Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) – The attached report, requested by Broward Community College in a correspondence presented to the Three Amiga’s dated May 10, 2004 describes OSHA and Florida’s Partnership for Small Businesses. We believe you will find the results of this study useful in evaluating OSHA’s involvement in workplace safety and contradictory thoughts on reforming OSHA.

* This study was designed to examine OSHA and Florida’s Partnership and provide research in both a positive and negative light.

* Small Business Safety under the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

* The Location of Florida and OSHA, working hand in hand to provide a multi-cultural, diverse state with workplace safety.

* Flaws within OSHA and opposition towards OSHA

* Workplace Safety, OSHA reality or technology as the benefactor.

Research consisted of queries with various government and scholastic entities, including but not limited to the US Department of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, University of South Florida, and the Florida Legislature. Additional sources included literary guides such as the New York Times, the Press Room, and the honorable Henry Bonilla representing the 23rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives along with other fine providers of information. Results of this research, discussed more fully in this report, display that OSHA, while a boon to the average employee, could be a long tedious government run-around to those that truly require workplace investigations of safety hazards.

We would be please to discuss this report and its conclusions with you at your request. My team and I thank you for your confidence in selection our group to prepare this comprehensive characterize.

Table of Contents

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT (OSHA)… 1

HELP OR HINDERANCE 1

Executive Summary 4

OSHA for Itsy-bitsy Businesses: Pros and Cons 5

Small Business Safety 5

Florida University System Lend a Guiding Hand 6

OSHA Bridges the Language Gap 7

Florida Follows Federal Guidelines 7

U.S. Department of Labor Honors Exemplary Businesses 7

Fraction 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.7

Florida’s Stake in the Agriculture Business 8

Better Safe than Sorry 8

OSHA: A Critical View 9

Opposing OSHA 9

OSHA Suffers Lawsuits 10

Workplace Safety 10

The Ergonomics Standards Plan 11

Is the Plan Cost Effective 11

Figure 1 11

Summary of OSHA Cost Errors 11

Inspections as a Deterrent 9

Economic Feasibility 12

Bibliography 13

Executive Summary

Jobsite safety and health is a top priority for workers in the United States. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a federally urge agency, was created to ensure that people would have a safe environment to work in.

OSHA has been charged with improving workers’ health and safety since 1970, but few studies claim it improves workplace safety at all. Most cannot find a significant reduction in workplace fatalities or injuries due to OSHA. Studies place the annual cost of OSHA’s regulations as high as $11 billion per year to run the recent health and safety policies it has in place. Even pro-OSHA studies demonstrate that the agency annually generates three times more cost than it generates in benefits.

The Three Amiga’s supports restructuring OSHA with reform. The state of Florida currently has in place a collaborative partnership under Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which provides education, training, and technical assistance; and employers are encouraged to avail themselves of this assistance without dismay of becoming involved in a major controversy with the agency. OSHA must focus their attention on more significant safety and health problems, so that the regulatory program will achieve greater overall risk reduction benefits.

This study supports the concept of providing employers with the incentive to improve their safety and health performance voluntarily in cooperation with their employees. This explore also advocates reforming OSHA’s standards and making them as practical, cost effective, and performance oriented as possible.

Improving safety in the workplace is a team anxiety. Both employers and employees portion the responsibility for safety. There must be provisions that create a role for the employer’s safety program.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration aims to ensure worker safety and health in the U.S. by assisting employers and employees to do better working environments. Since becoming law in 1970, the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA have helped lop workplace fatalities by more than 60 percent and illness rates by 40 percent. This success has occurred while the nation’s employment figures have more than doubled from 56 million workers at 3.5 million organizations to more than 115 million workers at 7.1 million sites.[1]Although the statistics appear to befriend OSHA’s success, others watch the agency as a hindrance to worker safety. This report will cover both of these views.

Minute businesses in Florida engaged in business involving interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of OSHA.[2] There are exceptions to audits and inspections (i.e. ten or fewer employees or a business made up of only immediate family members), but the liability of hazardous working environments are not removed or eliminated.

