The potential reduction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) budget and regulatory authority during the Trump administration was a subject of considerable discussion. This involved proposed decreases in funding for the agency responsible for ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for Americans by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.
Such adjustments to OSHA’s resources and influence held significant implications for worker safety, employer compliance, and the overall regulatory landscape. Historically, debates surrounding OSHA have centered on the balance between workplace safety mandates and the cost of compliance for businesses, particularly small businesses. Reduced funding could lead to fewer inspections, potentially impacting the enforcement of safety standards and increasing workplace hazards. Conversely, proponents of reduced regulations often argued that they could stimulate economic growth by lessening the burden on businesses.
The following sections will delve into the specific budget proposals, regulatory changes, and the resulting impact on workplace safety and health during that period, providing a detailed examination of the agency’s operations and its role in protecting American workers.
1. Reduced funding allocations
The reduction of funding allocated to OSHA directly stemmed from budgetary decisions undertaken during the Trump administration, reflecting a philosophical shift toward deregulation. Decreased financial resources constricted the agency’s capacity to fulfill its mandate. For instance, proposed budget cuts included specific line items targeting enforcement, training grants, and research initiatives. These cuts, in practical terms, translated to a reduced number of inspectors available to conduct workplace safety audits, a decrease in the availability of safety training programs for workers and employers, and a slowdown in the development and implementation of new safety standards. The consequence was a diminished ability of OSHA to proactively prevent workplace accidents and illnesses.
The effect of reduced funding extended beyond immediate operational constraints. It also impacted OSHA’s ability to respond effectively to emerging workplace hazards and crises. For example, during public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, OSHA’s limited resources constrained its capacity to provide timely guidance and enforce necessary safety measures in essential workplaces. This created a lag in addressing novel safety challenges, potentially exposing workers to increased risks. Furthermore, reductions in training grant programs disproportionately affected small businesses, which often rely on these grants to implement safety programs due to limited internal resources.
In summary, reduced funding allocations represent a critical component of the narrative surrounding OSHA during the Trump administration. It directly curtailed the agency’s ability to enforce safety standards, conduct inspections, and provide essential training. This contraction had tangible consequences for workplace safety, particularly in high-risk industries and during emergency situations. Understanding this connection is crucial for evaluating the broader impact of regulatory policy on worker health and safety and for assessing the long-term implications of budgetary decisions on the effectiveness of regulatory agencies.
2. Fewer workplace inspections
The reduction in workplace inspections directly resulted from budgetary and policy shifts enacted during the Trump administration, illustrating a key component of the broader effort to diminish OSHA’s regulatory oversight. With reduced funding, the agency experienced a corresponding decrease in the frequency and scope of workplace safety audits. This correlation highlights a direct cause-and-effect relationship: diminished resources led to fewer inspections. The practical significance of this change lies in its impact on employer compliance. Without the consistent threat of inspections, some businesses may have been less diligent in adhering to safety standards, potentially leading to hazardous working conditions.
Real-world examples serve to illustrate the consequences of decreased inspections. In the construction industry, for instance, fewer inspections may have translated to inadequate fall protection measures, increasing the risk of falls from heights a leading cause of workplace fatalities. Similarly, in manufacturing, reduced inspection frequency could have led to lax enforcement of machine guarding regulations, exposing workers to amputation hazards. The significance of this understanding extends to recognizing the role of proactive enforcement in preventing workplace injuries and illnesses. A robust inspection program serves as a deterrent, prompting employers to maintain a safe working environment before accidents occur, rather than reacting after incidents.
In summary, the link between fewer workplace inspections and the policy direction pursued during the Trump administration is evident. Reduced funding for OSHA resulted in fewer inspections, which, in turn, may have weakened employer compliance and increased workplace hazards. Understanding this connection underscores the importance of consistent regulatory oversight in ensuring worker safety and highlights the potential consequences of policy decisions that prioritize deregulation over enforcement. The challenge remains in striking a balance between regulatory burden and worker protection, but the evidence suggests that a reduction in inspections can have detrimental effects on workplace safety outcomes.
