Photo lucky-photographer / iStock / Getty Images Plus

By Bernard L. Fontaine, Jr., CIH, CSP, FAIHA

Current Trends and Projected Developments
    In 2024, the second most disabling workplace injury — falls at the same level — had direct costs of $9.99 billion, while overexertion injuries from external sources reached $12.5 billion. Other notable injury categories included falls from elevated levels, contact with machinery or equipment, and repetitive strain injuries. These figures underscore the high costs of failing to implement effective safety measures.
    The anticipated return of a Trump administration is likely to revive policies emphasizing collaboration with businesses over enforcement. During the prior administration, OSHA’s inspector count fell to 790, leading to fewer inspections. Future staffing reductions, deregulatory measures, and a leaner regulatory agenda are expected, potentially halting initiatives like the proposed OSHA heat stress rule, which addresses risks to workers exposed to temperatures above 80°F.

State-Level Impact and Variations
    State plans, permitted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s Section 18, allow individual states to enforce their own health and safety programs, provided they are at least as effective as federal OSHA standards. States such as California, Oregon, and Washington are poised to lead aggressive enforcement efforts, particularly in the face of federal deregulation. These states may adopt stringent rules for workplace hazards, heat stress prevention, and emergency responses.
    For example, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has consistently pushed for advanced worker protections. Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has actively sought to “Trump-proof” state policies, ensuring stringent compliance despite potential federal rollbacks. Similarly, other progressive states may drive localized improvements that could influence broader national standards.

The Economic and Ethical Imperative for Safety
    Deregulation may temporarily ease business costs but carries risks of increased workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities — ultimately creating higher long-term expenses. For instance, workplace fatalities rose to 5,333 in 2019, with significant increases among older workers and Hispanic or Latino employees. Additionally, reduced inspection rates and weakened enforcement signal a potential decline in workplace safety standards.
    While deregulation might appeal to businesses seeking short-term savings, the cumulative costs of inaction, including workers’ compensation claims, litigation, and damage to employee morale, often outweigh immediate gains. Sustainable health and safety practices are not merely regulatory compliance obligations but essential investments in workforce well-being and operational efficiency.

Conclusion
    The debate on OSHA’s regulatory role reflects broader tensions between economic efficiency and public welfare. Although deregulation may reduce immediate compliance burdens, its broader implications necessitate careful consideration. Employers, labor organizations, and policymakers must collaborate to address evolving safety challenges, balancing economic and ethical imperatives. Ultimately, proactive investment in workplace safety can mitigate risks, reduce costs, and foster a culture of resilience and responsibility rather deregulation of OSHA standards.