On November 3, Pennsylvania announced it’s leading a multistate coalition opposed to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposal to restrict enforcement of workplace safety protections under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (L&I) and the Illinois Attorney General submitted comments for the coalition urging OSHA to withdraw its proposal to reinterpret the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause.
On July 1, OSHA proposed clarifying its interpretation of the General Duty Clause to exclude known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the nature of a professional activity or performance. The narrowed interpretation would apply to animal handling and performance; hazard-based media and journalism activities; live entertainment and performing arts; motorsports and high-risk recreation; professional and extreme sports; andtactical, defense, and combat simulation training.
“Every worker deserves a safe workplace – no exceptions,” L&I Secretary Nancy A. Walker said in a statement. “This federal proposal would weaken a core protection that has stood for more than 50 years, putting workers at greater risk of serious injury or death.”
Other states joining Illinois and Pennsylvania in the coalition include Arizona, California, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Arizona, California, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont all have OSHA-approved state workplace safety and health programs covering both private sector employees and state and local government employees. Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York have state programs covering state and local government employees only. Federal OSHA covers private sector employees. Delaware and Pennsylvania have no state programs and rely on federal OSHA for workplace safety and health enforcement.
The states described the proposal as contrary to the plain language of the OSH Act, as well as congressional intent and decades of case law. They stated that OSHA failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the proposed departure from long-standing agency policy.
The states said a policy change may force states to modify existing state plans or take regulatory action to preserve existing protections.
Think tank urges states to respond to OSHA changes
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) outlined a three-step plan in a recent report for states to respond to “threats” to federal workplace safety and health protections.
According to the EPI, the threats to safety and health include:
Diminishing capacity to enforce or develop workplace safety standards, as demonstrated by efforts to close OSHA and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) offices, eliminate the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), allow OSHA officials to reduce penalties by up to 70%, and offer employers inspection exemptions for performing self-audits;
Proposing to exclude known hazards of certain occupations from General Duty Clause enforcement; and
Blocking or delaying rulemakings on silica and heat exposures.
The EPI urged states to take steps that include updating state laws and regulations to lock in current federal protections; closing gaps in workplace safety and health protections, such as heat exposure, wildfire smoke, ergonomics, infectious disease, and workplace violence; and implementing targeted state enforcement, as well as providing workers’ rights education.