Andy Biggs, a congressman from Arizona, is proposing through H.R. 86 to abolish OSHA. This proposal may please many who view the agency as burdensome, overreaching, and obstructive to business operations.

A historical cartoon depicts a cowboy on horseback after OSHA got through with him. Surrounded by cages, nets, and an array of protective devices, the cowboy seems hilariously overprotected. As a young man, I sympathized with the cartoon, believing OSHA’s rules were overbearing.

Decades later, I became a technical director for a trade association, writing technical papers on safety issues. To be accurate, I referenced published OSHA regulations rather than rely on my earlier convictions. To my surprise, many of my assumptions were wrong. I discovered that, in many cases, it is the employer—not OSHA—who determines how to protect workers and which rules to implement.

When Perception and Reality Collide

The caveat is that employers may be involved in OSHA hearings if cited. At one hearing, I was asked for my opinion on the validity of a citation. I respectfully challenged the OSHA officer’s interpretation, and my argument led to the citation being dropped. A few weeks later, the same officer even sought my help on another review. I could share many similar stories, but the real problem is contrary to what Mr. Biggs thinks: OSHA itself is not the main issue.

Consider the reflective safety vest, now pervasive in our industry. Many believe OSHA requires all construction workers to wear them, but OSHA regulation 1926.651(d) specifies that high-visibility garments are required only for workers in high-traffic highway work zones.

Common Sense Over Blanket Rules

Years ago, a general contractor was cited for an employee not wearing a vest. He challenged the citation, arguing that the worker was not in a high-traffic area. The judge disagreed, ruling that the worker was in a parking lot—leaving the interpretation unclear. Such rulings often default in favor of the citation without strong evidence.

The result: attorneys now advise that all workers wear safety vests, regardless of the task. This “better safe than sorry” approach shifts liability but unfairly blames OSHA for overreach. OSHA rarely intercedes when employers impose stricter safety measures than required.

A cottage industry has emerged around safety rules, with financial incentives to overregulate. The vast majority of OSHA employees want workers protected, and most employers prioritize their workers’ safety. Only a small fraction of negligent employers tarnish the system for everyone else.

Some OSHA standards have become urban legends, much like the cowboy cartoon. Subcontractors often face stricter rules imposed contractually by general contractors, independent of OSHA. Attorneys excel at risk-shifting: if an accident occurs, the general contractor can claim, “We implemented stricter safety measures than OSHA required—don’t blame us.”

OSHA itself often remains silent when employers impose additional safety measures. Abolishing OSHA would be a mistake. What’s needed is more common sense in applying the rules. Workers generally follow reasonable safety practices, and even they can find excessive rules burdensome.

It’s similar to airline safety: we want maximum protection, but at some point, overregulation can slow operations. OSHA could benefit from a balanced, more even-handed approach—perhaps taking a page from the TSA.