Under its provisions, an employer must provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees regardless of the size of the business. Every business in Florida covered by the OSH Act must comply with federal workplace safety and health standards. In South Florida, OSHA’s Area Office in Plantation provides advice education, and assistance to small business people, trade associations, local labor affiliates, and other stakeholders who request help with occupational safety and health issues.[3]

For those small businesses in Florida with eleven-or-more workers, OSHA requires employers to: 1.) inform employees of the organization’s safety regulations 2.) Post OSHA Job Safety and Health poster in a permanent place where notices to employees are usually posted 3.) Record within eight hours to the OSHA site office (by telephone or in writing) any fatal accident involving an employee or any other accident resulting in the hospitalization of three or more employees 4.) Bear up-to-date (within six working days) records of all occupational injuries and illnesses 5.) post the annual summary of the organization’s OSHA No. 200 log on February 1st of the following year and maintain that posting in a conspicuous place for the entire month of February; 6.) Retain all records of occupational injuries and illnesses for five years after the end of the year; and 7.) Furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that could cause death or serious injury to employees. (This catchall enables an OSHA inspector to cite an employer who should have recognized a serious hazard, even if OSHA does not have a specific standard related to that hazard).[4]

Florida University System Lend a Guiding Hand

Here in Florida, small business is fortunate to have a friend in the Space University System. The University of South Florida’s “Safety Florida Consultation Program” in Tampa offers free services that can wait on lower costs. Taking advantage of this service can assist an employer with:

• “Complying with federal safety and health standards to reduce the risk of injuries and OSHA citations.

• “Identifying deficient safety conditions with full-service worksite evaluations and to assess required programs and determine safety needs.

• “Writing detailed reports that define specific actions that can be taken to correct problem areas and improve existing safety programs.

• “Delivering technical guidance and information outlining how to comply with federal standards.

• “Providing printed materials on occupational safety, including copies of OSHA standards, as well as industry and government guidelines.

• “Assisting in implementing safety programs mandated by OSHA. • “Support in the reduction of workplace injuries by providing safety and health programs tailored to a particular business or workplace.”[5]

This has proven very helpful to Florida employers who have seen their employee total case incident rate decline by 4.9 percent and their employee lost workday incidence rate decline by 8.9 percent. Furthermore, a study by the Florida Legislature found that more than nine thousand Florida employers received a two-percent reduction in their workers’ compensation insurance rates and research has also shown that lasting improvements in workplace safety are made through consultation, education, and

training, as compared with simply strict enforcement.[6]

OSHA attempts to come every employee and employer, even those who do not converse English as their first language. Particularly of interest in Florida is the fact that the agency maintains a Spanish webpage and Spanish-speaking operators at a national call center during business hours. Various publications, training materials and videos are also provided in Spanish.[7]

Florida Follows Federal Guidelines

In Fiscal Year 2004, OSHA has a staff of 2,200, including 1,123 inspectors and the agency’s appropriation is $457.5 million.[8]Since Florida has not yet established its bear health and safety program, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are responsible for ensuring compliance with the law. OSHA, under the leadership of the Secretary of Labor in Washington, may conduct station inspections and require employers to originate self-evaluations.

U.S. Department of Labor Honors Exemplary Businesses

The U.S. Department of Labor says that using all the resources available to improve upon health and safety in the workplace, certain exemplary small businesses can request participation in OSHA’s Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP). Eligibility for participation in SHARP includes receiving a comprehensive consultation visit, demonstrating exemplary achievements in workplace safety and health by reducing identified hazards and developing and implementing an effective safety and health program. Small businesses accepted into SHARP may receive an exemption from scheduled annual inspections-not complaint or accident inspections-for one year.[9]

(the Act) encourages States to develop and operate their occupy job safety and health programs.OSHA approves and monitors State plans

Alaska

Arizona

California

Connecticut*

Hawaii

Indiana

Iowa

Kentucky

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

Fresh Jersey*

New Mexico

New York*

North Carolina

Oregon

Puerto Rico

South Carolina

Tennessee

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands*

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

Note: The Connecticut, Unusual Jersey, New York and Virgin Islands plan coverspublic sector (Spot and local government) employees only.