3. Weakened enforcement efforts
Weakened enforcement efforts formed a direct consequence of budgetary and policy adjustments affecting OSHA during the Trump administration. The reduction in funding, coupled with a stated emphasis on deregulation, translated into a less aggressive approach to ensuring employer compliance with safety regulations. This manifests in several ways, including fewer citations for violations, reduced penalties for non-compliance, and a slower pace in resolving safety complaints. The connection to potential OSHA budget reductions is clear: fewer resources directly impede the agency’s capacity to investigate violations thoroughly and to pursue enforcement actions effectively. The importance of robust enforcement lies in its ability to deter unsafe practices and to incentivize employers to prioritize worker safety. A weaker enforcement presence can lead to a decline in compliance, potentially increasing the risk of workplace accidents and illnesses.
Real-world examples illustrate the impact of diminished enforcement. Construction companies, facing reduced scrutiny, may have been less likely to implement fall protection measures adequately, as evidenced by a potential increase in fall-related incidents in regions with historically low inspection rates. Similarly, manufacturing facilities could have become more lax in adhering to machine guarding standards, leading to a higher incidence of amputation injuries. The practical significance of this understanding lies in recognizing that enforcement serves as a critical mechanism for ensuring that safety regulations are not merely aspirational but are actively implemented and followed in workplaces across the country. A less active enforcement stance can erode the effectiveness of existing safety standards, ultimately placing workers at greater risk.
In summary, weakened enforcement efforts represent a crucial component of the broader changes experienced by OSHA during the Trump administration. These changes stemmed directly from budgetary constraints and a philosophical shift toward deregulation. The resultant decrease in enforcement activity translated into a reduced deterrent effect, potentially leading to decreased compliance and increased workplace hazards. While striking a balance between regulatory burden and worker safety remains a complex challenge, it is evident that a diminished enforcement presence can have tangible and detrimental consequences for the safety and health of American workers.
4. Decreased safety training
Decreased safety training is directly linked to potential OSHA budget reductions during the Trump administration, highlighting a significant consequence of altering the agency’s resource allocation. When funding for OSHA is reduced, training programs, which are often supported by grants and agency-led initiatives, are among the first areas to experience cutbacks. This reduction impacts both the availability of training for workers and the capacity of employers, particularly small businesses, to implement comprehensive safety programs. The absence of adequate safety training elevates the risk of workplace accidents and illnesses, as workers may be less aware of hazards, proper procedures, and the correct use of safety equipment. Decreased safety training, therefore, becomes a tangible manifestation of broader policy decisions affecting OSHA’s ability to fulfill its core mission.
The construction industry provides a clear example of the impact of reduced safety training. Without consistent and thorough instruction on fall protection measures, workers may be more prone to falls, which constitute a leading cause of fatalities in this sector. Similarly, in manufacturing, inadequate training on machine guarding can result in a higher incidence of amputation injuries. These examples illustrate that safety training is not merely a theoretical exercise but a practical necessity for preventing workplace harm. Moreover, OSHA’s training programs often extend beyond specific industries, providing general workplace safety knowledge applicable across various sectors. Decreased funding for these programs can thus have a widespread impact on worker safety, affecting not only specific industries but the overall labor force.
In summary, the correlation between decreased safety training and potential OSHA budget reductions underscores a critical challenge in balancing regulatory costs with worker protection. While arguments are often made regarding the burden of compliance on businesses, it is essential to recognize that safety training is an investment in preventing accidents and illnesses, ultimately benefiting both workers and employers. The reduction in such training, stemming from diminished resources, increases workplace hazards and undermines the effectiveness of safety regulations. The long-term consequences of this trade-off warrant careful consideration, as the costs of workplace injuries and illnesses can far outweigh the perceived savings from reduced regulatory oversight.
5. Altered Regulatory Priorities
During the Trump administration, potential adjustments to OSHA’s budget and operational approach were intertwined with a shift in regulatory priorities. This re-evaluation of which safety standards and enforcement activities were emphasized had direct implications for worker safety and employer compliance.
-
Emphasis on Deregulation
One notable shift involved a greater emphasis on deregulation, with a focus on reducing the regulatory burden on businesses. This translated into a review of existing safety standards, with some regulations being scaled back or delayed in implementation. For example, proposed rules related to workplace exposure to certain substances might have been subjected to further cost-benefit analysis, potentially delaying or weakening their enforcement. The consequence was a potential rollback of protections for workers in specific industries. The importance of this aspect lies in the potential for shifting the balance between employer flexibility and worker safety.
