A mine safety bill with OSHA reform provisions was recently introduced in the Senate, as a similar bill awaits floor action in the House, but sources say some Senate Democrats may be open to negotiating the OSHA parts of the bill.
Additionally, House Republican lawmakers are continuing to voice opposition to the OSHA elements of the legislation, in the bill's report language and after cost estimates on the bill were released, while Democrats are using the report to urge OSHA to take a step further to enforce against employers with multiple establishments that have repeat violations and potential hazards across similar facilities.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced a mine bill on July 29 that includes a slew of OSHA reforms, in line with a discussion draft the House and Senate unveiled on June 29. The OSHA provisions -- to hike OSHA's civil and criminal penalty authority, require hazard abatement pending contest, increase whistleblower protections and enhance victims' rights -- generally remain unchanged from the previous discussion draft.
A congressional source said that while the legislation has now been introduced in the Senate, the road ahead is still murky. GOP lawmakers have already said publicly that they have concerns about the June discussion draft released by House and Senate lawmakers, including the OSHA reform provisions. "Democrats have chosen to introduce a sweeping piece of legislation that affects every business in this country and only amplifies the adversarial role of OSHA and MSHA, without increasing safety," Senate labor committee and employment safety subcommittee ranking members Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) said in a statement after the draft was unveiled.
The congressional source said Senate lawmakers met on the legislation as recently as last week, but there has been little progress on many key issues.
House labor committee Republicans are continuing to voice opposition to the bill after the Congressional Budget Office recently released its cost estimate. The bill was passed in a party-line vote by the House labor committee late last month and is now awaiting action on the floor.
A July 26 letter from CBO estimates the legislation would not impact direct spending between 2010 and 2020. Furthermore, the bill could lead to an increase in revenues by $200 million over the same period.
CBO estimates that $80 million would be specifically generated from penalties collected through the bill's changes to the OSH Act, based on information provided by the Department of Labor.
However, CBO adds that it has yet to complete an estimate of the legislation's effect on discretionary spending.
House Republicans assert that the response by CBO shows the broad reach of the bill. "Even now, CBO has yet to issue a complete analysis of the costs and consequences of this far-reaching legislation," a spokeswoman for labor committee Republicans said. "We continue to believe these dramatic changes -- designed to make the OSH Act more adversarial -- would not fundamentally improve workplace safety; they would disrupt employers and hamper job creation at a time when the American economy can least afford it."
Additionally, House GOP lawmakers highlight their specific concerns in the bill's report language. "While the inclusion of these unrelated [OSHA] provisions is troubling in and of itself, the implications of the specific proposed policies are of far greater concern," the report states. "These too appear premised on the notion of imposing punishment rather than improving workplace safety." As a result, Republican lawmakers on the labor committee state that they are united in opposition to the bill.
GOP lawmakers specifically highlight the bill's change in the standard for liability from "willful" to "knowing." "Committee Republicans believe that such punitive measures will likely stifle, rather than support, efforts to improve safety programs and expose individuals to severe criminal penalties without sufficient intent to do harm," the report language states.
Additionally, they highlight the bill's provisions expanding whistleblower protections, increasing penalties and requiring hazards to be abated pending contest as problematic as well.
While Republicans have raised concerns about the bill's adversarial approach, labor committee Democrats urge the Department of Labor to strengthen enforcement against multi-establishment employers. In the bill's report language, Democrats call for DOL to issue strong penalties against multi-establishment employers with repeat violations.
"Consistent with the objective of addressing repeat violations across multi-establishment employers, the Committee urges the Secretary, when bringing enforcement actions against multi-establishment employers, to assess whether there is a potential for the same or similar violations to be repeated at the employer's other establishments," committee Democrats state. They add that such an assessment should include a review of data on injury and illness rates across all of an employer's similar establishments.
Additionally, they call for DOL to consistently evaluate employers' similar establishments that have been targeted by OSHA's Severe Violator Enforcement Program, to assess whether the same hazards exist at other facilities. Democrats add in the report language that the policy could be done through alterations to OSHA's Field Operations Manual.
Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) also said he supports an increased ability to address repeat violations by employers with multiple establishments, in a statement included in the report language.
He adds that he agrees with the report language that highlights the use of SVEP to respond to hazards at companies with multiple establishments, but specifies that all employers that have received a "high severity violation"--not only those in SVEP -- should be examined by OSHA for possible similar violations at other facilities.
"Given limited resources, OSHA's Field Operations Manual should be updated to require OSHA, as part of its enforcement actions involving 'high severity' violations to require employers to report back and certify to OSHA that the hazard has either been abated or does not exist at all similar establishments," he states. "This clarification is necessary, because the number of employers and violations that fall under the SVEP would not capture all work sites that could be putting workers at needless risk from a repeat violation." -- Sara Ditta