Bill Overview
Title: REVERSE OSHA Mandates Act
Description: This bill limits the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to regulate workplace safety and health matters. Specifically, the bill repeals OSHA's authority to issue emergency temporary standards related to workplace safety and health. The bill further specifies that OSHA may not, under its authority to regulate workplace safety and health, require the administration of any drug, vaccine, or other biological product to an employee.
Sponsors: Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in employment sectors potentially affected by occupational safety regulations
Estimated Size: 160000000
- The bill impacts OSHA's authority, which is a primary regulatory body for workplace safety in the U.S.
- The bill will affect all employees in the U.S. who fall under OSHA's jurisdiction, which includes most workers except for self-employed, public employees, and some workers in specific industries.
- There are approximately 160 million workers in the United States.
- Globally, while OSHA itself does not directly regulate outside the U.S., countries with similar agencies might observe and be influenced by U.S. legislation, indirectly affecting global workplace safety trends.
- The particular focus on vaccines could affect all U.S. workers currently under any vaccine mandate that derives authority from OSHA guidelines.
Reasoning
- Given the nature of the bill, which affects OSHA's regulatory scope, the direct impact would largely fall on workers whose employers relied on OSHA's vaccine mandate authority. The policy might not significantly impact those in sectors without such mandates or public sector employees not under OSHA's jurisdiction.
- The policy is well under the initial $250 million budget constraint as it involves regulatory adjustments rather than direct financial expenditures for implementation.
- Impacts vary: high for those whose employers might immediately change safety procedures or drop mandates; low or none for sectors not actively using OSHA's guidelines for mandates.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse in a private clinic (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clear safety guidelines is crucial, especially in healthcare. I'm worried that removing OSHA's ability to enforce health standards could lead to relaxed safety protocols.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Construction worker (Grand Rapids, MI)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety standards are already a concern in construction. If OSHA can't enforce temporary standards quickly, it might get riskier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
HR manager for a tech company (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change might not affect our industry heavily as we can set our own safety protocols. However, freedom from federal mandates might be appealing to some companies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Restaurant Manager (Portland, OR)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My main concern is maintaining employee health; however, this policy probably won't change much for us immediately.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Union Representative (Chicago, IL)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes our work harder, rolling back on safety protections. Workers' safety might be compromised without quick OSHA interventions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Doesn't affect my work directly, but it's interesting to see how these shifts might impact traditional workspaces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Teacher at a public school (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't apply directly to us, but I'm concerned about the precedent set for workplace safety overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Warehouse Supervisor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rollback could mean less enforcement on safety, which might make workplaces riskier if companies cut corners without oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally, it won't affect me, but having worked in healthcare, I worry about the health sector not having strong enough backup from OSHA during health crises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal Employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly affected, I'm concerned about the indirect effects on public health and safety standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill could diminish the rapid response capability of OSHA in public health crises, potentially affecting public safety.
- Legal challenges arising from workplace safety incidents might increase if businesses are less regulated.
- The reduction in regulatory obligations might lead to cost savings for businesses, but also raises concerns about long-term workforce health and safety.