Federal agencies

Industry reps call for OSHA compliance assistance during House hearing

OSHA hearing
Photo: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats / Flickr

OSHA should work more as an “assister” than an enforcer. The agency should write standards in easy-to-grasp language, accompanied by fact sheets and other guidance materials. OSHA’s website should become more user-friendly, and the agency needs more consistency in enforcing its current standards.

These suggestions were among those made by three industry representatives during a Feb. 27 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

The panelists:

  • J. Gary Hill, representing the National Association of Home Builders
  • Eric Hobbs, a labor and employment attorney representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Peter Gerstenberger, senior advisor for safety, standards and compliance with the Tree Care Industry Association

The hearing also included testimony from David Michaels, former OSHA administrator. 

In his opening statement, Hill pointed to OSHA’s collaboration with NAHB on a confined spaces fact sheet, released in July. He added that the agency should communicate more with small-business owners through avenues such as town halls and listening sessions and via online methods.

Hill also suggested OSHA make “user-friendly improvements” to its website and that agency guidance be “simple, straightforward and easy to digest.”

Hobbs offered recommendations on improving OSHA’s “attitude and relationships with stakeholders.” He claimed the agency “dismissed legitimate concerns” during some of its rulemaking and further hinders its relationship with employers by issuing press releases after citations.

Hobbs and Hill also reiterated one of the major talking points of Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta: compliance assistance. In its fiscal year 2019 budget proposal, OSHA is seeking a $5.1 million increase in compliance assistance funding, 24 new compliance assistance specialists and eight staff members for its Voluntary Protection Programs.

In contrast, Michaels, who left his position as OSHA administrator in January 2017, said that although some employers will respond to the “carrot” (compliance assistance) approach, some respond only to the “stick” (enforcement).

“Some need a very big stick, and some need no stick at all,” Michaels said. “OSHA needs all of those tools. To say to do one and not the other doesn’t work.”

He said assertions that OSHA does not partner with industries and views all employers as villainous is “really discrediting the agency and is not based in fact.”

On the topic of regulation, Michaels said no empirical evidence exists that regulations kill jobs, but “powerful evidence” suggests OSHA standards save lives. An estimated 14,000 workers died on the job in 1970, according to the agency; that number was 5,190 in 2016.

“OSHA standards don’t kill jobs,” Michaels said. “They stop jobs from killing workers.”

Hobbs acknowledged the need for enforcement but said consistency is an issue, partly attributable to the retirement of experienced OSHA inspectors and the hiring of new ones.

“The standards themselves, and even the compliance guidance, are so complicated [OSHA inspectors] don’t understand the standards,” he said. “In fact, I’ve run into area directors who do not understand the standards.” Hobbs gave examples of inconsistencies from those directors on lockout/tagout inspections.

Whether the suggestions presented during the hearing will be considered is unclear, as at press time OSHA was without a permanent leader. Scott Mugno’s nomination as assistant secretary of labor initially was sent to the Senate on Dec. 13 but had to be resubmitted Jan. 18 after a new session of that legislative body was convened.

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

Name
March 2, 2018
The article did not mention that OSHA is self funded. Also, inspectors have been sent to sites with orders to find certain types of violations so that the employer can be fined. I do not believe that OSHA walks into a facility, unannounced, after a complaint with the intent to "help" the employer. Even when there is evidence that the complaint(s) is invalid for good reasons (disgruntled employee that was recently fired for example), they will still fine the employer for something. I will admit that I do agree with the premise that the OSHA rules need to be written in plain language. I think legalese is just a way to trap employers and confuse the heck out of everyone that has to read the rules. I would guess that most OSHA employees are not attorneys, so legalese does no good in terms of understandability when it comes to ordinary people such as OSHA employees and employers. It is not surprising that everyone, including OSHA directors are confused. Also, I wish OSHA luck in changing the perception of employers. Too many employers have had interactions with OSHA employees and directors that just wanted the employer to pay a fine. Others have had interactions with OSHA where the inspector completely ignored or did not document mitigation measures in a timely manner. Then of course, all of OSHA's mistakes come back to haunt the employer because the OSHA office will not admit they made a mistake. OSHA needs to mend a lot of fences before employers' perceptions change.

