A version of this article was originally published in the April 2017 issue of The HR Specialist. It is reprinted here with permission.

Over the past several months, many articles have been written, including by this author, regarding the strengthening, expanding and adding of “teeth” to the regulations and the reach of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). One prominent example is a recent rule that makes certain reporting, formerly required by exception only, now mandatory.¹ Information recorded by employers on forms known as “OSHA 300 Logs” (and other related reports) formerly had to be kept current in the facility, posted in the workplace once per year and, only if requested, sent to OSHA. Based on the recent rule, whatever reports the employer previously had to compile now must be affirmatively submitted to OSHA each year — and must be submitted electronically. Moreover, the information will be made publicly available on an OSHA website. The question — perhaps two questions — in the minds of many since November 8, 2016 is what will become of more onerous regulations such as this affirmative reporting rule, and what will the next four (or eight) years look like under the developing Trump administration?

Among the many promises made by Donald Trump during the long campaign were smaller government, and less regulation. Both are typical promises of any incoming Republican administration. To date, President Trump is not looking like the “typical Republican.” So what does that mean going forward? Trump has already promised that, in general, government agencies should eliminate two regulations for each new one they wish to create. Given the penchant of Congress to make laws, and of agencies to make regulations, that mandate will create some tough choices for governing bodies such as OSHA (and many others). Which beloved regulations will they sacrifice in order to roll out a single new one?

It is almost axiomatic that new presidents may find the early stages of assuming office overwhelming and that campaign promises often fall by the wayside. So far, axioms have not played much of a role. President Trump immediately began putting in place executive orders aimed at fulfilling campaign promises that many thought were “just talk.” Immigration seems to be leading the way at present, but it seems a certainty that Trump will turn his attention to various government agencies and the ever-growing volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations. While there is talk of eliminating certain agencies, it is not likely that OSHA will even be considered in that regard. But less regulation is likely. President Trump has stated that each agency will be directed to promptly eliminate 10 percent of its regulations — the “least important” regulations. However, Trump has also been quoted as saying that as many as 70 percent (or even 75 percent) of all regulations could be cut without sacrificing the goals of the agencies that enforce them.

OSHA is tasked with protecting the safety and health of the American worker, and it is a safe bet that the Trump administration will not eliminate the agency itself. However, President Trump has expressed great concern that the burden of current OSHA regulation makes it “impossible to build anything.” He has made no secret of the fact that he wants to bring jobs back to the United States and to stop the mass exodus by companies looking to avoid burdensome taxes and regulations. And, at the same time, he is evaluating ways to lower taxes for companies that stay or start up in the United States, while increasing taxes (in the form of tariffs, etc.) on companies considering crossing the border (any border), with plans of importing their products back to the United States. However, he has also promised that, while cutting through layers of regulation that are seen to inhibit new construction, he is committed to maintaining strong and effective protections for the American worker.

In recent years, and more so in recent months, OSHA has strengthened its enforcement tools. Penalties under the OSH Act were recently and substantially increased. The agency’s willingness to compromise and settle enforcement matters has declined, and the overall frequency of enforcement has increased. Many believe that, under Trump, the agency’s focus will shift from enforcement to compliance assistance. To be sure, that has always been an aspect of the agency’s charter, but it is hard to argue the fact that enforcement and regulation have been trending upward.

Another recent and controversial example of OSHA enforcement is the agency’s new focus on drug-testing policies. Many companies in the United States currently have strict drug policies that not only require testing for new employees, but also any time there is a serious accident or injury. These policies suddenly run the risk of OSHA enforcement if implemented. OSHA’s concern is that an employee’s recent drug use may not have caused, or even contributed to, the accident or injury and that the employee will be discouraged from reporting the incident to his or her employer for fear that a positive drug test will result in discipline. For this reason, OSHA suggests that any drug testing policy must be “narrowly tailored” and must be able to show a link between drug use and a reportable workplace incident. In fact, the employer must have some reasonable basis (beyond the incident itself) for requiring the test. Some critics of the current rule suggest that OSHA is willing to turn a blind eye to drug use in the workplace, as long it does not directly result in injuries or accidents. Such a “wait and see” attitude seems counter to protecting other workers — and could be one of many such regulations to fade away under a Trump administration.

Fasten your seatbelt, OSHA, you may be in for a bumpy ride.

Endnote