COMMENTARY

In 2025, efforts to weaken or dismantle the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have resurfaced, raising significant concerns about the future of workplace safety. Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) recently introduced H.R. 86, the “Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act,” seeking to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and abolish OSHA.

While the bill has little chance of passing, it reflects an ongoing push to reduce federal oversight in workplace safety. Additionally, attempts to defund OSHA, such as Representative Mary Miller’s (R-IL) failed proposal to eliminate its budget, highlight the continuous debate over the agency’s role in protecting workers.

Let’s look at the pros and the cons of nullifying OSHA.

The Pros

Increased Flexibility for Employers

Businesses could have more freedom to design and implement safety programs tailored to their specific industries and needs. Some believe OSHA’s regulations are overly bureaucratic, making compliance costly and time-consuming. Removing federal oversight could allow companies to focus on innovative safety solutions rather than regulatory requirements.

Stronger State-Level Programs

If states take over workplace safety responsibilities, they could create more targeted programs that address local industry risks better. States with strong safety cultures may develop enforcement mechanisms that are more effective than broad federal regulations.

Reduced Compliance Costs

Eliminating or weakening OSHA could lower businesses’ operational costs by reducing the burden of compliance, reporting and penalties. This could make companies more competitive and allow them to invest in other areas, such as wages or innovation.

Voluntary Safety Programs

Some companies have already exceeded OSHA’s requirements by implementing robust internal safety programs. Supporters of OSHA reduction argue that responsible employers would continue prioritizing safety even without federal mandates, relying on third-party audits and industry best practices.

Less Government Oversight

For those who believe in minimal government intervention, limiting OSHA’s power aligns with broader deregulation efforts. Advocates argue that businesses should be responsible for maintaining safe workplaces without excessive federal interference.

The Cons

Increased Workplace Risks

If OSHA were abolished or its funding significantly reduced, oversight of workplace safety would decline. This could lead to higher injury and fatality rates, as employers may feel less pressure to comply with safety regulations. With fewer inspections and enforcement actions, hazardous conditions could go unnoticed or unaddressed, leaving workers vulnerable to potentially life-threatening situations.

State-Level Responsibility for Safety

One argument for dismantling OSHA is that individual states, not the federal government, should regulate workplace safety. While states like California and Washington have robust safety programs, others may lack the resources or commitment to enforce strong protections. This could result in a patchwork of safety standards, where workers in some states enjoy high levels of protection while others face increased risks due to weaker enforcement.

Weaker Enforcement and Reduced OSHA Inspections

OSHA already operates with a limited number of inspectors, and further budget cuts would make it even harder for the agency to enforce safety laws. Fewer resources would mean longer response times, infrequent inspections, and reduced penalties for unsafe employers. This could embolden companies to prioritize profit over worker safety, leading to preventable accidents and illnesses.

Greater Need for Worker Advocacy

Without vigorous federal enforcement, the responsibility for workplace safety could shift more heavily onto workers, unions and advocacy groups. Employees might need to take more initiative in reporting hazards and negotiating safer working conditions. However, whistleblower protections could weaken, making it riskier for employees to speak out against unsafe practices.

Legal and Political Challenges

If these efforts to weaken OSHA gain traction, labor organizations and worker advocacy groups would likely challenge them in court. The outcome of these legal battles could shape the future of workplace safety regulation, determining whether federal oversight remains a key component of worker protection or whether responsibility shifts entirely to employers and state governments.

The Balance Between Regulation and Responsibility

The debate over OSHA’s future centers on whether the private sector and state governments can effectively protect workers without federal intervention. While reduced regulations could benefit businesses in terms of cost and flexibility, the potential for increased workplace injuries and fatalities is a stark reminder of the urgent need to maintain strong safety regulations.

Strong safety regulations have historically played a critical role in reducing workplace deaths and injuries. The establishment of OSHA in 1970 led to significant improvements in worker safety, particularly in high-risk industries such as construction, manufacturing and mining. Weakening or eliminating OSHA could reverse these gains, leaving workers vulnerable to preventable hazards.

While H.R. 86 and similar defunding efforts are unlikely to succeed in 2025, they signal a continued push for deregulation in workplace safety. Safety practitioners, workers, unions and safety advocates must remain vigilant and engaged if these efforts gain momentum. The future of workplace safety depends on ensuring that protections remain strong, regardless of whether they come from federal, state, or employer-led initiatives.

Ultimately, can worker safety be left to voluntary compliance and state regulations, or is federal oversight still necessary to protect lives? The answer will shape a balanced safety approach for years to come.