At this stage legal challenges can again be mounted which can further delay the enactment of the proposed standard. As evidenced by the explanation of the process that OSHA must use in order to place a standard in place it is easy to understand the problem that OSHA has in affecting any expedient change in the workplace. The extended nature of this process has made it difficult for OSHA to react to problems and confusions relative to the enforcement of its rules and standards. If they were forced to start over every time an ambiguity or contradiction appeared, the safety enforcement process would come to a standstill. To avoid this occurring, the agency has developed an informal opinion letter process wherein the agency provides guidance to employers as to how best to comply with a particular standard. This often avoids the agency being forced to start the standard development process from the beginning.

This informal process works well when the stakes are low and where employers are not faced with considerable compliance costs but the agency has been subject to considerable criticism in circumstances where it resorted to the use of opinion letters in contentious circumstances. In such circumstances employers and workers both have argued the OSHA has attempted to circumvent the burdens of the rule making process.

Over the years there have been a number of notorious occasions where OSHA has come under considerable criticism for going forward in enforcement despite the presence of ambiguities and confusion relative to the language of the standard. As indicated earlier, one of the most acrimonious OSHA standards have involved its attempt to enforce those related to ergonomics (Institute of Medicine, 2001). OSHA had enacted these standards in response to claims that over 600,000 repetitive stress injuries were costing workers and employers lost work time. These standards required employers to implement an ergonomics program that was geared to manage musculoskeletal injuries in manufacturing jobs, manual labor...

From the beginning the standards set by OSHA have been under attack from the insurance industry and employer trade organizations as being too vague and too expensive to implement. Insurers have argued that the standards will result in inflated workers compensation awards while employers are arguing that the costs of implementing the safety standards outweigh the benefits realized for the workers. Such disputes are typical of the problems encountered by OSHA whenever it attempts to exercise its authority in the workplace.
Not unexpectedly, much of the controversy relative to OSHA's authority has settled along political lines. Liberal organizations argue that OSHA is too slow to enact change and fails to place the safety of the workers as its guiding principle. They argue that OSHA is too sensitive to the concerns of employers and that it fails to aggressively apply its standards. On the other end of the spectrum, conservatives argue that OSHA is too cautious and fails to consider the cost and production inefficiency caused by OSHA placing unnecessary and burdensome regulations on employers (Gerber, 2000). The result of this pushing and pulling by both ends of the political spectrum is to make OSHA a ping-pong ball subject to the political winds. Too often, OSHA's authority is determined by what political party is in power and in the long run this causes OSHA's overall authority to be questioned on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this also means that the safety of workers is also placed in jeopardy.

Bibliography

Gerber, B. (2000). Regulatory Policymaking in the American States: A Review of Theories and Evidence. Policital Research Quarterly, 849-886.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Title 29, Chapter 15 (1970).

OSHA standards