Occupational Safety And Health Act Essay, Research Paper
A safe place for all Americans to work in! Few would argue with this concept that congress had
in mind when it passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The law applies equally
to the rich and poor, the radicals, the liberals, and the conservatives; it is for people of all races,
and it knows no religious boundaries.
And yet, in the early years after an enactment of a law which makes it illegal to work in an
unsafe place, a general feeling of fear invaded industry. What caused this fear? There were three
major areas of concern.
Those large corporations that, for years, had staff members concerned with safety and health
problems were now faced with a situation where their compliance to previously voluntary health
and safety standards would now be a matter of law. These firms were best equipped to deal with
this new situation because, in many cases, it simply meant the investment of money (often
hundreds of thousands of dollars) in order to achieve compliance. Not only were their firms
reasonably well equipped to deal with this situation, but they also recognized that the cost of any
necessary upgrading could be passed on to the consumer.
The second group contested by fear consisted of small businessmen who had been getting by all
these many years with either marginal or unsafe working conditions. They recognized this
situation and were truly concerned that the cost of upgrading their facilities would be so
immense that they might no longer be able to compete and might have to go out of business. This
fear made them more determined than ever that ignorance is bliss, and that the less they knew
about these new requirements, the happier they would be and the longer they could remain in
business. (Vincoli 1997) In the end though, these small businessmen may turn out to be the real
losers. Not only may they be cited for safety violations, but by not being familiar with the law
they may not even recognize that a provision exists in the act whereby Small Business
Administration can make loans (with maximum repayment term of 30 years) to help them
upgrade their facilities.
By far, the largest group that was beset by fear was the so-called average businessmen in every
part of the country. Through reading their newspaper, or perhaps the journal of their trade
association, they recognized that they were required to provide safe and healthy working
conditions for their employees. They may even have heard that for every violation cited against
them they might have to pay a penalty ranging up to $1,000 per day for each violation while it
remained unabated.
To this latter group belonged those architects and engineers charged by law to design those
buildings that would become places of employment. Building designers had an everyday
exposure to zoning laws and building codes and thus had a general awareness and concern with
safety and health. The last consideration had never before had the force of a federal law behind
it. Historically, building codes had concerned themselves with the safety of buildings (they
should not collapse) and the protection of property. Architects were trained to prevent or
minimize unusual things from happening to their buildings.
With the passage of OSHA, building designers were now faced with a new responsibility and a
significant potential new liability. They now had to concern themselves with the usual things that
occur in the buildings they design. It now became possible that responsibility for a work accident
could be placed at the doorstep of the architect if his design failed to comply with OSHA
requirements because the owner had been reasonably assured that his architect would design the
building to comply with appropriate laws, including OSHA.
The initial fear of the architects and engineers of this potential new liability can, therefore, be
easily understood. The larger design firms were able to come to the grips of problems most
easily. They designated a member of their staff to investigate and collect data on OSHA
requirements and to keep others in the firm advised on them. Most architects and engineers had
neither the resources to devote to this new field nor the knowledge of how to obtain the
appropriate new information. Those that did pursue the matter found that there was considerable
material, printed both by government and by private sources, but it was scattered in terms of its
availability and, when they did manage to obtain the data, they were not sufficiently concise for
the use by building designers.
It should be clearly understood that the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 applies to all
places where people work. It affects more than 57 million workers in some 4.1 million work
places across the United States. (Vincoli 1997) Commonplace thinking has led us to believe that
occupational hazards occur mainly in factories or other similar industrial buildings. Whereas
there may be some truth in this conception, OSHA applies to all places where people work.
Office buildings, shopping centers, schools, shipyards, and undertaking establishments, among
others, all places where people do work. The Act covers only workers, OSHA does not concern
itself with the majority of the people who use these buildings, the shoppers, but only people who
may be employed their. An example of this situation concerns several apartment houses that
were built in the air rights of a major highway in New York City not long ago. Readings of the
quality of air at the building face over the roadway revealed that these buildings were subject to a
much higher carbon monoxide intake from the street below than were other buildings which
were located at or near the side of the road. OSHA would not concern itself with the thousands
of tenants living in this apartment house, but would be concerned with the elevator operators and
custodial employees in this building.
The William-Stieger Act, known as OSHA was designed by the president on December 29,
1970, and became effective on April 28, 971. The act covers every employer in a business
affecting commerce that has one or more employees
1. The secretary of labor was charged with establishing detailed standards and appropriate
enforcement.
2. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, under the Secretary of Health,
Education, Welfare, was established. Its principle is to provide research in the field of
occupational health.
3. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission was established as an Independent
Quasi-judicial body to pass upon the appropriateness of the citations and proposed penalties.
4. Provisions were included whereby states were encouraged to assume full responsibility for
their own occupational safety health laws, thus removing it from federal enforcement.
Architects and engineers, as well as building operators, will be most concerned with the safety
and health standards issued by the secretary of labor.