One area of great interest to OSHA in the site of Florida is agriculture. Florida agriculture, including forestry and seafood, made an annual economic impact of $53 billion. More than 81,000 people work on some 40,000 farms around the state, and more than 50,000 are employed in other activities related to agriculture. The state’s agriculture enterprises range from large citrus, vegetable and cattle operations to small family-operated farms. Safety in Florida agriculture is especially challenging to OSHA because: 1.) the state’s agriculture enterprises are diverse; 2.) safety knowledge among workers varies; 3.) manual labor is used extensively; and 4.) the climate creates year-round stress.[10]

Compliance Safety and Health Officers from the Department of Labor are authorized to enter Florida businesses at reasonable times and without delay, to inspect a physical plant, question an employer and review records required by the OSH Act (OSH Act, Section 1903. Advance notice of inspections is not given, except in cases of apparent imminent danger, in circumstances where the inspection can be more affectively be conducted after regular business hours, when necessary to train the presence of representatives of the employer and employees, and in other circumstances determined by the OSHA area director (OSH Act, Section 1903.6).[11]

Employee benefits when safety and health are priorities at the workplace. Every worker wants to contribute through the job, even when the primary purpose of work is to originate a living. Safety and health add value to the lives of workers in Florida by enabling them to preserve an unprejudiced income and provide for their families. Getting hurt or sick on the job is not unprejudiced physically painful, but on-the-job injuries and illnesses can also significantly reduce income, increase stress, and hinder a chubby and enriching family life.

Establishing reliable and healthful working environments in Florida require every employer and employee to make safety and health a top priority. The entire workforce-starting at the CEO and downward to the newest employee-must realize the importance of safety and health by acknowledging that these are keys to the small business vision, identity and success.

In this regard, OSHA believes it provides leadership and encouragement to employers and workers in helping them recognize and realize the values of safety and health on the job. The agency’s ultimate goal has always been, and continues to be, the reduction of injuries, illnesses and deaths to zero in the workplace.[12]

OSHA: A Critical View

Although The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH ACT) was created to regulate the private sector, it has been accused of having many flaws and some feel OSHA should be abolished altogether. These opponents base their opinions on fresh statistics from refutable sources showing a lack of progress, as well as serious financial losses that taxpayers absorb. Additionally OSHA does not hide public workplaces such as school systems and municipal governments.[13] These are only a few of the many criticisms aimed at OSHA.

Some opponents think OSHA is a useless entity that sometimes does more harm than valid. A unique article, written by Thomas J. Kneiser and John D. Leeth, states just that. Their paper, appropriately titled Abolishing OSHA, cites the case of the Pymm Thermometer Company,” the second largest manufacturer of mercury thermometers in the United States.

Employees of Pymm worked in a non-ventilated windowless basement with no respirators or protective clothing. Their job was recycling mercury from old thermometers. For five years, OSHA had known about serious health problems among the plant employees, including asthma and pulmonary fibrosis. Mercury poisoning can damage organs including the brain. The company was not even fined when “puddles” of mercury were found on the floor when inspected.

Finally, when a worker who had formerly worked for the plant stated suspicions that one of his former co-workers was suffering from brain damage, OSHA got involved. Mercury fume levels in the plant were five times higher than the acceptable level, which can cause serious illness and even death. OSHA fined Pymm $1,400 and ordered them to clean up.

Five years later Pymm has not complied with OSHA’s recommendations. When an employee suffering from severe health consequences went to the news media, OSHA enforced the recommendations. However, serious violations were allowed to stand for five years, and the consequences were severe. More than half of Pymms 100 workers, and many of their children also suffer from serious mercury poisoning. [14]

Many firms realize that the likelihood of an inspection is minimal. The typical American worker may see an OSHA once every seventy-five years, or once every thirteen years if they are employed in a hazardous profession. Companies generally know that they can simply agree to comply with inspector recommendations to avoid future inspections.

