The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed “illness and injury prevention program” (I2P2) is causing considerable anxiety among employers and employer groups. OSHA itself calls the proposed rule the most fundamental change to workplace-safety standards since passage of the OSH Act.
I2P2 would require employers to identify and correct all safety and health hazards in the workplace — even those not covered by a specific OSHA standard — and establish hazard-training, accident-investigation, and hazard-correction procedures for each facility. I2P2 would apply to all employers, including those not in hazardous industries.
During stakeholder meetings to discuss the proposed rule, several employers expressed concerns about the rule’s lack of clarity and burdensome paperwork requirements. Although the costs associated with compliance would vary by industry and occupation, some employers estimated that the average cost would be about $3,000 per employee per year.
Many larger employers already perform workplace-safety audits on a regular basis. Some businesses located in California have been subject to something similar to I2P2 for a while. Smaller employers, however, simply don’t have the standing human-resource departments to readily implement I2P2. Larger employers are concerned that the rule provides OSHA inspectors expansive discretion in assessing compliance.
Final issuance of I2P2 is an OSHA priority and could happen sometime in the next few months.
Is this administration bent on killing every last private sector job in America?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst they tell you to put on the bubble-wrap suit. Then they warn you about getting a heat rash 'cause the suit is hot. Then they make you air condition the suit. Then they tell you you need to anticipate any and all other problems that may or may not arise from the wearing of bubble wrap suits.
At what point do we just have a sit down with ourselves and admit that we can't control for all contingencies and even if we could life would be miserable?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis Administration is a hazard to our Republic and especially a hazard to the private sector
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheir incompetence is beginning to reach a point where it's fair to ask the question, "Is it intentional?. I think it very well may be.
We are still at an unemployment level that surpasses what is normally achieved during a bad recession, and yet these people want to add more regulations and expense to employers. No one is that stupid, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh more fertilizer to make WalMart grow. Ah the good ole left -- kick WalMart by day and sleep with it at night.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeanB: Was that a rhetorical question?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo California has been doing something similar for a while. How's that working for them? Is this the secret behind the great CA jobs machine?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrediction - They'll 'exempt' small business by putting a 15 or more employees threshold on it. Then I'll fire two people to make sure I'm under the cap. Then the state hires a couple more social workers to tend to the newly unemployed. And that's how we create jobs in America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with previous commenters. Moreover, I suspect that the super-rule will shake out as a giveaway to the tort bar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me see if I have this right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow businesses have to not only follow OSHA regulations that are written, but they also have to follow all the rules that have never been written at all?
So according to OSHA, in order to be a responsible employer in America, you must be able to foretell the future and anticipate EVERYTHING.
Selective enforcement is the only possible outcome, since it is not possible to prosecute everyone who fails to anticipate a freak accident. This is what they are really after: The right to enforce every passing whim against companies they happen to dislike or that happen to be in competition with those they currently favor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only thing surprising about the proposed rule is that OSHA is even bothering with the rule-making process.
Safety and health standards are at best safe harbors for employers. OSHA already can use the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act to cite employers for an "unsafe" workplace--even if the employer complies with every safety and health standard.
My best guess for OSHA's motivation is that it wants to combine the scope of the GDC with lower burden of proving a standard violation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe $3000 per employee estimate is bogus. It would only be that amoubnt if you were operating your business in a preOSHA mode, before health and safety regulations. A business that doesn't deal with these issues should go out of business. We small business owners who operate in a good way should be glad not to have to compete against these bad business. I am sick of low life owners blaming OSHA and other regulatory agencies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse