According to Hinze (1997: 1) the involvement of the government in worker OH&S has gone through major changes in the past 200 years.
During the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, employers were seldom held responsible for work related injuries of their employees.
During the first half of the twentieth century, the common law defences gradually gave way to statutory workers’ compensation laws, which transferred the responsibility for worker injuries from employee to employer.
Despite workers’ compensation legislation, unacceptable levels of worker injuries persisted in the 1960s and led to a passage of legislation mandating that employers provide their employees with a safe working environment. This resulted in legislation which was epitomized by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of 1970. According to the OSHA http://www.osha.gov/ (2005) the Department of Labor administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws.
The mandates and the regulations that implement them cover many workplace activities for about 10 million employers and 125 million workers. Most private industries are regulated by OSHA or OSHA approved state systems, which also cover public sector employers. Employers covered by the OSH Act must comply with the regulations and the safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA. Employers also have a general duty under the OSH Act to provide work and a workplace free from recognised serious hazards. OSHA enforces the Act through workplace inspections and investigations. Compliance assistance and other cooperative programs are also available.
The Longshore and Harbour Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), administered by the Employers Safety Act (ESA's) Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP), provides for compensation and medical care to certain employees.
The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act is a compensation program that provides a lump-sum payment of $150 000 and prospective medical benefits to employees, or certain of their survivors of the Department of Energy and its contractors and subcontractors as a result of cancer caused by exposure to radiation, or certain illnesses caused by exposure to beryllium or silica incurred in the performance of duty, as well as for payment of a lump-sum of $50,000 and prospective medical benefits to individuals (or certain of their survivors) determined by the Department of Justice to be eligible for compensation as uranium workers under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., establishes a comprehensive and exclusive workers' compensation program which pays compensation for the disability or death of a federal employee resulting from personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty.
Several agencies administer programmes related solely to the construction industry. OSHA has special OH&S standards for construction; ESA's Wage and Hour Division, under Davis-Bacon and related acts, requires payment of prevailing wages and benefits; ESA's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Executive Order 11246, which requires federal construction contractors and subcontractors, as well as federally assisted construction contractors, to provide equal employment opportunity; the anti- kickback section of the Copeland Act precludes a federal contractor from inducing any employee to sacrifice any part of the compensation required.
The OSH Act requires that state plans be ‘at least as effective’ as the federal program, including the development and enforcement of standards. It is not clear how federal OSHA assesses this provision, because no state program has ever been abolished solely for not satisfying federal OSHA requirements. Some California inspectors now believe the state plan is coming under serious stress due to a long-standing hiring freeze.
“There is no evidence that California is not meeting its program requirements” stated an OSHA official. "OSHA does not assess the enforcement of a state
statement is well supported by a variety of data. The California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS) asserts there are now 33 % more fish and game wardens than workplace health and safety inspectors. The state appears to have half as many inspectors per covered workers as federal OSHA.
California's state plan OSHA program (Cal / OSHA) has lost more than three- quarters of its inspectors since 1980, while its civilian labour force has grown by over 50 % in the same time period, according to information obtained from Cal / OSHA's inspectors' union.
The year 1980 is a significant one for California because in that year benchmarks calling for 334 safety and 471 health compliance officers were established for the state's occupational safety program. Meeting the benchmark is a requirement for final state plan approval. However, California has not sought final approval.
‘Cal / OSHA’ argues that its enforcement effectiveness has not declined, asserted a spokesperson for the agency. As quoted: "In fact, our information is that the number of injuries and fatalities in California workplaces is in a state of decline, and this trend has existed for several years." According to the union, in recent years whenever someone left the agency or retired, the position was left vacant and eventually abolished. Even though the federal government has funded 238 inspector positions for fiscal year 2004, CAPS maintains that due to unfilled positions and long-term leaves there are only 176 field inspectors employed. Given California's famous financial problems, the question arises as to whether the state is reducing its budget deficit by using money the federal government appropriated for OH&S.
‘Cal / OSHA’ further states: “We set out to investigate how the owners and operators of small plants i.e. those with less than 100 employees; numerically, about 80% of all plants in Europe coped with safety, health and environmental (SHE) problems.” It makes depressing reading. Not just for the direct results that it contains, though these are bad enough, but for their implications when placed in a wider perspective. The US is probably over-regulated, but at least most regulations are harmonised across the country.
Europe is trying to harmonise, but despite official protest to the contrary, still has a very long way to go. The countries of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and the emerging economies of Southeast Asia hardly bear reflecting about.
One startling discovery was that only 32% of those surveyed had any form of SHE management system albeit, either formal or informal.
Equally disturbing was that, while most plant operators were confident rightly or wrongly of their ability to handle safety issues, they were less confident about health matters and far less so about the environment.
Indeed, while many showed concern for the likely effects of an accident on their personnel and on production, few felt that such an accident would have much effect on either the environment or on people in the surrounding community.
Nor are the regulations and inspectorates as harmonised as the Eurocrats in Brussels. Italians have to deal with national and regional bodies; some are departments of local hospitals with no industrial experience. Finns complain of having to deal with up to five regulatory bodies with overlapping and conflicting requirements. Germans including their own inspectors complain of regulations motivated more by politics than practical science. Further comments are conserved as a more detailed examination of some of the other problems would be required. Is a similar situation not prevalent in South Africa?