OSHA Suffers Lawsuits

OSHA inspectors seem reluctant to shut down companies or impose severe fines even when their findings indicate serious health and safety issues.

Case in point is The United Auto Workers (UAW) and the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) who have united in a joint lawsuit filed October 21, 2003[15]. The lawsuit requests that OSHA set clean air standards in United States factories. Because OSHA took no action, ten years ago when the UAW first petitioned them, millions of workers have been exposed to hazardous chemicals and developed serious health problems.

The National Institute of Occupational Safety,[16] a government agency that researches health problems for employees in the United States, collected evidence about metalworking fluids and suggested a standard of 0.5 milliliters per cubic meter of air for both oil and synthetic metalworking fluids.

OSHA is required to submit a standard or spot a reason for not doing so within sixty days of the (NIOS) recommendation. After Four years, OSHA has not complied, and even withdrew the recommendation from consideration and millions of factory workers are still being exposed to hazardous chemicals.

Although several reports have shown a decline inworker fatality, (in 1925 there were 16 fatalities per 100,000 workers, whereas by 1993 that number had dropped to 3.5 per100, 000), there is no real decrease in on the job injury or illness. Fatalities in the workplace had begun to decline even before OSHA, possibly due to safety technology, and the occupational distribution of labor. To the contrary, illness and injury in the workplace tend to follow the economy. The more people employed, the higher the injury rate. OSHA still does not cover the self-employed, who tend to work in higher risk professions and account for 20 percent of workplace fatalities

The Ergonomics Standards Plan

Most recently, OSHA proposed its Ergonomics Standards Program.[17] Ergonomics is the study of the design and scheme of equipment in a healthy comfortable manner.[18] This Program Standard states that an employee who complains of a

musculo- skeletal disorder (MSD) must complete a complicated series of steps in order to decide whether OSHA covers them. It is a far from cost effective policy.

Furthermore, employers have been effectively dealing with these injuries for many years on a volunteer basis. The efforts of these business owners has decreased stress related injury by 22 percent since 1993.If OSHA implements the Ergonomics Program it will force employers to follow rigid guidelines, thereby reducing flexibility for targeted response. Companies will be forced to spread resources more thinly to address every complaint, many of which are discovered to be invalid, resulting in less effective coverage, as well as higher costs for employees.

Opponents of the Ergonomics Plan point out that OSHA made a series of mistakes in its financial plan and the costs will likely outweigh the benefits and cause, damage to existing programs employers have in place. The table below shows these errors as well as the corrected estimated cost: [19]

Error or Omission ItemOSHA EstimateOSHA ErrorCorrected Estimate

Computation of Annualized Cost

$4.2 billion

$1.6 billion

$5.8 billion

Compliances baseline

$4.2 billion

$5-$7.5 billion

$9.2-$11.7 billion

Assess potential MSDs

$0

$2.5-$29.7 billion

$2.5-$29.7 billion

Familiarization time

$0.2 billion

$3.1 billion

$3.3 billion

Other time parameters

$0.9 billion

$12.8 billion

$13.7 billion

Training for fixed jobs

$0

$0.6-$1.2 billion

$0.6-$1.2 billion

Increased MSD reports

$0

$5.6-$39.2 billion

$5.6-$39.2 billion

Total

$11-$12 billion

$31.2-$95.1 billion

$35.4-$99.3 billion

(Employment Policy Foundation; fact &fallacy: April 10, 2002)

OSHA’s costs far outweigh the benefits. According to an article published in The Yale Journal on Regulation,[20] and written by Robert Hahn and John Hind, it costs OSHA $11 billion per year to run the current health and safety policies it has in place. The benefit to workers through health care costs and injury reduction they estimate is $3.6 billion per year. Even best case reports show the costs outweigh the gains three to one.

In conclusion, many proponents feel OSHA would benefit if supplied with a larger budget and more resources, but it already spends an exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars on programs that are largely ineffectual. Abolishing OSHA completely may leave some workers largely unprotected, so the reply probably lies in complete reformation. OSHA is in the business of reform, but who will reform OSHA?