-
Focus on Cost-Benefit Analysis
The agency may have placed increased importance on cost-benefit analysis when evaluating proposed regulations. This involved a more rigorous examination of the economic impact of safety standards on businesses, alongside the potential benefits for worker health and safety. While cost-benefit analysis is a standard part of regulatory decision-making, a greater emphasis on cost considerations may have led to a reluctance to implement more stringent safety standards, particularly those perceived as expensive for employers. A practical example is the evaluation of new standards for personal protective equipment, where the cost to employers may have been weighed heavily against the potential reduction in injuries.
-
Shift in Enforcement Focus
Another potential alteration involved a shift in enforcement focus, with a possible emphasis on cooperative programs and compliance assistance rather than punitive measures. This could have meant directing more resources towards helping businesses comply with existing regulations rather than aggressively pursuing penalties for violations. For example, OSHA may have increased the number of on-site consultations offered to businesses, providing guidance on safety best practices, while reducing the number of surprise inspections. While compliance assistance is a valuable tool, a shift away from strong enforcement may have reduced the deterrent effect of safety regulations, potentially leading to decreased compliance among some employers.
-
Delayed or Withdrawn Regulations
Certain proposed regulations faced delays or were ultimately withdrawn. This could occur due to re-evaluation of their economic impact, legal challenges, or a change in policy direction. For instance, a proposed rule on workplace violence prevention may have been delayed due to concerns about its potential impact on specific industries, or a rule on musculoskeletal disorders may have been withdrawn following legal challenges from business groups. Such delays or withdrawals had the effect of leaving workers potentially exposed to hazards that the proposed regulations were intended to address.
In summary, altered regulatory priorities during the Trump administration, coupled with potential budget reductions, represented a complex shift in OSHA’s operational landscape. By emphasizing deregulation, cost-benefit analysis, and cooperative programs, the agency’s approach to worker safety may have changed significantly. These shifts, while intended to reduce the burden on businesses, had potential implications for worker safety, underscoring the ongoing challenge of balancing economic considerations with the need to protect the health and well-being of the American workforce.
6. Stalled new regulations
The stalling of new regulations under OSHA during the Trump administration represents a tangible outcome potentially linked to budgetary and policy decisions made at that time. This slowdown in the implementation of new safety standards had direct consequences for worker protection across various industries.
-
Reduced Rulemaking Activity
One clear manifestation of stalled regulations was the decline in OSHA’s rulemaking activity. The agency initiated fewer new rulemakings and faced delays in finalizing existing proposed rules. For instance, regulations designed to address emerging workplace hazards, such as exposure to hazardous chemicals or ergonomic risks, may have experienced extended periods of review and analysis, preventing their timely implementation. This reduced activity reflects a broader policy shift toward deregulation and a reluctance to impose new mandates on businesses. The implication is that workers remained potentially exposed to hazards that these stalled regulations were intended to mitigate.
-
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Delays
A heightened emphasis on cost-benefit analysis played a significant role in the stalling of new regulations. Proposed rules were subjected to rigorous scrutiny to assess their economic impact on businesses, often leading to delays in implementation. For example, regulations requiring updated safety equipment or revised training programs may have faced resistance based on cost concerns, even if they promised to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. The focus on economic considerations, while a legitimate part of the regulatory process, created a bottleneck that slowed down the development and implementation of new safety standards. The consequence was a prolonged period of uncertainty for employers and workers, leaving potential safety gaps unaddressed.
-
Prioritization of Existing Regulations
The Trump administration directed OSHA’s resources toward reviewing and revising existing regulations, potentially diverting attention and resources away from the development of new rules. This focus on revising existing regulations often involved streamlining requirements or reducing the burden on businesses. While such efforts may have been intended to improve regulatory efficiency, they also had the effect of delaying or preventing the creation of new standards to address emerging hazards. For example, OSHA may have prioritized updating older regulations on hazard communication or personal protective equipment, while new rules on workplace violence prevention or infectious disease control remained stalled. This prioritization demonstrates a policy choice that influenced the direction of regulatory activity.