When congress enacted the OSHA law, It provided for the rapid effect of such safety and health
standards:
1.Those already on the books, such as the older Walsh-Healey Act
2. The immediate inclusion of consensus standards generally recognized by the industry
3. Emergency standards under section 6?
4. The rule making process under 6(b) requiring the publishing of proposed new standards
When congress enacted the OSHA act it realized that the new Occupational Safety and Health
Administration could never promulgate safety and health standards to cover all possible or
potential hazards under all conditions that may occur in all types of work environments. To fill
this gap in the standards, the OSHA Act contains a general duty clause that requires employers to
provide a safe and healthy work place that is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees. There are certain key elements of
the General Duty Clause that must exist in order for the citation under this clause to be
considered plausible.
First and foremost the hazard being cited must be a recognized hazard. OSHA cannot expect an
employer to protect against hazards that are not recognized as such. Once it is established that
the hazard is recognized OSHA must also show that such hazards are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm. If this has not been established, then the citation under the
general duty clause is not appropriate. Another aspect of the general duty clause is the feasibility
factor. In any citation of the general duty clause, OSHA must show the feasible means of abating
the hazard exist.
The requirement to make and maintain certain records related to occupational safety and health
has been in place since the OSHA act was enacted. Congress realized that it would be necessary
to obtain such information to statistically determine the need for new rule making based on
trends in accident clause data. The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services were both granted the authority to require employers to make records of employee
injury and illness data, to maintain those records for specific periods of time, and to make
records available to the Secretaries upon requests. During the first decade of OSHA, these
requirements although mandatory, were not strictly enforced on a uniform basis. Even when
employers were found to be in noncompliance with the record keeping requirements, OSHA
could only fine them once for the violation regardless if there was one failure to comply or many.
During the Regan administration, OSHA enacted its egregious policy, which allows the agency
to cite each individual?s failure to comply as a separate violation, even if the same standard was
at issue in each case. This led to multimillion-dollar fines based on record keeping violations
alone.
OSHA holds employers responsible for complying with provisions of the OSHA act, standards,
and the general duty cause and other specific regulations. The agency does acknowledge that
employers may not always be able to control the actions of employees who sometimes violate
standards; employers must still prove that all possible actions were taken to prevent the violation.
OSHA will hold employers responsible for compliance in most instances so it is important the
employer understands the OSHA requirements and take any measures necessary to achieve
compliance. To understand their compliance obligations, employers must first acknowledge that
complying with OSHA regulations and standards is neither a selective or objective process.
Issues of interpretation, applicability, intent, fairness, and consistency often complicate the
compliance process. Unfortunately, while such concerns are being addressed or ignored, the
safety and the health of the workers can continue to remain at risk until resolution.
At the time of the enactment, the primary intent of the OSHA act was to ensure the safety of the
worker. Congress knew that employees would be an important element in the process and
granted them certain rights under the act. Employee rights under the OSHA act include the right
to complain about safety and health conditions in the workplace, which affect them. Complaints
can be formal or informal, which maybe anonymous phone calls and unsigned letters. Employees
also have the right of protection against discriminatory acts for exercising their right to complain.
The acts even authorizes OSHA to obtain injunctive and back pay relief for employees who are
discriminated against under the act. The act also provides the right of an employee or their
designated representative to accompany OSHA inspectors during their walk around inspection of
plants, factories, and other work places. Employees can also be interviewed by the inspector with
a guarantee of anonymity, without having any company management present. The act describes
an employee representative as a union official or labor organization, an attorney for employees,
or any other person acting as a bona fide representative. Employees were also given the right to
remove themselves from danger under criteria specified by the courts. The rights listed above
were placed within the body of the OSHA so that employees could participate in the process of
ensuring a safe and healthy work place. Employers should be aware that such provisions exist,
since a violation in any of these rights can result in citations, fines, and penalties. Employers
should know and understand employee obligations under the act. It is an important note that
ensuring safety and health in the work place is not a one sided affair. Employers do bear the
majority of the responsibility here, but employees must also do their part.
OSHA enforcement actions are the key to enforcing compliance with the provisions of the
OSHA act. Such activities are the only way the agency can truly know the status of the employer
compliance inspections are a primary element in the enforcement process while OSHA is
Authorized to enter and inspect all workplaces covered by the act, the agency generally inspects
less than two percent of these sites in any given year. Because of the limited resources and the
fact that OSHA could never really visit all American work locations each year, the agency has
established a scheduled priority of inspection activity.
1. Workplace situations that present imminent danger of causing death or serious injury are
inspected first.
2. Osha will respond after a catastrophic accident involving a fatality and/or the hospitalization
of three or more employees.
3. OSHA will respond to formal employee complaints of alleged safety violations.
4. OSHA will regularly schedule inspections of high hazard industries.
5. OSHA will revisit a previously inspected facility to verify compliance and abatement practices
are adequate.
http://ua-referat.com