Groups sue Trump over ‘2 for 1’ Executive Order on regulations
Photo: jkinsey3291/iStockphoto
Washington – Watchdog groups Public Citizen and the Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as the labor union Communications Workers of America, have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and other government officials over a recent Executive Order requiring federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one introduced.
In the lawsuit, filed Feb. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the groups claim that the Executive Order, signed Jan. 30, “exceeds President Trump’s constitutional authority, violates his duty under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and directs federal agencies to engage in unlawful actions that will harm countless Americans, including plaintiffs’ members.” The agencies are seeking a declaration that it cannot be lawfully implemented.
“No one thinking sensibly about how to set rules for health, safety, the environment and the economy would ever adopt the Trump Executive Order approach – unless their only goal was to confer enormous benefits on big business,” Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said in a Feb. 8 press release. “If implemented, the order would result in lasting damage to our government’s ability to save lives, protect our environment, police Wall Street, keep consumers safe and fight discrimination. By irrationally directing agencies to consider costs but not benefits of new rules, it would fundamentally change our government’s role from one of protecting the public to protecting corporate profits.”
Added Communications Workers of America President Chris Shelton in the release: “This violates the mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to protect workers’ safety and health. It also violates common sense.”
The White House on Feb. 2 published guidance clarifying the Executive Order, stating that it will apply only to proposed regulations that would impose economic costs of more than $100 million.
Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have voiced support for Trump’s action.
“The U.S. Chamber applauds the president for fulfilling the campaign’s promise to take on the regulatory juggernaut that is limiting economic growth, choking small businesses, and putting people out of work,” chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said in a Jan. 30 press release.
In related news, a report from the National Association of Manufacturers, published in January before the presidential transition of power, claims that U.S. manufacturers face nearly 300,000 operation restrictions from federal regulations – including more than 28,000 related to worker safety.
Post a comment to this article
Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)
Title
February 10, 2017
Trump is not saying regs need to be taken out. He is saying ease up on the economy and help with business growth and keep jobs. Every year it seems more limitations have been put on us. It is hard enough to make a living and support a family. The more stress you put on companies, the less opportunity is out there. Instead of progressing, we keep falling backwards. The prices keep going up, and the paychecks keep going down. PAY ATTENTION TO THE LITTLE GUY. I think, it is just a way for gaining more monies from more fines and causing more cost for companies that are still trying to survive from the 2008 crisis.
Title
February 10, 2017
There are many regulations and yes, they can be a pain sometimes but the priority for many companies is profit at any cost including the well being of their employees. So regulations to ensure worker safety is necessary. Trump has no idea of the long term consequences of this order and he isn't willing to take the time to learn. The order is illogical, irrational, in no way helps protects the safety of workers who are the little guys. It benefits only big business. I support the groups suing and I hope that the courts agree.
Title
February 10, 2017
There is a regulation in a state that requires a certain number of trees to be planted on a business property. There is another regulation that prevents the same business from watering those trees due to drought. The result: the business is required to purchase new trees and plant them every 6-8 months when they die due to lack of water. At least one of these regulations can be eliminated, probably both. Just an example of the afflicted regulating things they are completely ignorant about. It's the same as a business making decisions disregarding the people involved. The regulatory agencies make decisions disregarding the businesses and people involved. The point: there needs to be balance between the regulations, businesses and people the regulations affect. This executive order will force the regulatory agencies to begin thinking this way. They will now have to be creative and appropriate with their regulations. Instead of asking a business to plant and kill trees repeatedly, those two regulations can be eliminated and something like the following put in place. Require the business to maintain landscaping that minimizes erosion and requires the appropriate amount of precipitation for the climate of the locale. Why does an executive order suddenly mean the president is against the environment, health, and safety? I am not sure I follow the argument in this article. I think this executive order is intended to reduce regulatory burden and improve EHS and securities regulation through more concise regulation. Besides, it will change in 4 - 8 years anyways. If you are opposed, don't make any new regulations.
