Many of you will remember that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) tried to require employers to force employees to be vaccinated against COVID. The U.S. Supreme Court squashed this unconstitutional mandate, but OSHA has been busy with other schemes.
Just as the Biden administration is intent on interpreting the word “man” to mean “woman,” they are also trying to change the meaning of the word “employee” to mean “non-employee.”
We need you to push back by submitting a comment before November 13, 2023.
Specifically, OSHA is proposing to amend current rules regarding the “employee” representative for physical safety inspections at all OSHA-covered sites – that is, virtually every business, private school, nonprofit, and church in America.
The current rule says this:
The representative(s) authorized by employees shall be an employee(s) of the employer.
OSHA wishes to amend the current rule as follows:
The representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party.
OSHA is claiming the purpose of the revision is to permit the selection of third-party representatives “based upon a range of knowledge, skills, or experience beyond that obtained through formal or technical education.”
What does this mean?
Under current federal rules, a third-party (non-employee) representative is allowed to participate in a safety inspection when that third party possesses “reasonably necessary” expertise. For instance, a biochemical engineer could serve as a third-party “employee representative” at a chemical plant.
OSHA wants to replace this requirement for technical expertise with a new selection process that relies on other factors – very subjective factors, determined exclusively by the OSHA safety compliance officer.
If you are a church, it means a representative from the Freedom from Religion Foundation could serve on your OSHA inspection team. If you own a business, it means a competitor could serve on your inspection team, compromising the integrity of valuable trade secrets. If you own a restaurant, it means a union organizer could be appointed to your safety inspection team.
OSHA is empowered to fine businesses thousands of dollars for safety violations. They may even petition a court to shut down an employer.
This proposed rule seeks to weaponize OSHA safety inspections. The rule does not protect worker safety, as it weakens the need for technical expertise and training.
The Biden administration has had to withdraw several rules because of overwhelming public opposition. The best way to stop this rule right now is to help us flood the system with public comments.
By law, every agency must allow citizens to comment on rules. Doing so forces government bureaucrats to listen to public opinion and sets the stage for future legal victories.
It’s easy to do. Just share your thoughts. A personalized comment with your own views is best.
The Biden administration must count and review every comment submitted by 11:59 EST on November 13, 2023.
Please take action by submitting a comment today.
The most important thing is to personalize your comment. You can do this by saying how you might be impacted by this rule, using some of the talking points below.
In order to submit a comment, follow these easy steps:
1) Click this link
2) Type in your comment
3) Choose “Proposed Rules” under the “About” tab
4) Include your email if you want a response (optional!)
5) If you are commenting for yourself, choose “An Individual”
6) If you are commenting as a business owner, pastor or head of a nonprofit, choose “An Organization”
7) Make sure you click the “Submit Comment” button
Even a short comment is better than no comment at all. Here are a few points you can make:
• The purpose of OSHA is to protect worker safety and health. This proposed rule does nothing to further worker safety and health.
• This proposed rule is not faithful to the text of federal law. The law does not anticipate that the meaning of the word “employee” should be so broadly interpreted as to include a “non-employee” representative whose presence on a safety inspection team is not required by unique conditions.
• This proposed rule violates the private property rights of employers.
• This proposed rule disenfranchises existing employees by making it more likely that a non-employee will replace an actual employee as the “employee representative.”
• This proposed rule was not crafted with sufficient input from the states, especially those states that have their own OSHA state plan.
• This proposed rule could increase costs for employers – and thus, consumers. In states where OSHA covers state and local employees, the proposed rule could also increase costs for taxpayers.<
