Safety Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is a part of the government's answer to the call of the citizenry to provide protection from any untoward accidents that might happen to them during their work. It was created by the Congress under the Occupational and Safety Act of the Department of Labor (Christensen 2008). It was founded and enacted on 1970 with the task of assuring safe and healthful working conditions and settings for all working Americans. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (2007), OSHA is authorized to enforce standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. It is also responsible for providing research, information, education and training in the field of occupational safety and health. OSHA regulations cover all private sector employers in all states and US territories. These private sectors include all businesses with one or more employees engaging in commercial and non-commercial activities that affect commerce and trading (Business and Legal Reports 2000). On the other hand, there are special provisions of the Act that apply to the US Government employees and agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency 2007). OSHA starts inspecting the workplace when there are reports of imminent dangers/accidents, areas where there are fatalities or accidents of three or more employees, employee complaints, referrals from other government agencies, and other targeted employers that report high incidents of injury and illness rates (Conjecture Corporation 2007). Despite doing such a daunting task, criticisms continuously plague OSHA with regard to its policies and implementations. This paper will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Regulation and Implementation. Primarily, it seeks to provide an overview as well as the positive and negative impacts of the Ergonomics Regulation which is reaping much attention in the political and business arena.
Strengths
- According to OSHA (2001), it has successfully lowered the number of overall workplace death rate to half since 1970. Examples of such cases is the OSHA's cotton dust standard that eliminated brown lung disease in the textile industry, a 25% decline in deaths from cave-ins; and a two thirds reduction of fatalities related to blood poisoning in battery plant and smelter workers because of OSHA's lead standards. This just shows that OSHA is active in pursuing its objectives that remains vital to the heath of the workers.
- OSHA's inspections also have positive results. In a recent study cited by OSHA (2001), in the three years following OSHA inspection that results to penalties, injuries and illness dropped to an average of 22% particularly on industries where OSHA has much concentration. The Administration maintains an inspection database of the company names that can be easily accessed in their website.
- Magner, et.al. (2004) reports that OSHA simply requires employers to establish a basic system governing an effective safety and health program including management/employee participation, identifying hazards, making reports, analyzing and controlling job hazards, training and program evaluation. It does not direct employers a specific kind of reporting system therefore making the whole process flexible to the company. OSHA regulations also permit companies to try different methods in solving a problem.
- In cases of penalty sanctions, OSHA impose provisions depending on how likely the violation is to the result in serious harm to the employees. They also give considerations to companies who have a small number of employees, have demonstrated good faith or have few or no previous violations. Employers also have the right to contest OSHA citations or penalties before a Review Commission. However they are only given an ample time to submit their queries.
Weaknesses
Despite of such accomplishments, OSHA is also tempered with realities:
- Every year, over 6,000 Americans die from workplace injuries, an estimated 50,000 deaths from chemical exposures and over 6 million people suffer from non-fatal workplace injuries. This has cost the economy more than 110 billion dollars a year (OSHA 2001).
- Business establishments still complain of overzealous enforcements and “hard to follow” rules. Many people still see that red tape looms the office instead of the Association's interests in seeing the results. (OSHA 2001).
- OSHA' regulations are not uniform and not imposed equally. It has a different set of guidelines for government offices (Christensen 2008). Too often also, a “one-size-fits-all” regulatory approach has treated conscientious employees no differently from those who put workers needlessly at risk. The regulations treat all workplaces and all hazards equally (OSHA 2001).
- Some of OSHA's rules and regulations are obsolete - meaning it was patterned from conditions existing at the time it was enacted. There is a need to revoke or revise those rules that are still confusing, inconsistent or duplicative to them for timely and easier to understand (OSHA 2001).
As the OSHA struggles to bring back the good image it has, they are continuously seeking to improve its regulations. It was observed that the most common case of complains from the workforce are back sprains, wrist pains and other repetitive motion disorders (Zinkewicz 2001). IN 1987, OSHA issued its first directive on ergonomics, a branch of ecology that deals with human factors in the design and operation of machines and the physical environment (Magner et.al 2004). In 1995, it started drafting the ergonomics standards. It was finally issued on November 4, 2000, which took effect on January 16, 2001(Fuge 2002). This Ergonomics Regulation imposed numerous requirements on employers. The standard contain certain communication requirements which required the employers to provide all their employees information on Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) including its signs and symptoms, how to report MSD to the employer and its importance, risk factors and the types of job activities related to MSD hazards. It also provides certain procedures that an employer must follow whenever an MSD case is reported. The employer is required to investigate whether the employee's job is the main culprit for the disorder. Upon confirmation, the employer is required to implement the “quick fix” or a full ergonomics program not only for the complainant but also to all individuals having similar problem. In addition, the employer is tasked to provide access to health care, work restrictions, evaluation and follow-up to the MSD incident. The final Ergonomics program is applicable to all employers, including law firms (McAndrew and Lezak 2001). After its implementation many types of reactions arose. Up to this day, the standards are debated upon in the Congress and continuously being polished by the Administration.
