Education and Workforce Committee: January 28, 2000
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
Submitted before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
2000 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to express my concerns regarding the possibility that the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will attempt to
exercise regulatory authority over home-based worksites and hold
employers responsible for accidents occurring in such worksites.
Although OSHA has announced that it will only hold employers liable for
conditions at home-based worksites if the employee is performing
“hazardous manufacturing work,” this proposal still raises serious
concerns. This is because any expansion of OSHAs regulatory authority
in the homes represents a major expansion of federal authority far
beyond anything intended by Congress when it created OSHA in the 1970s.
Furthermore, OSHA regulation of any type of work in the private
residence opens the door to the eventual regulation of all home
worksites. In order to ensure home-based workers are protected from
overzealous federal bureaucrats, Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and
myself have introduced legislation, the Home Office Protection
Enhancement (HOPE) Act, amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act
to clarify that OSHA has no authority over worksites located in an
employee’s residence.
2000 Ron Paul 1:2 Modern technology,
such as e-mail and the Internet, allows employees to be productive
members of the workforce without leaving their homes! The option of
“telecommuting” is particularly valuable for women with young children
or those caring for elderly parents. Using technology to work at home
gives these Americans the chance to earn a living and have a fulfilling
career while remaining at home with their children or elderly parents.
Telecommuting also makes it easier for citizens with disabilities to
become productive members of the job market. Any federal requirements
holding employers liable for the conditions of a home office may well
cause some employers to forbid their employees from telecommuting, thus
shutting millions of mothers, persons caring for elderly parents, and
disabled citizens out of the workforce!
2000 Ron Paul 1:3 Federal polices
discouraging telecommuting will harm the environment by forcing
American workers out of their home and onto America’s already
overcrowded roads. It is ironic that an administration, which has
claimed that “protecting the environment” is one of its top priorities,
would even consider policies that could undermine a market-created
means of protecting the environment. Employers who continue to allow
their employees to telecommute will be forced by any OSHA regulations
on home offices to inspect their employees’ homes to ensure they are in
compliance with any and all applicable OSHA regulations. This is a
massive invasion of employees’ privacy. What employee would want their
boss snooping around their living room, den, or bedroom to make sure
their “home-based worksite” was OSHA compliant?
2000 Ron Paul 1:4 Mr. Chairman, the
fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over
any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for
private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of
the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been
seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many
members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over
this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the
negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of
whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a
private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic
and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate
home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my
colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect
worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to
impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America
ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the
defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far”
rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda.
2000 Ron Paul 1:5 Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at
promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to
determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker
safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving
OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use
$200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company
$7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a
trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or
fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier
toner!
2000 Ron Paul 1:6 Some may argue
that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe
workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHAs invasiveness
promotes workplace safety! While it is true that workplace accidents
have declined since OSHAs creation, OSHA itself has had little effect
on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before
OSHAs creation, thanks to improvements in safety technology and changes
in the occupational distribution of labor. Workplace fatalities
declined from 30 deaths per 100,000 in 1945 to 18 deaths per 100,000 in
1969, three years before OSHAs creation. In contrast to the dramatic
drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHAs creation,
workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the
21 years after OSHAs creation.
2000 Ron Paul 1:7 OSHAs role in this
decline was negligible! According to Richard Butler of the University
of Minnesota, who studied National Safety Council data on workplace
facility rates, OSHAs contribution to workplace fatality rates is
“statistically insignificant.” This is not an isolated example; the
vast majority of workplace studies show an insignificant role for OSHA
in reducing workplace injuries.
2000 Ron Paul 1:8 This is why I have
supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative
approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to
replace the old “command-and control0 model with one that respects the
constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the
protection of “big brother” government.
2000 Ron Paul 1:9 In conclusion, I
wish to once again thank Mr. Hoesktra for holding this hearing on this
important issue and urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hayworth and
myself to protect those who work at home from further over-regulation
by cosponsoring the Home Office Protection Enhancement Act (HOPE) Act.
Note:
2000 Ron Paul 1:1
Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and myself represents the use of the reflexive
form where a subject pronoun would be more appropriate: Congressman J.D. Hayorth (R-AZ) and I.