Title
February 10, 2017
I always take things to a Hypothetical extreme to understand them. As far as safety regulations are concerned, the thing we need to do to ensure no one ever gets hurt working, is NOT DO ANY. You can't get hurt working if you are not. Obviously this is an extreme that can't become reality. The fact is that safety people nationwide, and at OSHA when proposing yet another hand tying rule, to further encumber nimble quick and smart workers, they say "we'll get this rule passed, NO ONE is going to argue with "Safety". True, there are too many lawyers and too many people that could argue with "SAFETY" but they really can't afford to personally, so they just put their head down, and shrug it off, say to themselves "I can't do anything about it, and another stupid rule goes into effect in the name of "SAFETY". Things get a little more expensive, and no body notices. This happens time and time and time and time and time and time .............again. The difference is this time, is the Donald who understands there is a reason for stupid rules most of which could be eliminated and that reason is man's desire to control other men. Donald Trump can afford to fight the "SAFETY" Czars, and I hope he can bring sanity back to the "SAFTEY" departments around the country, and in the government so they don't contribute further to the financial destruction of the country. We need safe, smart, tested, proven, workers out there with a great work ethic. They can replace 90% of the saftey rules we now have. When will we learn that some workers are never going to be safe workers simply because they do not have the ability to stay our of harm's way. They should be sweeping floors, and leave the dangerous stuff to the real pros. I'm betting on Donald Trump being able to bring this overbearing rule making insanity to a close. We will see.
Title
February 10, 2017
Dear Bruce - I've been a safety manager for over 20 years and have seen the changes brought about by several Presidential administrations, from eased regs under republicans to tightening by the dems. So I agree with you that there is some over-regulation that inhibits economic growth and production efforts. But let's talk about priorities. You claim that lawyers and legislators use the safety card to sell regulations that aren't safety related. It's interesting that you consider yourself in a position to make broad value judgements on the validity of safety rules. Your philosophy is no different than the business owner who ignores safety rules for the sake of making an extra widget. Your statement about "hand tying rules that encumber nimble quick and smart workers" shows your lack of understanding about behavior based safety and the pressure to perform that runs throughout organizations where safety runs a distant last compared to quality and production. There are thousands of "nimble quick and smart workers" who, if left to their own devices would roll the dice with safety, whether its' through their own negligence or the pressure to perform. I'm sorry that you believe there are people out there who "do not have the ability to stay out of harm's way". Obviously you give no credence to things like safety training, BBS programs or safety managers who go the extra mile with some of the hard-to-convince employees. Your philosophy is to simply move them because they're too stupid to learn. So think twice before you support an administration that puts profits before people and be thankful that safety managers who actually care about the safety and livelihood of their co-workers exist. It's attitudes like yours that Mr. Trump appeals to; people who, to use your own words, " always take things to the hypothetical extreme". And really, how do you expect anyone to agree with your comments about safety and take you seriously when you can't even spell it correctly.
Title
February 10, 2017
The idea that it is us verse them is what gets us in trouble and stops progress. I see the uge benefit to this Executive order and I have dedicated my life to Safety of myself and others. When you have to have a bachelors degree or higher to interpret a regulation, that regulation means nothing to a line worker. As safety professionals we do our best to interpret and put it into simple terms in our trainings for our people. This is exactly what I think he is trying to do. We have over bearing regulations that make everything cumbersome and difficult. Certain people in public office and special interest groups "need" to make regulations so they feel like they have made an impact. Wouldn't clarifying, simplifying, and combining regulations be more impactful than adding more of them? The idea that he is wanting to be detrimental to the Safety of workers in ridiculous. There are a lot of companies out there that understand that Safety is good business. If you haven't heard businesses are in business to make money, that is exactly why we work for business, to make money. Wouldn't a business be more inclined to pay workers more if their profit margins were higher? Do I think the gap between CEO's and line workers is too big, yes of course. Do I think some publicly traded companies put stock holders over people, yes? When we receive new regulations that make our jobs more difficult, as safety professionals, and we know will not effect worker safety at all, that is over stepping and that is what he is trying to stop. I loved the scenario in the comments where they required a company to plant so many trees but then wouldn't allow the water to keep them alive. That carbon foot print is much higher and costly. I think there are a few regs. that went into affect this year that we all know will not impact the safety of our employees. How about we see what this looks like before we jump to conclusions?
