Opposing Changes to OSHA's General Duty Clause

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (#OSHA) is responsible for regulating, inspecting, and enforcing workplace safety standards. Many of these standards are explicitly outlined by OSHA regulations, but for those that have not been explicitly identified, OSHA has historically relied on the #GeneralDutyClause (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)). This clause states:

(a)Each employer—

(1)shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2)shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.

(b)Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

However, under the current administration, OSHA is proposing limiting the interpretation and usage of the general duty clause to “exclude from enforcement known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.”

How this will be ultimately impact the enforcement of the general duty clause is unclear, but it will objectively narrow the opportunities for OSHA to protect worker safety and wellbeing. This proposed change is open for public comment until tomorrow (November 1, 2025). Below is my comment. I suggest you follow the link (https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OSHA-2025-0041) and submit your own.

I am an Assistant Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology with a focus on employee health and wellbeing, and I am writing in my private capacity as a citizen. My comment and views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. I have multiple concerns around this proposed regulatory change that I outline below.

First, the overall effect of any implementation of this change will be to reduce OSHA’s ability to effectively protect workers’ health and wellbeing. By limiting the potential uses of the general duty clause, this regulation will necessarily limit, not expand, OSHA’s ability to protect workers from harmful workplace experiences. Moreover, as Dollard & Potter (2025) highlight “As reported in the 2024 European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) employers say that regulations are the main drivers for them to take action to prevent psychosocial risks at work.” By reducing the enforcement capacity of OSHA, this proposed legislation will embolden employers to take more risks with worker health and safety.

Second, the language of the proposed regulatory change is ambiguous. Specifically, the “known hazards”, “inherent and inseparable”, and “core nature of a professional activity or performance” may be interpreted so broadly that they consist of any job, work, or task design. Job analysis is a key skill of organizational psychologists (see Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007). At the very least, it should be made explicit that these known hazards are identified as inherent and inseparable components of a job in both a formal job analysis conducted prior to selection, and made clear in job postings and description. Without this explicit requirement “known hazard” may be interpreted such as lay person assumptions or CEO unstated intentions, suggesting that it may not be known to the employees at risk themselves. Similarly, without having been identified in a formal job analysis, the determination of what is “inherent and inseparable” will be rooted in personal assumptions or assertions rather than scientifically supported rigorous empirical methodologies.

Third, the ambiguity of what hazards may continue to be rectified via the general duty clause will create an economic/legal situation in which organizations with the financial capacity to hash out ambiguities in court may race to the bottom in skirting workplace safety activities, whereas smaller businesses may continue to expend resources on creating safe workplaces so as to avoid drawn out legal battles. This potential discrepancy in which organizations play by which rules/expectations creates an economic disadvantage for smaller companies, and also disadvantages workers who face monopsonies. Specifically, access to work and employer information is not perfect, and employees are not perfectly mobile. This creates situations in which a limited number of employers have great power over employees. Ambiguity around when the general duty clause will apply may create scenarios in which monopsonies are able to create less safe work environments with no checks from either regulatory bodies or free market competition (e.g., Azar & Marinescu, 2024).

In sum, I oppose this proposed change overall, but also request that should it move forward the nature of these exemptions be clearly defined, rooted in job analysis conducted by experts, and advertised to potential and affected employees.

Azar, J., & Marinescu, I. (2024). Monopsony power in the labor market: From theory to policy. Annual Review of Economics, 16(1), 491-518.

Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and work analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Dollard, M. F., & Potter, R. (2025). Managing Psychosocial Risks at Work Through National Policy and Regulation. Occupational Health Science, 1-5.