House Votes to Repeal Rules on Job Safety
Ramstack, Tom, The Washington Times (Washington, DC)
The House followed the Senate yesterday in voting against new job-safety rules intended to protect as many as 102 million workers from repetitive-motion injuries.
Only President Bush's signature on the bill is needed to kill the measures by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They went into effect Jan. 16, after 10 years of development, by executive order of President Clinton, four days before he left office.
The House voted 223-206 to repeal the OSHA rules less than 24 hours after the Senate took similar action. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation, despite the opposition of labor unions.
Republicans and the Bush administration have criticized the OSHA rules as too costly and burdensome on business. OSHA estimates the cost of complying with the rules to be $4.5 billion, but business groups say the tab would run between $20 billion and $120 billion.
"This administration is committed to protecting the health and safety of workers," the White House said in a statement. "That's why the Department of Labor will pursue a comprehensive approach to addressing this issue. There is a real concern about the overly burdensome current rules because of the negative impact they would have on jobs and economic growth." Rep. John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called the rules "an unworkable, excessive regulation that causes more problems than it solves."
Rep. Ric Keller, Florida Republican, said workers' compensation insurance premiums already create an adequate incentive for employers to make workplaces safe without adding the cost of more OSHA regulations.
Democrats argued that repeal of the OSHA rules would leave workers without adequate protection from injury. They also said employers would recover the cost of compliance through lower medical bills for workers.
"Each year, more than 650,000 American workers suffer from repetitive-motion disorders," said Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York Democrat. "It is time to stop these injuries."
The vote was the first major victory for Republicans and the first opportunity for Mr. Bush to sign significant legislation.
It also was the first time Congress has overturned an executive order under the 1996 Congressional Review Act. The act gives Congress the right to repeal federal agency regulations by a simple majority vote and forbids the agencies from instituting similar rules without Congress' permission.
The act was enacted with little fanfare and little objection from the Clinton administration five years ago as a way to encourage federal agencies to be cautious in their rule making.
"With today's vote, we send the message to future presidents that if you impose a regulation with an executive order that would hurt America, Congress will repeal it," said Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, a Maryland Republican who voted to repeal the OSHA regulations.
The vote leaves supporters of the OSHA ergonomic rules with no legal recourse.
"There's nothing you can go to court on," said Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO's safety and health director. "This is an act of Congress. Period. End of story."
The AFL-CIO, a national organization of 66 major labor unions, consulted with the workplace agency in developing about 600 pages that explain the job-safety rules. In the days before the vote, the labor group mounted a lobbying effort that included bringing workers with crippling injuries to Washington to meet with members of Congress.
Miss Seminario said she doubted Congress would revive similar repetitive-motion rules anytime soon.
"Actions speak louder than words, and their actions for the last 10 years say they oppose any government action that would protect workers from these crippling injuries," she said. "We're very disappointed. This isn't a union issue. This is a worker issue."
Business groups …
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: House Votes to Repeal Rules on Job Safety. Contributors: Ramstack, Tom - Author. Newspaper title: The Washington Times (Washington, DC). Publication date: March 8, 2001. Page number: 1. © 2009 The Washington Times LLC. COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.