ASSE Responds to Rep. Walberg Commentary on I2P2
ASSE sent the following letter to the editor in response to a commentary by Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, which is responsible for workplace safety and health issues.
Dear Washington Examiner:
In response to Rep. Tim Walberg’s February 23, 2012, comments on a possible future OSHA standard requiring all employers to implement an injury and illness prevention program (I2P2), the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) shares his concern. If an I2P2 standard is no more than a new way to cite employers, it will not benefit workers or businesses. However, ASSE is also concerned that opposing a standard before we know what the standard will be fails to grasp the promise that a well-written I2P2 standard holds in changing the paradigm of how this nation approaches workplace safety and health.
As Rep. Walberg said, many companies have improved their workplace cultures through the risk-based approach to safety integral to successful I2P2s. ASSE’s 34,000 members are the professionals who help those companies achieve meaningful gains in safety and health through I2P2s that first identify a workplace’s risks and then establish way to address those risks, moving companies far above the minimal gains achievable simply by meeting OSHA’s prescriptive standards.
This risk-based approach to regulating workplace safety and health helps the United Kingdom achieve a workplace fatality rate that is less than 20 percent of the fatalities our nation has come to accept as a status quo, unfortunately (http://www.shponline.co.uk/features-content/full/international-safety-systems-workin-usa-of). Rather than an argument against any I2P2 standard, we see RAND’s study of California’s I2P2 standard (http://www.dir.ca.gov/chswc/Reports/2012/IIPPEvaluation.pdf) as a loud and clear notice to OSHA that only a standard that meaningfully puts into place a risk-based approach to regulating safety and health can work, as RAND itself indicates.
If done well by OSHA, consistent with the risk-based principles ASSE has shared with OSHA (http://www.asse.org/en/index.php/govt_affairs/asse-sets-principles-for-osha-i2p2-rulemaking/), a standard will not take I2P2s away from the mostly large and medium-sized employers with whom our members work but help make sure that all employers can benefit from the same lower cost of doing business that results from saved lives and avoided injuries and illnesses.
Representative Walberg may well be proven correct. The wrong I2P2 standard will not benefit workers or businesses. A truly risk-based standard, though, can help bring to all companies the benefits that the most successful companies already understand.
Sincerely,
Terrie S. Norris, CSP, ARM
President
Representative Walberg’s commentary below can also be found at http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/02/more-bad-news-us-workers-businesses-osha/305041.
More bad news for U.S. workers, businesses from OSHA
Thu, 2012-02-23 16:38
“It is not my intention to do away with government,” President Reagan once said. “It is rather, to make it work-work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”
Yet, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration plans to issue a standard that business owners say will be exactly contrary to Reagan’s vision.
David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, claims the Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (I2P2) standard will be “good for workers, good for business and good for America.” Many job creators would disagree.
Based on preliminary comments from the OSHA, the anticipated rule will require all employers to implement safety and health programs to “find and fix” all hazards in their workplaces, even those not otherwise regulated.
This regulation will potentially affect every employer covered by the agency, unless the OSHA exempts small businesses or those with less hazardous workplaces.
While safety and health programs adopted voluntarily by employers have helped many companies improve their workplace safety cultures, mandating them and specifying how they must be set up is a not a good approach.
The moment this regulation gets issued, safety and health programs will go from being a good idea to a legal requirement, which means employers will have to meet the OSHA’s standards rather than what works best for them.
The OSHA will have the authority to come in and second-guess an employer about how well they have implemented their program.
Not surprisingly then, employers see the I2P2 regulation as just another OSHA enforcement tool rather than something that will help them enhance their safety practices.
And indeed a recent Rand study found that California’s similar regulation, which has been in place since 1991 has not prevented workplace fatalities and barely made a dent in total injury prevention.
There are serious problems about this standard that the OSHA has not addressed. For instance, how will companies who already have safety and health programs in place be treated?
Forcing companies who have implemented programs tailored to their specific needs to start over makes no sense and is an inappropriate use of OSHA resources.
Another troubling issue is whether employers will be required to “find and fix” ergonomics hazards. The Clinton administration issued an ergonomics regulation in 2000 that was subsequently invalidated by Congress (the only time this has happened).
A key problem with that regulation was the absence of a useful definition for ergonomic hazards and the fact that an employee’s risk for injury is driven by many factors outside the workplace.
Finally, will OSHA “double dip” on citations-issuing one citation for a hazard and another because the safety and health program failed to detect and correct the hazard?
The OSHA will be convening a small-business review panel before they issue the proposed I2P2 rule. When the Clinton administration tried to implement a similar rule back in 1998, comments from the review made clear that small businesses regarded this concept as costing much more than OSHA calculated.
Imposing a new and costly safety and health program standard will only serve to increase OSHA enforcement with no discernible improvement to worker safety and health.
Rep. Tim Walberg is a Michigan Republican.