Bill Overview
Title: OSHA ETS Clarification Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits the scope of the Department of Labor's authority to issue emergency temporary standards concerning safety and health to dangers or hazards specific to the workplace. Currently, Labor may issue an emergency standard upon determining that (1) employees are exposed to a new danger or hazard, and (2) the emergency standard is necessary to protect employees. Under this bill, Labor must also determine that the danger or hazard arises exclusively from or is specific to the workplace covered by the emergency standard.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People working in regulated workplaces worldwide
Estimated Size: 157000000
- The legislation affects the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) ability to issue emergency temporary standards (ETS).
- OSHA standards are applicable to nearly all private-sector workers in the United States.
- There are approximately 159 million workers in the US labor force as of recent statistics.
- Not all workplaces might be subject to conditions requiring an ETS, so not every worker will be affected directly.
- In the global context, not all countries have an equivalent to OSHA, or the legislation does not apply to them.
Reasoning
- The OSHA ETS Clarification Act of 2022 limits when OSHA can issue emergency temporary standards making it specific to workplace-only hazards.
- Given the targeted scope, the policy impacts are primarily on industries with significant workplace hazards.
- The affected population includes areas like manufacturing, construction, mining, and healthcare settings with unique hazards.
- Most white-collar and remote office workers may not experience any significant change given the nature of their low-risk environments.
- Budget constraints suggest the policy implementation focuses on high-priority sectors dealing with occupational hazards, impacting a small portion of the total workforce.
Simulated Interviews
automotive factory worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes me worry less about broad health interventions slowing down work.
- Our job is dangerous, immediate safety standards help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
construction site supervisor (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's positive as it ensures only necessary safety standards.
- We still need to prioritize reducing hazards on site.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
software engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't really affect me or my workplace conditions.
- I'm glad resources are focused where needed.
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 |
hospital nurse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focused safety standards protect direct workplace hazards but should still assess public health impacts.
- Clarification improves resource allocation but needs flexibility for unexpected health situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
manufacturing plant manager (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the focus on specific occupational dangers.
- Broad standards can be disruptive and unnecessary sometimes.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
school administrator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy impact is minimal for education sector.
- Ensuring worker safety is always priority, but workplace focus makes sense.
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 |
delivery driver (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry less about safety rules changing frequently.
- Job isn't affected by detailed workplace standards, more about external factors.
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 |
logistics manager (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clarification is good as it ensures focus on actual hazardous work areas.
- Still ensure broad standards for logistics are in place.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
film production coordinator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy is unlikely to majorly impact creative industries.
- Useful that public funding doesn't broadly extend to unnecessary sectors.
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 | 9 | 9 |
warehouse worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy ensures warehouse specific issues are prioritized.
- It's important for high risk areas like ours to get the right attention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $16000000)
Year 2: $11000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $14000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- Scope of the bill especially impacts OSHA’s interpretation of workplace hazards.
- Revisions may lead to legal challenges as clarity on ETS scope still might not be comprehensive.
- Potential for reduction in the number of emergency standards, affecting rapid response capabilities.