OSHA’s implementation of the new fall protection standards have left many contractors wondering if creating a new safety strategy that involves the purchasing of fall arrest or guardrail safety systems can negatively impact their business by being too costly.
Regarding this issue, Bill Moore of Legacy Contracting Solutions had this to say when interviewed by the Palm Beach, FL. Post: “We’re getting beaten by people who say they don’t care about the rules.” Mr. Moore explains that his company is having difficulties adjusting because homeowners don’t want to pay the extra amount he now charges to compensate for expensive equipment purchased in compliance with the new standards. He goes on to mention that the extra labor is costly as well because of how much time is added to the roofers who are unable to move freely to easily complete their tasks. His deepest concern is going out of business after losing several jobs to lower bidders around the time these new regulations were set forth, but assures that the company will continue to remain OSHA compliant.
Aside from Mr. Moore, others are also speaking out, frustrated that these new rules allow for non-compliant builders to prosper while law abiding contractors are losing business in the process. Tom Shanahan of the National Roofing Contractors Association argues that on roofs with little slope, the lines can tangle leading to trip hazards for workers and that there have been more deaths resulting from such fall arrest systems. The common belief that he and others share is that the new OSHA rules make no sense, such as slide guards being no longer acceptable under most circumstances. Chairman Walberg at the “Workplace Safety: Ensuring a Responsible Regulatory Environment” hearing that took place October 5th openly questioned OSHA’s costly approach to workplace safety given the current economic state and specifically pointed out OSHA’s proposed injury and illness prevention program (I2P2) rule, changes to the silica standard, and the new fall protection rules for residential construction projects. At that same hearing, certain Republican members who were part of the subcommittee expressed concern and a certain dislike for OSHA’s policies stating the regulations were playing a large role in allowing businesses to stay viable, small businesses especially.
“In the opinion of Walberg and the other Republican members of the subcommittee, OSHA is not taking the concerns of small business owners into consideration when promulgating regulations and, according to some legislators, either is not seeking public input to regulations or is not listening when the input is received.”
OSHA Director Dr. David Michaels who also attended the “Workplace Safety: Ensuring a Responsible Regulatory Environment” hearing defended the new OSHA regulations and their impact on worker safety and job creation.
“OSHA enthusiastically welcomes public input. OSHA’s first priority is to issue standards that protect workers. But it makes absolutely no sense to issue standards that don’t work or that don’t make sense to businesses and workers in a real workplace. Getting input from workers and businesses, based on their experience, about what works and what doesn’t work is not only essential to issuing good, common sense rules, but also welcomed by this agency.”
Dr. Michaels testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections quoting President Obama: “I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety”. He mentioned that in 1971, an average of 38 workers died on the job each day compared to 12 per day in present and even cited a Liberty Mutual Insurance report concluding that disabling injuries cost American employers more than $53 billion a year in workers’ compensation. He also noted that several cases of worker deaths and injuries lead to the closing of factories and attributed to a reduction in large jobs. “We know that OSHA regulations don’t kill jobs, they stop jobs from killing workers. And they don’t hurt the economy at all.”
Dr. Michaels concluded by saying that there was “evidence that both regulated industries and the agency itself generally overestimate the cost of new OSHA standards” and “Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), comparing the predicted and actual costs of eight OSHA regulations, found that in almost all cases, “industries that were most affected achieved compliance straightforwardly, and largely avoided the destructive economic effects” that they had predicted.”
So then is OSHA really to blame? Shouldn’t workers be protected because it is the morally responsible decision to make from the start? Which side presents a stronger argument, if in fact, there should even be one to begin with regarding this issue?
