem with them, they are probably not looking after their employees with the care they should.

if you make a full effort to comply with OSHA and other regs with a credible program that is given full support for implementation, there should be no sense of adversarial roles. the requirements are published, plenty of training assistance information is available, and proactive involvement from OSHA upon request is available. Perform and i think OSHA will do the same without aggressive approach if you are making full good faith effort. Cross or decieve them, and pay the price of messing with an advesary with unlimited resources. It is a no brainer.

Much less of a partnering atmosphere with the current administration.

I ahve worked at both good and bad safety sites. What I can share is that as an OSHA VPP site with a proactive safety management system I have seen it as a cooperative relationship. The sites I have worked that didn't put the effort in for being proactive, then expect it to be adversary.

I work at a VPP site in SC. We know our OSHA outreach consultants and inspectors personally. We welcome them to our site for consultations. We have learned that it is better to work with them in a mutually beneficial relationship. That way, there are no surprises.

The question was loaded. Going by most employers; I would say most don't see benefits as much as another set of rules fair or otherwise. These to be either paid lip service or ignored

I work OSHA on a steady basis an feel we have a GOOD working relationship. I can ask questions to the duty officer and get timely responses back to my questions.

The cost of doing business coupled with current safety regulations and requirements sometimes causes many employers to dodge the costs of implementing what they deem to be excessive safety precautions and therefore dread the "OSHA inspection" which are inevitable at some point in the business's lifetime.

Yes, it is adversarial, however that is most employers doing, not OSHA's. As a regulatory body, it will naturally have this relationship. It is the employers who aggrevate that condition.

Who is OSHA? They are ghosts to most people. I rarely see them outside of safety conferences.