To gain OSHA approval for a "developmental plan," the first step in the process of instituting a state plan for job safety and health, the applying state must first assure OSHA that it will, within three years, have in place all the structural elements necessary for an effective occupational safety and health program. These elements include: 1) appropriate legislation; 2) regulations and procedures for standards setting, enforcement, appeal of citations, and penalties; 3) adequate resources (both in number and qualifications of inspectors and other personnel) for enforcement of standards.
Once a state has completed and documented all its developmental requirements, it is eligible for certification. Certification is basically an acknowledgment that the state has put together a complete plan. Once the state has reached a point where it is deemed capable of independently enforcing job safety and health standards, OSHA may enter into an 'operational status' agreement with the state. Once this occurs, OSHA in effect steps aside and allows the state to enforce its laws.
The ultimate accreditation of a state plan is known as "final approval." When OSHA grants final approval, it relinquishes its authority to cover occupational safety and health matters that are addressed by the state's rules and regulations. Final approval can not be given until at least one year after certification, and it is predicated on OSHA's judgment that worker protection is at least as effective under the state's standards as it is under the federal program. The state must meet all required staffing levels and agree to participate in OSHA's computerized inspection data system before being allowed to operate without OSHA supervision.
HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OSHA AND BUSINESS
OSHA has traditionally used "command and control" kinds of regulation to protect workers. "Command and control" regulations are those which set requirements for job safety (such as requirements for guard rails on stairs) or limits on exposure to a hazardous substance (such as a given number of fibers of asbestos per cubic milliliter of air breathed per hour). They are enforced through citations issued to violators.
In 1984 OSHA promulgated the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which was viewed as a new kind of regulation differing from "command and control." The HCS gives workers access to information about long-term health risks resulting from workplace exposure to toxic or hazardous substances, and requires manufacturers, importers, and distributors to provide employers with evaluations of all toxic or hazardous materials sold or distributed to those employers. This information is compiled in a form known as a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). The MSDS describes the chemical's physical hazards such as ignitability and reactivity, gives associated health hazards, and states the exposure limits established by OSHA. In turn, the employer must make these documents available to employees, and requires employers to establish hazard communication education programs. The employer must also label all containers with the identities of hazardous substances and appropriate warnings. Worker "Right-to-Know," as implemented on the federal level through the HCS, is designed to give workers access to information so that they can make informed decisions about their exposure to toxic chemicals.
OSHA has been criticized by businesses and industry groups throughout its history. In the 1970s, it was criticized for making job-safety regulations that businesses considered to be vague or unnecessarily costly. For example, a 1977 OSHA regulation contained detailed specifications regarding irregularities in western hemlock trees used to construct ladders. In the Appropriations Act of 1977, Congress directed OSHA to get rid of certain standards that it described as "trivial." As a result, in 1978 OSHA revoked 928 job-safety standards and increased its efforts to deal with health hazards.
On the other hand, OSHA has also been criticized by unions and other pro-worker groups throughout its history for doing too little to protect employees. Throughout its existence, OSHA has been criticized for issuing too few new standards, for failing to protect workers who report violations, for failing to adequately protect workers involved in the clean up of toxic-waste sites, and for failing to enforce existing standards. The latter charge has been a particularly frustrating one for OSHA. Funding for enforcement has dwindled in recent years, and over the last 20 years, both Congress and various presidential administrations have publicly supported efforts to keep OSHA and other agencies "off the backs" of business.
OSHA REFORMS
OSHA is criticized from both sides, for being too arbitrary with employers and for being too lax on employers. A 2000 survey of members of the National Association of Manufacturers cited OSHA as the nation's most intrusive federal agency (34 percent of responding manufacturers cited OSHA, while 18 percent pointed to the Environmental Protection Agency, the second-highest vote-getter; another 11 percent said no federal agency significantly impeded their efficiency). The most frequent complaint leveled against OSHA is that American workplace safety and health regulations are excessively burdensome on businesses of all shapes and sizes. Critics call for fundamental changes in OSHA's regulatory environment, insisting that changes should be made to encourage voluntary industry compliance on worker safety issues and reductions of penalties for nonserious violators of standards. OSHA itself has acknowledged that "in the public's view, OSHA has been driven too often by numbers and rules, not by smart enforcement and results. Business complains about over-zealous enforcement and burdensome rules'¦. And too often, a "one-size-fits-all" regulatory approach has treated conscientious employers no differently from those who put workers needlessly at risk." Worker advocates and others, however, point out that OSHA standards have been an important factor in the dramatic decline of injury and illness rates in many industries over the past few decades, and they express concern that reforms could put workers in a variety of businesses at greater risk.
OSHA's recent reform initiatives have sought to address those issues raised by its critics while simultaneously ensuring that American workers receive adequate health and safety protection in the workplace. In 1995 OSHA announced a new emphasis on treating employers with aggressive health and safety programs differently from employers who lack such programs. "At its core," said OSHA, "this new approach seeks to encourage the development of worksite health and safety programs." The features that OSHA will be looking for are:
- Management commitment
- Meaningful participation of employees
- a systematic effort to find safety and health hazards whether they are covered by existing standards or not
- Documentation that the identified hazards are fixed
- Training for employees and supervisors
- A reduction in injuries and illnesses
Those firms equipped with good safety programs will receive special recognition that will include: the lowest priority for enforcement inspections, the highest priority for assistance, appropriate regulatory relief, and major penalty reductions. Businesses that do not adequately provide for their workers' health and safety, however, will be subject to "strong and traditional OSHA enforcement procedures'¦. In short, for those who have a history of endangering their employees and are unwilling to change, OSHA will rigorously enforce the law without compromise to assure that there are serious consequences for serious violators."