In conclusion, the stalling of new regulations during the Trump administration represents a direct outcome potentially linked to budgetary and policy shifts within OSHA. Reduced rulemaking activity, increased emphasis on cost-benefit analysis, and prioritization of existing regulations all contributed to a slowdown in the implementation of new safety standards. These changes had tangible implications for worker safety, as they left potential hazards unaddressed and created uncertainty for employers and workers. Understanding these connections is crucial for assessing the broader impact of regulatory policy on workplace safety and for evaluating the effectiveness of OSHA in fulfilling its mission.
7. Revised existing standards
The revision of existing safety standards forms a critical component of the narrative surrounding potential OSHA budget reductions during the Trump administration. This activity reflects a strategic shift toward deregulation, where the agency re-evaluated and modified existing regulations to reduce the compliance burden on businesses. These revisions were often framed as efforts to streamline regulations, eliminate redundancies, or modernize outdated standards. However, their practical effect could diminish worker protections, particularly if the revisions weakened existing safety measures or reduced the scope of regulatory coverage. The correlation between “is trump cutting osha” and the focus on revising existing standards lies in the allocation of limited resources. Rather than developing new safeguards, the agency focused on altering the existing regulatory landscape, potentially diverting resources and attention from addressing emerging workplace hazards.
Real-world examples demonstrate the potential implications of these revisions. A revision to a standard related to hazard communication, for instance, might have reduced the level of detail required on safety data sheets or limited the types of chemicals subject to regulation. While such changes could have lowered compliance costs for businesses, they also could have reduced worker awareness of potential hazards, increasing the risk of exposure. Similarly, revisions to fall protection standards in the construction industry could have weakened requirements for specific types of safety equipment or reduced the frequency of safety inspections, potentially increasing the risk of falls. The importance of understanding these revisions stems from the need to assess their impact on worker safety outcomes. It is crucial to evaluate whether the benefits of reduced compliance costs outweigh the potential increase in workplace hazards.
In summary, the revision of existing safety standards represents a significant aspect of the potential OSHA budget reductions during the Trump administration. By focusing on modifying existing regulations, the agency aimed to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, but this approach also carried the risk of weakening worker protections. The practical significance of understanding these revisions lies in the need to evaluate their impact on worker safety outcomes and to determine whether the pursuit of deregulation has compromised the agency’s core mission of ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for all Americans. The challenge remains in striking a balance between regulatory efficiency and the fundamental right of workers to a safe workplace.
8. Shifted compliance assistance
The alteration of compliance assistance programs represents a consequential aspect of the potential impact stemming from alterations to OSHAs funding and operational priorities. This adjustment, wherein the nature and availability of resources designed to aid employers in adhering to safety standards, had tangible implications for workplace safety and health.
-
Increased Emphasis on Voluntary Programs
A notable shift involved increased reliance on voluntary compliance programs. These programs, such as the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP), encourage employers to proactively implement comprehensive safety and health management systems in exchange for recognition and reduced inspection frequency. While VPP can be effective in promoting workplace safety, a sole reliance on such programs, particularly in the context of reduced enforcement capacity, may leave significant gaps in coverage, especially among smaller businesses that lack the resources to participate effectively. This approach inherently relies on the proactive engagement of employers, potentially neglecting workplaces where management is less committed to safety.
-
Reduced On-Site Consultation Availability
Budget constraints within OSHA may have resulted in reduced availability of on-site consultation services for businesses seeking guidance on compliance. On-site consultations, typically offered free of charge to small and medium-sized businesses, provide valuable assistance in identifying workplace hazards and developing corrective action plans. A reduction in the frequency or scope of these consultations could leave businesses less equipped to comply with complex safety regulations, particularly in high-risk industries. The implication is a potential increase in workplace hazards due to a lack of expert guidance.
-
Shift Toward Online Resources
As a potential consequence of budget reductions, OSHA may have shifted its focus toward providing compliance assistance through online resources, such as webinars, training materials, and downloadable guides. While these resources can be valuable, they are not a substitute for in-person consultations and hands-on training. Online resources may be less effective in reaching employers and workers who lack access to technology or who have limited literacy skills. This shift could disproportionately affect small businesses and low-wage workers, exacerbating existing disparities in workplace safety.
