Industry attorneys are arguing that OSHA enforcement has risen during the Trump administration as the lack of a confirmed political leader has left career staff wielding greater influence over the agency's enforcement approach, and pushing back against labor groups' assertions that agency enforcement is declining at an “accelerated pace.”
An appellate court has upheld a lower court’s ruling limiting OSHA's authority to expand a facility inspection beyond the circumstances of a reported incident, faulting the agency's assertions that facility hazards and injury reports support “reasonable suspicion” of violations, though one panelist offered support for the agency's stance.
The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), which advocates for strict public health and environment rules, is urging OSHA to craft new standards to protect workers from hazards they face when responding to disasters such as hurricanes, including new protections from ergonomic risks and heat stress, and greater enforcement during disaster responses.
Public Citizen is defending its request for a federal court to grant a preliminary injunction compelling the Trump administration to implement delayed requirements of an Obama-era worker injury and illness reporting rule, arguing that it meets the grounds for relief because it is harmed by the delay and is likely to succeed in the litigation.
Former OSHA officials are pointing to the Labor Department Office of Inspector General's (OIG) recent finding that half of all severe injuries go unreported as evidence that the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda is weakening OSHA oversight, blaming the repeal of an Obama-era record-keeping rule for under-reporting of severe injuries.
A divided National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is proposing a rule that would raise the bar for determining when contractors, franchisers and other entities are considered “joint employers,” opening the door to subjecting them to workplace safety and other requirements, arguing the rule will clarify existing confusion.
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is seeking public input on a variety of possible changes to its rules of procedure, including broadening the definition of an “affected employee,” which labor groups have long sought and that could expand the scope of cases stemming from multi-employer job sites.
An industry attorney says that an administrative law judge's (ALJ) recent ruling highlights liability concerns that staffing agencies face if deemed “exposing employers” under OSHA's multi-employer enforcement policy, a focus of Obama-era enforcement that agency staff has not shown signs of backing off of during the Trump administration.
An industry attorney is seeking an employer who could act as a plaintiff in a potential lawsuit challenging what the attorney describes as OSHA's practice of "shaming" employers in enforcement press releases as unconstitutional, arguing that the Trump administration has failed to soften critical language in the announcements that harm employers even in cases where allegations are reduced or rescinded.
A former senior OSHA official is faulting a softening in tone in the agency's announcements of workplace safety violations, arguing that strong language is necessary to maximize the deterrent effect of OSHA enforcement actions, though industry attorneys long opposed the Obama-era press release policy as unnecessary “regulation by shaming."