Bush Proposal Knifes OSHA and NIOSH

Bush Attacks Safety and Health Funds

Caroline Ross , Health and Safety Rep. for UAW Local 6000, State Workers of Michigan addresses a gathering of activists at the Michigan State Capitol Building on April 28, 2003. April 28th is the day the OSH Act became law in 1970 and was chosen as the date of Worker Memorial Day. Thirty-three years later OSHA faces crippling budget cuts under the Bush budget plan.

The fiscal year 2004 budget proposal from the Bush administration seeks to implement cuts in OSHA and NIOSH that Bush proposed in FY 2003. Cuts have been targeted at safety and health standards development, federal enforcement, worker safety and health training grants and safety and health statistics. Last year Congress rejected similar proposed cuts. In January, the Senate approved a budget for OSHA that included increases for most OSHA program areas. The UAW believes that existing health and safety programs are keystones of homeland security. Bush’s budget however, denigrates the efforts of workers and unions, OSHA and NIOSH, as well as those on the frontlines at the World Trade Center and the Post Office.

Homeland Security

Much of what politicians now label homeland security issues are addressed in various federal regulations governing safety at work. The Department of Homeland Security wants us to duct tape windows against chemical attacks. Real progress toward safer workplaces and communities would result from expanding emergency response and process safety management standards to cover more facilities and chemicals. We hear a barrage of concerns about the potential for terrorists using infectious diseases to create biological weapons. Yet, promulgating the stalled standard for airborne tuberculosis would have an added benefit of protecting workers from a host of other airborne infectious agents.

Another standard that OSHA has failed to finalize is the standard that would clarify when employers pay for personal protective equipment. OSHA has withdrawn more than a dozen important rules from the regulatory agenda under this administration. The current Administration is recommending cutting 10 people responsible for OSHA standard setting.

Bush Calls Cuts an Increase

The Bush Administration issued reports comparing the budget request of FY03 to the request for FY04. This deliberately misleading description of the Administration’s OSHA budget calls a $3 million cut an increase in funding.

Even level funding would be a cut, given inflation. The number of workers and workplaces increases every year, so coverage would decrease even with compensation for inflation.

The Administration calls a $7 million dollar cut in worker training a level appropriation request. In fact, the Administration’s request of $4 million for worker oriented training is a 77% cut. In other statements, the Administration indicated the intention to zero out funding for union programs, spending the entire $4 million for training on something else.

The Administration is seeking $67 million for employer-controlled compliance assistance. This is an increase of $7.2 million from last year. Whether such assistance should be publicly funded or a focus for OSHA is questionable. Certainly, seeking such increases when worker-training funds are being slashed demonstrates a bias in favor of employers. At the same time Bush is seeking to cut 64 federal enforcement positions at OSHA. Compliance assistance only works when there is strong enforcement to back it up.

Democrats Rescue OSHA Funding

The Senate, in July 2002 and under Democratic leadership, passed an appropriations bill with $469 million for OSHA, and $11 million for worker training. The worker training funding was level with FY02. The House never passed an appropriations bill, and the government functioned under a “continuing resolution.” In February 2003, with both houses under leadership of the President’s party and almost 5 months after the fiscal year had begun, a final budget was passed, funding OSHA at $453 million, fully $16 million more than Bush asked for. At this writing, the bill is not yet signed into law, but is expected to be.