-
Targeted Assistance to Specific Industries
Compliance assistance efforts may have become more targeted, focusing on specific industries or hazards identified as priorities. This approach could involve developing industry-specific training materials or conducting outreach campaigns focused on particular safety issues. While targeted assistance can be effective in addressing specific risks, it may also divert resources away from other industries or hazards, leaving them underserved. For example, if OSHA focused its assistance efforts on reducing falls in the construction industry, other sectors, such as manufacturing or agriculture, may have received less attention. This could create uneven levels of protection across different segments of the workforce.
In summary, the shifting landscape of compliance assistance programs reflects a complex interplay of budgetary constraints and policy priorities. While efforts to promote voluntary compliance and leverage online resources may have offered some benefits, a potential reduction in on-site consultations and a potential uneven distribution of resources raised concerns about the overall effectiveness of OSHA’s assistance efforts. These shifts emphasize the interconnectedness of OSHA’s budget, its enforcement activities, and its compliance assistance programs, highlighting the potential consequences of altering any one of these components.
9. Increased employer flexibility
The concept of “increased employer flexibility” in the context of potential OSHA budget adjustments implemented during the Trump administration signifies a relaxation of regulatory constraints, intended to reduce the burden on businesses. This flexibility encompasses modifications to compliance requirements, enforcement practices, and the overall regulatory environment, potentially altering the landscape of workplace safety.
-
Reduced Reporting Requirements
One facet of increased employer flexibility involved the reduction of reporting requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses. Modifications to reporting regulations could have raised the threshold for mandatory reporting, thereby decreasing the administrative burden on businesses. A practical example could include increasing the number of employees required to trigger mandatory reporting or narrowing the scope of reportable incidents. The implications of this change included a potential decrease in the transparency of workplace safety data, which could have hindered the ability of OSHA to identify emerging hazards and target enforcement efforts effectively.
-
Streamlined Compliance Procedures
Another avenue for increased flexibility involved the streamlining of compliance procedures. This could have entailed simplifying the process for obtaining permits, conducting safety audits, or implementing safety training programs. For instance, OSHA might have introduced standardized templates for safety plans or reduced the documentation requirements for specific safety practices. The intended effect was to reduce the time and resources required for businesses to comply with safety regulations. However, the streamlining of compliance procedures could have also led to a reduction in the rigor of safety practices, potentially increasing the risk of accidents and injuries.
-
Emphasis on Performance-Based Standards
A shift toward performance-based standards represents another aspect of increased employer flexibility. Performance-based standards allow businesses to choose their own methods for achieving desired safety outcomes, rather than prescribing specific technologies or practices. This approach offers businesses greater autonomy in tailoring safety measures to their unique operational needs. For example, a performance-based standard for fall protection might specify the required level of fall protection without dictating the exact type of equipment to be used. The potential implication of performance-based standards is that while some businesses innovate and exceed minimum requirements, others may opt for the least costly compliance option, potentially compromising worker safety.
-
Reduced Penalties for Violations
The concept might have extended to a reduction in the severity or frequency of penalties for regulatory violations. This could have manifested in decreased fine amounts, more lenient enforcement practices, or a greater willingness to negotiate settlements with businesses accused of safety violations. The intended effect may have been to foster a more cooperative relationship between OSHA and employers, encouraging voluntary compliance rather than relying solely on punitive measures. However, the unintended consequence might have been a reduction in the deterrent effect of safety regulations, potentially leading to increased non-compliance and a higher risk of workplace accidents.
In conclusion, the multifaceted notion of “increased employer flexibility” represents a complex interplay of potential benefits and risks in the context of potential OSHA budget reductions. While greater flexibility may have reduced the regulatory burden on businesses, it also could have weakened worker protections and compromised the effectiveness of safety regulations. The overall impact depended on how these flexibilities were implemented and whether they were accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure that worker safety remained a top priority.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common questions surrounding the potential for diminished resources and influence at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) during the Trump administration. The information provided is intended to offer clarity on the subject.
Question 1: What specific actions were considered or taken to potentially reduce OSHA’s resources?
Actions under consideration or implemented included proposed budget cuts affecting enforcement, training grants, and research initiatives. Executive orders also prompted reviews of existing regulations, potentially leading to revisions or rescissions.
