Premium
Unlocking OSHA'S Potential
Author(s) -
BODEN Leslie I.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
annals of the new york academy of sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.712
H-Index - 248
eISSN - 1749-6632
pISSN - 0077-8923
DOI - 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989.tb13607.x
Subject(s) - section (typography) , annals , public health , library science , citation , sociology , gerontology , history , medicine , computer science , advertising , business , classics , nursing
Studies of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consistently indicate that OSHA inspections have had little or no impact on workplace injury rates. Studies by Smith’ and Viscusi2 were unable to detect significant improvements in injury rates after OSHA was established. Even positive studies indicate only small reductions in injury rates related to OSHA enforcement. Mendeloff,3 in an analysis of California’s state-enforced program, estimated that safety regulation led to a 2 to 3% decline in lost-workday injuries. Smith4 compared 1973 rates of firms inspected early in the year with those inspected near the end of the year and found that the early inspections were associated with a 7% decline in injury rates. However, early inspections apparently produced only a 2% decline in 1974. McCaffreys repeated Smith’s study for the 1976-1978 time period and was unable to detect any decline in injury rates associated with early inspection. It is more difficult to evaluate OSHA’s impact on health hazards. Mendeloff s analysis of inspectors’ measurements of exposure to trichloroethylene and silica suggests that they have not changed over time, and evidence on lead exposures is mixed. Exposures to vinyl chloride and asbestos have declined since the promulgation of OSHA standards for these substances6 However, the vinyl chloride standard was published shortly after the cancer risk of this substance was established, and after asbestos manufacturers began to suffer multimillion-dollar liability losses shortly after the 1972 asbestos standard was issued. Both of these nonregulatory factors could have accounted for the observed reduction in exposures. Even though each of the cited studies has its deficiencies, taken together, they present a convincing story. OSHA has not come close to the expectations of one of its early sponsors, Congressman William A. Steiger, who expected a 50% reduction of injury rates as a consequence of the Act’s p a ~ s a g e . ~ OSHA has been criticized for weaknesses in its standards, inadequate expertise, poor management, and deficient enforcement policies. Although there is certainly room for improvement in its current policies, even an expert agency with a wellmanaged inspection program would probably have little impact on workplace conditions.