Following a recent hearing on the issue, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) is preparing to introduce legislation related to federal labor standards for at-home workers who telecommute to white collar jobs. Rep. Hoekstra is seeking new regulations from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), based on testimony delivered during a January 28 hearing of the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Hoekstra.
The hearing focused on a letter written by OSHA last November and reported in the media in early January. In response to a request for information on OSHA policy, the letter indicated that employers would be held responsible for federal health and safety violations occurring within the homes of at-home workers, including office workers who telecommute. However, the letter—which drew considerable media attention and complaints from several business groups—was withdrawn within two days by Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, whose department oversees OSHA.
Testifying before the subcommittee, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress said OSHA does not intend to regulate at-home office work, adding that the agency “will respect the privacy of the home and expects that employers will as well.” Referring to the November letter, he said: “Our internal clearance mechanisms for reviewing such letters failed to raise this issue to the appropriate level.”
According to Assistant Secretary Jeffress, OSHA “holds employers responsible only for work activities in home workplaces other than home offices—for example, where hazardous materials, equipment, or work processes are provided or required to be used in an employee’s home.”
To further clarify OSHA’s position, Assistant Secretary Jeffress outlined his agency’s interpretation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (P.L. 91-596), saying that:
|
Highlighting at-home work that is considered hazardous, Assistant Secretary Jeffress described accidents in employees’ homes involving the assembly of fireworks and the use of lead solder and acid flux to produce electronics equipment.
Bobbie Kilberg of the Northern Virginia Technology Council described Assistant Secretary Jeffress’ comments as “a victory for common sense” because the policy indicated in the November letter would have “seriously impeded” telecommuting for office workers. However, Ms. Kilberg expressed concern that the OSHA’s enforcement policy for P.L. 91-596 exempts “an employee’s house or furnishings,” but not the entirety of a worker’s at-home office. She said her organization “is concerned that the failure to specifically list home work stations as exempt could indicate that OSHA intends to apply its proposed ergonomics standards to home offices.”
Arthur Sapper, a lawyer who specializes in OSHA law with McDermott, Will & Emery, told the subcommittee, “It is conceivable that an employer might be liable for not adjusting the home office environment to prevent serious ergonomic hazards.”
Possible Implications for Ergonomics Regulations
The comments indicated that the OSHA standards could have implications for Congress’ continuing debate over ergonomics standards. Last August, the House approved a bill (H.R. 987) pertaining to proposed rules for ergonomics in the workplace. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), would have delayed the release of new standards proposed last February by OSHA. However, OSHA released a revised version of its proposed new regulations last November.
The new rules would require employers to adjust work environments to reduce the risk of injury to employees. Unions and other labor advocates support OSHA’s draft proposal, citing the agency’s estimate that 650,000 workers miss time at work each year due to the repetitive use of poorly designed tools and work stations. However, most business groups and entrepreneurs oppose the new rules because they would be potentially costly, requiring some employers to redesign work stations, acquire new tools, and offer medical care and time off for employees with on-the-job injuries. In addition, opponents contend that there is little proof that ergonomics actually will prevent injuries.
Many of the workers affected by ergonomics regulations would be women, as women hold a disproportionate number of the jobs within the targeted occupations. Since 1995, Congress has barred OSHA from releasing ergonomics rules. However, conferees on the FY1999 omnibus spending bill (P.L. 105-277) included $890,000 for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the effectiveness of ergonomics standards.
H.R. 987 would require that the new regulations be delayed until after the completion of the NAS study. While supporters of H.R. 987 contend that the study was funded with the intention of delaying OSHA’s ergonomics rules until it was completed, P.L. 105-277 did not include such language.
The bill is opposed by the President, who has promised to veto H.R. 987 if it reaches his desk. However, no similar legislation has been considered by the Senate. In addition, the Senate last October defeated an amendment to its FY2000 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill (H.R. 1650) that would have prohibited OSHA from issuing ergonomics regulations.
