The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced a controversial proposal that could significantly alter federal workplace safety regulations. This reinterpretation targets what the agency classifies as “inherently risky professions” such as sports, entertainment, and potentially construction and manufacturing. If implemented, the proposal would exempt these industries from OSHA’s General Duty Clause, a critical component of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 that mandates employers to maintain workplaces free from recognized hazards when no specific regulations are in place.
Critics of the proposal are raising alarms, suggesting it could leave countless workers without essential safety protections. The initiative references a dissent penned by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh over a decade ago. Kavanaugh posited that certain high-risk jobs should not be subject to federal safety oversight due to the inherent risks associated with the work. Notably, his dissent stemmed from a case involving SeaWorld, following the tragic death of trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010, where OSHA had cited the company for failing to protect workers from recognized hazards.
OSHA’s proposal is part of a broader trend towards relaxing workplace safety standards across various sectors. Among the other changes being considered are the removal of lighting requirements at construction sites, the elimination of certain medical evaluations for respirators, and diminished protections for migrant farmworkers. Additionally, a “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” has been issued by President Donald Trump, which pauses several safety enhancement proposals, including those aimed at preventing heat-related injuries.
The General Duty Clause has historically served as a fallback provision when there is no specific regulation in place to protect workers. Enforcement actions under this clause have included instances like citations against a Broadway show for aerial performance injuries and actions against Rust Movie Productions following a fatal incident on a film set.
The proposed changes could have immediate implications for over 115,000 athletes, entertainers, and workers in the performing arts. Industry groups, including those representing construction and transportation sectors, have expressed support for extending this exemption to their fields, arguing that hazards such as traffic exposure in highway construction are intrinsic and cannot be wholly mitigated.
Labor advocates, however, vehemently oppose the proposal, suggesting it could unintentionally broaden exemptions to numerous other industries beyond sports and entertainment. They stress that the General Duty Clause is vital for maintaining worker safety and criticize the notion of relaxing these requirements. Organizations like the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades have voiced concerns that undermining protections in hazardous occupations conflicts with the purpose of the OSH Act.
Critics also highlight inconsistencies in OSHA’s rationale. While the agency claims that specific safety standards, such as those for construction illumination, are unnecessary due to the General Duty Clause, it simultaneously seeks to limit the scope of that very clause. Labor groups contend that this contradictory stance undermines OSHA’s capacity to enforce effective safety measures for workers.
As the proposal stands, it is currently open for public comment, with advocates cautioning that adopting Kavanaugh’s dissent could represent one of the most significant reductions in federal workplace safety measures in decades. The outcome of this proposal has the potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for numerous professions, raising essential questions about worker safety and federal oversight. The debate continues as stakeholders from various sectors make their voices heard in the coming weeks.