Title
February 10, 2017
Ben I couldn't agree with you more, I work with the DOD and for us to comply with all the regulation is a full time job. We pay a lot of fees to government agencies for permits i.e. CUPA, AQMD, F.D. CERS and etc. All these fees and the time we spend filling out all the BS, I could hire additional employees. Another thing I find is that most of the people who are angry with President Trump work for government agencies or are support their programs. "Going Green is Big Business" for everybody except the middle man.
Title
February 10, 2017
I too have been a safety manager for more than 20 years and in the general industry going on 30. Yes, there are team members out there that do not know the meaning of safety and take chances every day, and many of them do not know what the term "OSHA Safety Regulation" means. They do know the training they are required to go through every year on the subjects of hard hat safety. Yes, I do believe and practice BBS and do monthly challenges to keep our safety out front. Our management team is also very engaged in Safety. Working safely is in the mind of the person performing the job, and having the ability to question management if it is the safest way when they are faced with doing something out of the ordinary without feeling like they are going to get "yelled" at. If we use OSHA to help in ways to make safety a Culture instead of regulations and actively caring for each other, instead of having the focus on new regulations and policing them, we would be a much safer nation. How many of us will drive 5 mph over the speed limit taking a chance and that is a law, but if we knew what the 5 mph difference would make in the end result of an accident it might make us slow down. It is what you can get by with, and nobody "seems" to care is when injuries go up not by regulations. And unfortunately there are people who do take those chances, and no matter how many regulations or caring you do will change them. That is when the discipline needs to come in. There is diversity in the people who work in general industry that has come from areas who have little or no regulations and don't care about them, so their life long experience is that they have never had to worry about it, and that is where actively caring is better than regulations. Profit will naturally come from people being at work, staying longer because they feel safe, and companies will have a more experienced workforce. So I do support President Trump on this, regulations are good for guidelines, over regulations is to much.
Title
February 13, 2017
"It also violates common sense.”
Yes it does. It should be 3:1. We are so heavy on laws, and every new lawmaker strives to get his name on new laws and legislation. Why? I agree that the world and workplace is evolving faster than regulations can be enacted. However, technology has drastically changed since most laws in industry specific Articles of Regulation have been approved and enacted.
This leaves employers trying to comply with regulation, while also trying to maximize the potential of the their equipment, construction or manufacturing method, or personal protection equipment. A waist belt and manila rope is still legal by one regulation for instance. That needs to go. Many others, just like that throughout not only OSHA standards including state run programs, penal codes, health and safety codes, building codes, etc.
The regulatory industry, needs a tune up.
Title
February 24, 2017
Perhaps bureaucrats could trade three onerous extra-legal internal policies or practices for one regulation to cancel. Often it is these bogus "determinations" that are harder to work under.
Title
February 24, 2017
Everyone has submitted some terrific comments, and I agree a bit with each one. As a Corporate Safety Director, keeping the balance of Corporate Leadership buy in, and keeping our employees safe, is most certainly a daunting task; but at the same time, very rewarding as well. Yes, I think that the Federal Government makes Rules and Regulations that has a tendency to pick winners & losers for political gain. However, some Regulations do have a place to make real lasting change or improvements to the EHS of many. In my experience, I try my best not to focus so much on the Regulations, but more on the loss control efforts that impress our insurance carriers and underwriters. Developing good Corporate EHS polices that reduce risk, save lives, and impact the bottom line by premium reductions and improved Experienced Modification Rates do catch the eye of the Senior Leadership Team. So, to say with a broad brush, that business leaders are irresponsible and need Federal intervention in order to protect the environment and to keep people safe is not always the case. Many organizations get it, and have gotten it for years, many business leaders understand to protect their brand they must protect their human resources and the environment. Some understand that it makes good business sense because they see what happens within their industry and will naturally flex and make the necessary changes to be responsible and sustainable, we do not need Federal intervention for that. As an EHS leader my greatest reward is to influence everyone to do the right thing, not because the Fed's say so, but because we owe it to our employees, customers, insurers, suppliers, contractors, neighbors, and the general public.