Question 2: How might these actions have affected OSHA’s ability to conduct workplace inspections?
Reduced funding for enforcement activities could directly translate into a decrease in the frequency and scope of workplace inspections, potentially leading to less stringent monitoring of employer compliance.
Question 3: What is the potential impact on the development and implementation of new safety standards?
Budget constraints and a focus on deregulation might have slowed down the development and implementation of new safety standards, leaving workers potentially exposed to emerging or unaddressed hazards.
Question 4: How could these actions have affected OSHA’s capacity to provide training and compliance assistance to employers?
Cuts to training grants and a shift in priorities might have reduced the availability of training programs and on-site consultations, particularly for small businesses, potentially hindering their ability to comply with safety regulations.
Question 5: What were some arguments in favor of reduced funding or deregulation at OSHA?
Arguments often centered on the idea that reduced regulations and compliance costs could stimulate economic growth and reduce the burden on businesses, particularly small businesses.
Question 6: What are the potential long-term consequences of reduced OSHA resources and oversight?
The potential long-term consequences included a weakening of workplace safety culture, increased risk of workplace accidents and illnesses, and a decrease in the overall effectiveness of safety regulations.
The information presented in these FAQs aims to provide a clear understanding of the potential impact on OSHA. It is essential to continue monitoring regulatory policy and its effects on worker safety.
The next section will explore potential consequences on specific industries.
Navigating OSHA Policy Shifts
The following guidance aims to provide insights into adapting to potential regulatory adjustments affecting workplace safety, particularly concerning possible impacts on OSHA policies and enforcement.
Tip 1: Proactively Enhance Safety Programs: Regardless of regulatory trends, consistently improve workplace safety programs. Conduct regular hazard assessments, update safety protocols, and invest in employee training to exceed minimum compliance requirements. This ensures a safer working environment and minimizes the potential for accidents and violations.
Tip 2: Maintain Rigorous Documentation: Meticulously document all safety-related activities, including training sessions, inspections, equipment maintenance, and incident reports. Comprehensive documentation serves as evidence of due diligence and proactive safety management, which can be beneficial during inspections or legal proceedings.
Tip 3: Stay Informed on Regulatory Changes: Closely monitor official OSHA communications and industry-specific news sources to remain informed about any modifications to safety standards or enforcement policies. Adapt internal procedures promptly to reflect these changes, ensuring continued compliance.
Tip 4: Foster a Strong Safety Culture: Cultivate a workplace culture that prioritizes safety at all levels. Encourage employee participation in safety initiatives, provide open channels for reporting hazards, and recognize employees who demonstrate a commitment to safety. A robust safety culture can mitigate the impact of fluctuating regulatory environments.
Tip 5: Seek External Expertise: Consult with qualified safety professionals or industrial hygienists to conduct comprehensive workplace assessments and develop customized safety plans. External experts can offer valuable insights, identify potential blind spots, and ensure compliance with complex regulations.
Tip 6: Invest in Advanced Safety Technology: Consider investing in advanced safety technologies, such as real-time monitoring systems, wearable safety devices, and automated hazard detection systems. These technologies can enhance workplace safety by providing early warnings of potential risks and enabling proactive interventions.
These strategies emphasize preparedness and a commitment to exceeding baseline standards. Implementing these measures can enhance workplace safety, regardless of the regulatory climate.
The concluding section of this analysis will present a summary of the key points.
Conclusion
This analysis has explored the potential ramifications of actions during the Trump administration that relate to “is trump cutting osha”. Examination of budget adjustments, shifts in regulatory priorities, and modifications to compliance assistance programs reveals the potential impact on workplace safety and health. Reduced funding for enforcement, stalled implementation of new standards, and increased employer flexibility collectively suggest a shift that warrants ongoing scrutiny. These changes could affect industries, particularly those with inherent safety risks, and also may alter the dynamics of employer-employee safety relations.
The complex interplay between regulatory policy, economic considerations, and worker well-being requires continuous evaluation. The future trajectory of workplace safety depends on a sustained commitment to proactive risk management, diligent enforcement, and a collaborative approach involving government, employers, and employees. Monitoring regulatory trends and adapting safety strategies remain essential to safeguarding the health and safety of the American workforce.
