Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionUncertainty Looms: The Future of OSHA and the Risks of a Decentralized Workplace Safety System
Michelle Kerr is Workers’ Compensation Editor and National Conference Chair for Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected].
So far, the most certain thing about 2025 is uncertainty, particularly in the realm of federal agencies that are under scrutiny.
OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is of course, no exception.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs recently reintroduced legislation to abolish OSHA, in the form of a bill called the Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (NOSHA Act). OSHA coming under fire is not new. Biggs’ bill was first proposed in 2021, with nine sponsors.
Last year, an Ohio contractor—with the support of 23 state attorneys general—asked the Supreme Court to hear a case arguing that OSHA’s authority is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision to decline the case was not unanimous: “The question of whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
That should worry us all, given the undeniable impact of OSHA in the past 50+ years.
In 1970, there were approximately 14,000 workplace fatalities and 2.5 million injuries, according to BLS data. By 2022, these numbers had dropped to 5,486 work fatalities and an injury rate of 2.7 incidents per 100,000 workers, falling from 10.9.
Am I suggesting those figures could re-set to pre-OSHA levels? Not likely.
Our technology and knowledge have advanced too far for that kind of backslide. But the potential pain points are real.
Employers have their hands full already staying compliant with a state-based workers’ compensation system. A decentralized workplace safety system would mean tracking, learning and complying with a different set of safety regulations in every state in which an employer operates in—at significant cost.
But that’s not the only risk. The vast majority of employers may be good guys who will prioritize worker safety no matter what. They’re not all good guys though. Some employers will always put profits over people, and tragedies will occur. Some workers will die; others will be hurt or disabled, senselessly.
“There would be a race to the bottom,” said David Michaels in a recent Time article. Michaels was assistant secretary of labor for OSHA from 2009 to 2017.
“Without a legal requirement to do so, companies might decide not to expend the time, effort, and money necessary to keep staff safe—especially if their competitors aren’t doing so. What would be the impetus to protect workers?” Michaels asked.
That impetus must come from people, people who won’t stay silent. In the face of a weakened safety framework, we’ll need advocates who are willing to stand up for workers at risk.
People like Frances Perkins, so moved by the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1912 that she took on the role of advocating for legislation to make factories safer and healthier for workers. People like Dr. Alice Hamilton, who called public attention to the deadly impact of toxic chemicals in the workplace in the early 1900s.
Our industry can adapt to the end of federal workplace protections, but not without risk. Now is the time for the industry to double down on its commitment to protecting workers, no matter the federal safety agency’s fate.
Everything changes, but our mission remains the same. &
