If you follow the safety press at all, you have been bombarded the past 45 days with what has been deemed the "scathing" federal OSHA report on the Nevada OSHA program. After a Pulitzer Prize winning expose in the Las Vegas Sun prompted a federal review of the Nevada OSHA program, OSHA released its long anticipated report on Oct. 30. The 80-page report is available at the OSHA website at www.osha.gov.
As a safety professional, having watched this process unfold from the release of the report, to the Congressional hearings conducted last month, where Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid testified he was "disappointed in the leadership of Nevada OSHA," to the news reports on the Internet, I am amazed by the attention the press has given this report.
Everyone is concerned by any workplace injury or death, and our hearts go out to the victims, their families and their employers. Any workplace death or injury is a tragedy and we must do everything in our power to look at each one on a case by case basis and try to determine what we can do to prevent similar situations in the future. The question, however, still remains: Is Nevada's state-run program really that bad? Let's look at the facts for our answer.
Nevada is one of 27 states that have state programs that self-administer OSHA on behalf of the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, administers OSHA in all states and territories that do not have approved state plans.
The Work Loss Data Institute (WLDI), an independent database development company focused on workplace health and safety published the 2009 State Report Cards for Workers' Compensation. The WLDI's report card is based on the OSHA 300 logs of reportable injuries and illnesses as required by the OSH Act. The 2009 report card covers seven years of reporting data.
Based on the most current data available (2006) the WLDI graded states A through F. Eight states received a grade of A, including Nevada, seven states received a grade of B, nine states received a grade of C, nine states received a grade of D, and nine states received a grade of F, with eight states not being rated.
The report further places states in tiers, based upon their grade rating and whether the trend was going up, or level. Tier 1 was the best, and Tier 6 was the worst (with Tier 6 states having grades of D- with a trend going down or level). There were six states with a Tier 1 (the best) rating, four states with a Tier 2 rating (including Nevada), eight in Tier 3, 10 in Tier 4, four in Tier 5 and eight in Tier 6.
Interesting enough, of the six Tier One states, four of those were state-run OSHA program states, and two were federal-run OSHA states. Of the four Tier 2 states (of which Nevada was one) three were state-run OSHA programs and one was federal-run OSHA. Compare that with the bottom eight Tier 6 states, where every one was a federal-run OSHA program!
These statistics seem to indicate that the state-run programs aren't doing so poorly after all. Nevada was given an A grade on the five different outcome measures applied to each state putting it in the top eight, and was listed as a Tier 2 state, placing it in the top 10 states under the tier rating criteria.
Now, we hear much ado about the Obama administration's new OSHA appointees. The new director, Dr. David Michaels, an epidemiologist and university professor associated with a public health group funded by plaintiff's attorneys, says his agenda for OSHA begins with increased enforcement, a focus on health standards and a push for penalty increases. Oddly enough, the focus on penalty increases consumed a great portion of the recent federal OSHA criticism of Nevada OSHA's program.
Dr. Michael's No. 2 man is Jordan Barab, a former union official and congressional staff member. Between the two there is not much of a promising future for small business under OSHA. As an OSHA trainer who trains small Nevada business owners, I find that most want to provide a safe and healthful work environment and proper training for their employees, but often lack the resources and guidance to help them accomplish that. They are not the "villains" as recent press reports make them out to be. They need assistance with training and guidance from OSHA not higher fines and penalties.
OSHA now seems to be headed more toward a citation-based policy of disincentives that do nothing but create an adversarial relationship between OSHA and small businesses. The "beatings-will-continue-until-safety-improves" attitude will not foster better relations between employers and employees to cooperatively work toward furthering safe and healthful working conditions. Federal OSHA would be better off leaving Nevada OSHA to continue to partner with Nevada businesses to protect Nevada workers, as it has successfully done in the past, rather than mandate policies that will drive a wedge between them. The facts supporting Nevada OSHA's national ratings belie the "scathing report" issued by federal OSHA.
We should always welcome oversight, and we should always strive to improve our state program to provide safe and healthful working conditions for our Nevada employees. Training assistance and more consulting resources to small business would be a much more effective policy than increased fines and citations. This will unfortunately never happen as long as the powerful lobbies like the trial lawyers, who stand to directly benefit by a disconnect between OSHA and small businesses continue to be able to use their lobbying muscle to direct policy that favor their special interests over the interests of the working men and women of this country.
John Skowronek is an OSHA-authorized trainer providing training to Nevada small business owners and employees in Northern Nevada. His Reno-based company is Square One Solutions. Contact him at 825-9675.
