The U.S. Department of Labor aims to rewrite or eliminate more than 60 “outdated” workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health workers and people with disabilities to standards that govern exposure to harmful substances.
If approved, the wide range of changes announced this month will also affect working conditions at construction sites and mines, limiting the government’s ability to fine employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently dangerous activities such as film stunts and animal training.
The Labor Bureau says the goal is to realize President Donald Trump’s commitment to reducing the costly and burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations and restoring America’s prosperity through deregulation.
“The Department of Labor is proud to be able to lead the way by suppressing growth and eliminating unnecessary regulations that limit opportunities,” Labour Secretary Lori Chavez Deremar said in a statement, boasting “the most ambitious proposal to reduce deficits in all sectors of the federal government.”
Critics say the proposal would have a disproportionate impact on women and members of minority groups, putting workers at risk of greater harm.
“There’s a huge risk that people are already dying at work,” said Rebecca Raindel, director of occupational safety and health for the AFL-CIO coalition. “This only makes the problem worse.”
The proposed changes will have several stages that will be passed before they are implemented, such as each public comment period.
Let’s take a look at some of the rollbacks we are considering.
There is no minimum wage for home health workers
Home health workers help elderly or medically vulnerable people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting in toilet use, and clients appointing physicians and performing other tasks. One of the Labor Department’s proposals allowed an estimated 3.7 million workers employed in home care agencies to fall below the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) and qualify for overtime payments if not covered by corresponding state law.
The proposed rules reverse the changes made under former President Barack Obama in 2013 and return to the regulatory framework from 1975. By reducing labor and compliance costs, the revision will help expand the home care market and maintain frail individuals for longer.
Judy Conti, director of government affairs for the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to beat the proposal. Home health workers were injured by lifting up clients and “before these (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to spend 50, 60, and perhaps even more time a week,” Conti said.
Others support the proposal, including the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often have the brunt of family care responsibilities, so making home care more affordable can help women balance work with personal responsibilities, said Carrie Lukas, the group’s president.
“We are pleased to see the Trump administration move forward in rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanagement of relationships that make it difficult for people to get the care they need,” Lukas said.
Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Institute for Economic Policy, said abolition does not constitute a victory for women.
“To say you don’t really think you need those protections is something that really does matter and is pretty devastating to the workforce that is so important, especially women of color,” Sanders said.
Protection of immigrant farm workers
Last year, the Labor Bureau finalised rules that provide protection to immigrant farm workers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says that most of these rules have placed unnecessary and costly requirements for employers.
Under the new proposal, the Labor Bureau will withdraw the requirement that most employers provide transports have seat belts for those agricultural workers.
The department also proposes reverse the 2024 rules protecting immigrant farm workers from retaliation from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, investigation, hearing, or testifying or participating in proceedings.
“We have a long history of retaliation against workers who oppose farm labor abuse, and because H-2A can’t renew your visa.
Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, praised the order therapy efforts, saying farmers have been hit by thousands of pages of restrictions on immigrant farm workers in recent years.
“Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate a new 3,000-page page in 18 months and taking responsibility for all of them?” he asked.
Lighting suitable for construction spaces
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Bureau, wants to withdraw the requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites. It says regulations do not significantly reduce the major risks.
OSHA said that if an employer is unable to correct a lighting defect in a construction factory, agents can issue citations under the “general obligation clause.” This clause requires employers to provide a place without employment from a perceived danger that is likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
Workers’ advocates think removing the requirements for specific construction sites is a bad idea. “There were a lot of deaths when workers were passing through holes in the floor and there were no proper lighting,” Raindel said. “It’s very obvious that employers should address, but unfortunately it’s one of the things we need to have standards and it’s always a violation.”
Mine safety
Some suggestions may affect the safety procedures of the mine. For example, employers should submit plans for ventilation and prevent coal mine roof collapse for review by the Labor Department’s Mines and Safety Bureau. Currently, MSHA District Managers can request mine operators to take additional steps to improve these plans.
The Labor Bureau wants to end its power by saying current regulations give district managers the ability to draft and create laws without asking for comment or action by Congress.
Similarly, the department suggests that district managers exclude their ability to request changes to the mine safety training program.
Limit OSHA reach
The general obligation clause allows OSHA to penalize employers for unsafe working conditions in the absence of specific standards to cover the situation.
OSHA’s proposal excludes the application of clauses to prohibit, limit or punish employers “intrinsically dangerous professional activities inherently in the professional, exercise or entertainment profession.”
Preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as one of the types of workers to which restrictions apply.
“It is simply not reasonable for Congress to declare when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is intended to quietly approve Congress to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, and whale shows at SeaWorld,” reads the proposed rule.
Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA Chief of Staff during the Obama administration, said he thinks it’s wrong to limit the agency’s enforcement agency.
“If we start to remove that threat, we can get back to where they throw safety into the wind because there is other production pressure they have,” Berkowitz said.
Source link