Title

Joe Lindsey
March 2, 2018
I am a safety coordinator for the company I work for. I have been in safety for more than 25 years and have trouble understanding some of the language in the regulations just like others. I would like to see the committee come up with some laymen's language for the standards so that the skilled workers in the field can get a better understanding of the regulations. Even when I have written to OSHA for an interpretation of the standards all I get back is the exact wording that is in the standard. I would not ask for an interpretation if I haven't read the standard first. If they would answer the question in a more friendly language it would be more apt to help the person asking the question. As I read the standards all I can think is that a bunch of lawyers are the ones writing them. The workers in the field do not really care what the standards say as long as it can be explained in a language that they understand. With that being said if the safety professional doesn't understand the language of the standard then how are they supposed to give and explanation that the workers can understand? I agree that writing citations are a part of compliance as long as the officers understand that it's not all about writing citations but to educate the employers and well as employees in a way that they understand regulations so that they can educate their own workers.

Title

Name
March 2, 2018
I agree that the OSHA standards are very complicated and plain English should be used on the fact sheets. Just, in my opinion, there should be both compliance assistance and enforcement. The companies that show they do everything they can to conform to the standards, along with training and employee involvement should be allowed the compliance assistance without getting the citation, and the compliance assistance officer should show where the company can improve on their safety culture. However if the company being investigated show little or no involvement of conforming to the standards, and there is no management/employee involvement in the safety culture of that company they should have enforcement help. I do agree OSHA standard does help save lives, some companies get it, some don't, enforcement is not always the answer.

Title

Russell C. Wingate
March 2, 2018
Just some random thoughts... I am sorry "Industry Reps", compliance assistance already exists. Every state has a compliance assistance component as a requirement of the Act. Compliance Assistance is there for companies with 250 employees in a single location or 500 corporate wide. I think that covers the vast majority of all business in the U.S. Generally speaking, I believe the standards are straight forward. Some may take reading them a few times to understand what is required. Letters of interpretation exist for numerous parts of the standards, explaining in more detail why something needs to be done a certain way. The public web site was pretty darn good 20+ years ago and has only gotten better. “Industry Reps” might want to take the time and work through the various parts of the public web site. One simple example you may want to check is “Quick Start” on the public web site. If you were to open one of these: General Industry, Construction Industry, or Heath Care, you’d be linked to a step by step process for setting up a safety program for your company. Follow the various hyperlinks and use whatever would apply to your type of business. If industry would be just a little proactive, they could have a program that would protect their employees and most likely an OSHA compliance officer would move on to another site where their abilities are better used. How much time has any of the “Industry Reps” spent poking around the public web site? Controlling hazardous energy – just read the standard and follow the steps outlined as they apply to your type of equipment. Instead of looking for ways to get out of doing something in accordance with the standard for LOTO, embrace the requirements. Industry spends too much time trying to get out of doing something required by the standards. If you spent the same amount of time on protecting your employees, I feel there would be a tremendous improvement across the whole spectrum. You will never have a perfect system. If we had a perfect system we would never need the various levels of the court system in our country. Everyone has the potential to read and understand what they have read, differently. Enforcement is needed.

Title

Name
March 2, 2018
When doing the right thing is made easy, it is far more likely to be done. Occupational safety standards are written in a language better suited to their authors than their intended audience, and as such, unnecessarily complicate what should be easy. Numerous letters of interpretation hammer this point home. I recommend replacing usage of the word "shall" with "must" as a simple start.

Title

Name
March 2, 2018
Shouldn't Compliance Assistance be more available and a larger "department" than enforcement? Yes, the OSHA website has gotten a lot better over time. I also agree that the regulations should be written in laymen's terms and everyone should be on the same page. Enforcement is necessary for those companies who have been warned and don't do anything about their violations within a set amount of time. Most companies care about their employees, but they also care about making money to keep their employees working. Even if a company doesn't "care" about their employees, the insurance company sure does! A good balance is difficult to find especially in industries where the lowest bidder gets the project - AND for most government awarded projects, it would be great to be picked on merit - which includes a good safety record.

Title

Jason
March 2, 2018
There are some exceptionally valid comments below, other than OSHA is not, and has never been self-funded. Compliance Assistance is very important, yet some of the most vocal proponents are also known to believe the Government should never compete with something the industry can do better. Hire a consultant so they can call the local OSHA office for a free answer.

Title

Robert Triplett
March 29, 2018
I wholeheartedly agree with requiring more CASs per OSHA Area Offices and State OSHA offices. Having worked as a Compliance Officer for MIOSHA and as a Compliance Officer-Compliance Assistance Specialist (CAS)-Assistant Area Director for Fed OSHA I know that we are not providing as much of a helping hand as is needed. Too many times, I would be inspecting an establishment whose owners were husband and wife putting in 16 hour days, with no desire for their employees to be harmed in any way, however they did not have or afford the resources to understand, read or comprehend the regulations and all the parameters involved. A government interested in enforcement and assistance should equalize their workforce to at least 2/3 of the staff to be enforcement and 1/3 to be CASs in each and every office. I'd prefer 50/50. If it's an inspection concerning DART rates or Referrals, send in the CAS first, then if they pop up again, send in the enforcement officer. Strictly send in the enforcement staff for complaints, accidents, and fatalities. Those people that make comments on subjects or topics, on this page, should spend some time researching before uttering nonsense. OSHA is not self-funded (look up the definition and then ask how it works). In my years as a Compliance Officer, never have I been ordered to find certain types of citations so that an employer could be fined. If there's a violation, the Compliance Officer must gather the evidence and prove that the employer failed to protect their employees in a court of law. Violations are not made up. If it's wrong it's wrong. If an employer can prove that the citation is unwarranted, then it wouldn't be a citation anymore. As an Assistant Area Director, I trained my staff to follow these rules, values, and work ethic always.

Title

Howard Boyer
March 30, 2018
I agree with Dr Michaels There are good companies and bad companies along with some that roll the dice until they get snake eyes! Thank you Howard Boyer United Steel Workers Union local 4-417 H&S

Title

TVH
April 2, 2018
The government needs to make better use of You-Tube to present short training subjects relating to Safety and Health. Also should also adopt as law more consensus standards such as ANSI. An example where OSHA should provide better guidelines is the need for laws relating to Reinforcing Steel and Post-Tensioning Safety Issues. There is insufficient guidance on concrete and reinforcing steel.

Title

Steve
April 11, 2018
I have never had a problem with OSHA. I've found the regulations pretty simple to read and interpret. I am not an attorney and do not see them as "legalese". I've had a couple OSHA visits. One for a complaint and one for a "serious injury". Neither resulted in a fine. I've asked for help from OSHA and received it with no strings. My advice? 1) Read the regulations. You cannot comply if you haven't. 2) Be up-front with the inspector. Hide nothing. 3) Help the business maintain a tight ship. If you don't understand the business and processes, you won't have the respect of the organization and your boss won't want your help.

Title

Name
April 12, 2018
Understanding OSHA regulations should not be a problem for those in industry. I switched my career from education and public health to industrial safety about 5 years ago. As regulations go, OSHAs are about the most straight forward, simple and quite frankly out of date as compared with most federal regulators. OSHA also provide smore in way of response and compliance assistance than most agencies. I do agree that OSHA regulators should be better trained and understand safety and safety program better. I've also seen, mostly with state programs, emphasis placed and fines levied for reasons that don't really promote better safety. A great example is fining warehouses for not maintaining warnings and SDS sheets for carbon monoxide because they operate two or three propane forklifts in a massive warehouse space. The dilution factor alone would prevent an exposure at the OSHA PEL under the worst conditions, and an SDS sheet for CO is designed for those handling or shipping CO in cylinders or containers, not generated by vehicles. The safety guidance in those SDS sheets would not really apply for the proper use of propane lifts and other devices that might generate CO if not operating properly. Moreover, OSHA doesn't need to be in the handholding business. Regulations should be straightforward and enforced. I would agree that upon investigating a tip, or an incident the regulators should strongly consider the safety programs in place and the effort demonstrated by the company to provide safety as it determines whether or not to fine a company. Companies with decent safety programs that readily make changes to operations to correct problems don't need to have their problems compounded with additional costs. However, those that don't do those things need to be corrected and fines are an effective tool for that. I would rather OSHA got out of the assistance business altogether in an effort to reduce federal cost and provide more resources for effective auditing and inspection programs. The biggest reason violators violate is they don't believe they will get caught. The time to do effective audits is not after a fatality. Companies that want to improve their safety are better off turning to ASSE, NSC, NFPA, SOCCMA, ACGIH, ANSI and others for advice and assistance. OSHA regs are a bottom line, not a best practice. The regulations, when written should keep that in mind, and industry leaders should recognize that simply meeting those regulations is a poor excuse for a safety program.