Bird E., Ronald; Fact & fallacy; Analysis Misses the Target in Predicting Ergonomics Rule;

Bonilla, Henry; The Workplace Preservation Act;; Remarks

(4 March 1999)

ErgoDynamo.com;

The Florida Legislature. “Addendum to OPPAGA Record No. 97-25 Agency Response from Dept. of Labor & Employment Security.” January 1998. (4 June 2004).

HR.BLR.Com; Florida Safety and Health;

Kneisner J.,Thomas; Leeth P, John; Regulation; The Cato Review of Business and Government;AbolishingOSHA; (2003)

Lehtola, Carol J., Charles M. Brown, and William J. Becker. “Inspections, Citations, and Proposed Penalties – OSHA Standard 1903.” University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. November 2000. (5 June 2004).

The New York Times; Work Place Safety is Growing Concern;

Olexa, Michael T., Aaron Leviten, and Kelly Samek. “Florida Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation Handbook: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).”University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. December 2003. (6 June 2004).

Polopolus, Leo C., Michael T. Olexa, Fritz Roka, and Carol Fountain. “2003 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) [Federal].” University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. December 2002. (5 June 2004).

Press Room; UAW and USAW Sue Secretary of Labor…;

< http://www.uswa.org/uswa./program/content/616.php> (21 October 2003)

Smith, Sandy; Safety Zones; Unions sue to Force OSHA to Set Clean Air Standards in Factories;; (22 October 2003)

University of South Florida Consultation Program. “Ask USF Safety Florida to Protect Your Profits with an Effective Safety Program.” n.d. (4 June 2004).

U.S. Department of Labor. “OSHA Help for New Businesses Fact Sheet.” 2002.

(4 June 2004).

U.S. Department of Labor. “OSHA Facts.” 2004.

(7 June 2004).

U.S. Department of Labor. “OSHA Handbook for Small Businesses.” 1996 (Revised),

(4 June 2004).

[1] U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Facts, 2004, available at http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/oshafacts.html; Internet; accessed 7 June, 2004.

[2] Leo C. Polopolus et al., 2003 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employees and Workers: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) [Federal], December 2002, available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE408; 5 June 2004.

[3] U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Help for New Businesses Fact Sheet, 2002, available at http://www.

Osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/newbusinesses-factsheet.pdf; 4 June 2004.

[4]Polopolus, 2003 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) [Federal].

[5] University of South Florida Consultation Program, Ask USF Safety Florida to Protect Your Profits with an Effective Safety Program, n.d., available from http://www.safetyflorida.usf.edu/Pdf/Safetypr.pdf; 4 June 2004.

[6]

[7] U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Facts.

[8] Michael T. Olexa et al., Florida Solid and Perilous Waste Regulations Handbook: Occupational Safety and Health Act, December 2003, available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE447; Internet; accessed 6 June 2004.

[9] U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Facts, 2004, 32-33, available from http://www.osha.gov.as/opa/ oshafacts.html; Internet; accessed 5 June 2004.

[10]Carol J. Lehtola et al., Inspections, Citations, and Proposed Penalties-OSHA Standard 1903, November 2000, available from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_OA059; 5 June 2004.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid,

[13]HR.BLR.COM; State HR Answers & Tools Online; Florida Safety and Healthhttp://hr1.blr.com/Article.cfm/Nav/3.12.48.0.25134.25134>

[14] Kneisner J., Thomas and Leeth D. John; Abolishing OSHA, 2003;

[15]Press Room; October 21, 2003;< http://www.uswa.org/uswa/program/content/616.php>

[16]The New York Times; Work Place Safety is Growing Concern http://www.saja.org/stories/safety.html

[17]ErgoDynamo.com:

[19] Bird E. Ronald: Osha Analysis Misses the Target in Predicting Ergonomics Rule Cost, fact & fallacy.

[20][20] Kneisner J., Thomas and Leeth D. John; Abolishing OSHA, 2003;