Positive Effects
Proponents of the Ergonomics Regulations claimed that it would protect hundreds of thousands of employees by preventing a large number of work related injuries. Reducing the occurrences ergonomic-related injuries would result to a corresponding reduction in worker's compensation and other imminent costs. OSHA estimates to save approximately 9 billion or more per year with the implementation of the new Ergonomics Program (McAndrew and Lezak 2001). Preventing these injuries and addressing the work-place that cause them will save both businesses and society as a whole more than it would cost the government (Magner et.al 2004).
The Ergonomics rule also encompasses a broad range of workers. It is written in a plain, simple language that could be very much understood by the any layman. Furthermore, it is governed by two primary principles: the standard focused on jobs where ergonomic problems are commonly reported and feasible solutions are available. These rules are so much like the successful programs already implemented by thousands of employers in the US. The difference is just that the target agencies are those jobs which the risks of MSD illnesses and injuries are highest (e.g. manufacturing jobs).
In addition to the cost advantages, implementing the Ergonomics Standard in workplaces would save governments, businesses and employees from being bombarded with lawsuits. Whenever there are cases filed in courts, most ended up with settlements amounting to millions of dollars (Magner et.al. 2004).
Negative Effects
Much of the opposition surrounding the Ergonomics standards is primarily because of two factors: 1. Compliance was mandatory and 2. It intrudes to the existing state workers compensation statutes and systems. The standard proposed an entirely different benefit system for MSDs. The eligibility of the compensation available is also different from that of compensability requirements stated on the law. This would entail a question of bureaucracy in the federal government (Fuge 2002).
The Regulations are also overly broad and inclusive since it is applied to all employers and covered every type of injury including slips, trips, falls, and vehicular accidents. There was no provision for the employer to determine whether the MSD was job-related or was caused by outside circumstances. The Standards allowed workers to receive workers' compensation for injuries unrelated to work activities which is so unfair and burdensome for the employers. Aside from this, compliance with the Standards is expensive because it requires them to modify the work stations and job tasks and identify potentially hazardous working conditions. Business establishments have a rough estimate of about 100 billion annually. The Standard would have enormous financial consequences for the employers (McAndrew and Lezak 2002).
Finally, some argued that the purpose of ergonomics is not to prevent injuries but to maximize employee productivity by implementing procedures designed to maximize employee comfort and minimize fatigue. Such is not attained in the Standards (McAndrew 2002). After all, it all boils down to the 5,000 or more workers who are exposed to ergonomic standards each day with no clear standards are imposed to protect them.
References:
Christensen, Tricia E. What is Occupational Safety and Health Administration? 2008. Conjecture Corporation. Accessed online on July 10, 2008.www.conjecture.com
Fuge, Christine. The Ergonomics Regulation Roller Coaster. 2002. International Risk Management Institute. Accessed online on July 10, 2008. http://www.irmi.com/expert/Articles/2002/Fuge06.aspx
Magner, Lois N. et.al. Are OSHA Regulations aimed at preventing repetitive-motion syndrome an unnecessary burden for business? 2004. Bnet Business Network. Accessed online on July 10, 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2004/ai_n19124356/pg_10?tag=artBody;col1
McAndrew, Mark and Alison Lezak. OSHA's New Ergonomics Regulations…15 Minutes of Fame. 2001. DCBA Online. Accessed online on July 9, 2008. www.DuPage.com
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Frequently Asked Questions. 2007. Accessed online on July 10, 2008. http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/osha-faq.html
Business and Legal Reports. 2007. Accessed online on July 10, 2008. http://safety.blr.com/safety_information/OSHA_gov.htm
US Environmental Protection Agency. Occupational Safety and Health Act Statute, Regulations and Enforcements. 2007. Accessed online on July 9, 2008. http://epa.gov/enforcement/civil/osha/oshaenfstatreq.html
Zinkewicz, Phil. OSHA Regulations Create Uproar. 2001. Proquest Information and Learning Company. Accessed online on July 9, 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3615/is_200102/ai_n8933227/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1
2001. The New OSHA Reinventing Worker Safety and Health. Accessed online on July 10, 2008. http://www.osha.gov/oshinfo/reinvent/reinvent.html
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
