Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on implementing a process through which a State or business may apply for an exemption from enforcement of certain occupational safety and health standards on the basis of economic hardship, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Labor to study a process for allowing states or businesses to apply for exemptions from occupational safety and health standards that cause significant economic hardship. The study must include recommendations for legislative and other actions necessary to implement such a process.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: Workers affected by occupational safety and health standards worldwide
Estimated Size: 160000000
- Occupational safety and health standards apply to various industries, impacting workers across sectors.
- Businesses seeking exemptions are likely those facing economic challenges in adhering to current standards.
- Workers in industries that might receive exemptions could face altered safety conditions.
- State governments may be involved if they apply for broad exemptions, potentially affecting all workers within that state.
Reasoning
- Occupational safety and health standards impact a broad range of workers across industries, primarily those in occupations with moderate to high potential safety risks.
- The policy may benefit businesses financially by reducing compliance costs, possibly at a worker's expense in terms of workplace safety.
- The simulated population includes individuals from various industries, including those with high and low exposure to occupational risk.
- Some workers may not be directly impacted by this policy if they work in industries where compliance with safety standards doesn't cause economic hardship.
- The total budget implies a relatively controlled and limited implementation, not applying to all industries or sectors at once.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Technician (Houston, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that exemptions could mean fewer safety checks on the job.
- Cost savings are good, but not at the risk of safety.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Construction Project Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If handled well, exemptions could help us take on more projects and avoid layoffs.
- I'm concerned about what parts of the standard would be cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Tech Startup Employee (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally, I don't see how this would affect me.
- If anything, it might be a step backward for worker protections.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Automobile Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety standards protect us; any changes need to be scrutinized carefully.
- I'm concerned about how these exemptions could impact union negotiations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could ease some financial burdens significantly.
- I hope any exemption wouldn't compromise food safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not sure this affects me directly.
- I worry for others in more dangerous jobs; safety should be a priority.
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 |
Warehouse Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower compliance costs might help us financially, but safety can't be compromised.
- I'd need assurance that key safety practices remain enforced.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Public Health Advocate (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could undermine years of progress in worker safety if not handled carefully.
- I'd like to see more data on the potential impacts before supporting exemptions.
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 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations can be tough, but they're important for safety.
- Some exemptions might help me financially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My recovery is thanks to robust safety protocols, and these shouldn't be compromised.
- Exemptions could make the workplace feel less secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Impact of exemptions on worker safety and well-being.
- Potential for exemptions to lead to inequalities among states and businesses.
- Administrative and legislative feasibility of implementing recommended changes post-study.