Why abolishing OSHA will endanger America’s construction workers

In January 2025, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona introduced the Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act, or NOSHA Act, a bill seeking to eliminate OSHA and repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. With just one line, this bill proposes to dismantle a federal agency that has been the backbone of workplace safety in the United States for more than 50 years, writes John Ridgeway.

In my opinion, to call this proposal reckless would be an understatement. It is in fact, a fundamental threat to the health and safety of American workers - particularly those in the construction industry, who rely on consistent, enforceable safety standards to do their jobs and return home alive.

For my non-American readers, a Representative (also called a Congressperson) is an elected member of the House of Representatives, one of the two chambers of the U.S. Congress. Their key roles include making laws by introducing and voting on legislation, representing constituents, overseeing the federal government through committee work and investigations and approving federal spending and budgets. For obvious reasons, such politicians tend to steer away from making laws that could directly and adversely affect the safety of workers, but this has not been the case for Andy Biggs – so let’s take a look at the background.

Why OSHA exists in the first place

The construction industry is, by its very nature, one of the most hazardous sectors in the U.S. economy. Workers are regularly exposed to falls from height, heavy machinery, electrocution hazards, trench collapses and a host of other life-threatening risks. In 2022 alone, over 1,000 construction workers died on the job, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Many more suffered serious injuries.

Before OSHA’s creation in 1970, construction fatalities were seen almost as an unavoidable cost of doing business. Employers had minimal accountability and workers had few avenues for reporting unsafe conditions. OSHA changed that. It established legal safety standards, inspection protocols and employer responsibilities that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the last five decades.

Since OSHA’s founding, workplace deaths have dropped by over 60% and workplace injuries and illnesses have declined by over 70%, even though the workforce has doubled in size. This is not government interference - its government doing exactly what it’s supposed to do - protect its citizens.

Supporters of the NOSHA Act argue that workplace safety should be left to individual states, but history has shown that a patchwork of safety rules do not work - especially in construction, where subcontractors, suppliers and workers cross state lines every day.

Without OSHA, each state would have the power to set its own standards - or none at all. Some states may adopt rigorous safety rules, but others might slash them in the name of deregulation and economic competitiveness. This could create two Americas - one where workers have the right to a safe workplace - and another where worker safety is optional - or ignored.

It’s worth noting that OSHA already allows states to run their own safety programmes - but only if those programmes are at least as effective as the federal standards. It can be reasonably argued that eliminating OSHA eliminates that baseline entirely.

Construction safety without OSHA -a grim prospect

Let’s imagine what a post-OSHA America might look like for construction workers. There would be no federal fall protection standard. Falls are the leading cause of construction deaths. Without federal regulation, states could weaken or eliminate requirements for harnesses, guardrails and safety nets.

There would be no mandatory training for heavy equipment operation. Untrained workers put behind the wheel of cranes, bulldozers and forklifts – could increase the likelihood of fatal mistakes.

Trench collapses kill dozens every year. Without federal rules mandating protective systems, workers may again be sent into unstable excavations with no safeguards. OSHA also protects workers who report unsafe conditions. Without it, workers could be fired or blacklisted for speaking up - creating a culture of silence and risk.

Thankfully and contrary to what Rep. Biggs might believe, even many construction firms do not want OSHA gone. Reputable contractors rely on consistent federal regulations to plan projects, train workers and manage liability. OSHA provides a framework that supports safe productivity.

Abolishing OSHA would not reduce red tape - it would create chaos. Contractors would be forced to navigate 50 different sets of state regulations, all while trying to meet client deadlines, ensure insurance coverage and manage subcontractors from multiple jurisdictions.

What makes it even worse is the Rep. Biggs does not seem to realise that most of the industry's complaints about OSHA are about funding and efficiency - not the concept itself. They want a better OSHA, not no OSHA.

It’s easy to get lost in abstract debates about federalism and administrative overreach, but let’s remember what’s at stake here - human lives. In 2016, two workers were killed when a trench collapsed in Boston. The excavation lacked proper shoring. The company had a long history of safety violations. OSHA fined the employer over $1 million - a rare but necessary move to send a message that shortcuts kill.

Under NOSHA, that enforcement action would never happen. No federal investigation. No fine. No justice for the workers’ families. That’s the future America risks embracing – and as a UK based construction journalist, I am appalled at such a prospect.

COVID-19 and the politicisation of OSHA

Rep. Biggs has cited OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates as one reason for wanting to eliminate the agency. While that mandate was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, OSHA’s broader pandemic response helped keep essential workers safe through sanitation protocols, ventilation rules and PPE requirements.

To use that temporary conflict as justification for dismantling a half-century of safety infrastructure is political grandstanding at its worst. The solution to an overstep is reform, not annihilation.

If anything, OSHA needs more support. With fewer than 2,000 inspectors covering more than 130 million workers across eight million worksites, the agency is critically under-resourced.

In fact, it would take 165 years for OSHA to inspect every workplace just once as it stands at the moment. The ratio of OSHA inspectors to workers is 1:70,000. This is not Big Brother breathing down employers’ necks - it’s a safety net that’s fraying from neglect. The answer is not to burn it down. It’s to rebuild it.

In the opinion of this journalist, instead of scrapping OSHA, lawmakers should focus on modernising safety standards to address new technologies and materials, increase funding for inspections and training programmes and expand whistleblower protections for vulnerable workers. Investing in data and research to proactively identify emerging risks, would also help.

The construction industry is evolving. Safety standards need to evolve with it - not vanish in a puff of libertarian ideology. That said, the NOSHA Act is not a serious proposal. It is a symbolic gesture, rooted in ideology rather than pragmatism, that would devastate worker protections and endanger lives - particularly in high-risk industries like construction.

America’s construction workers deserve better. They build our homes, our roads, our schools and our infrastructure. The least we can do is ensure they are protected by consistent, enforceable safety standards backed by a federal agency with the power to hold bad actors accountable.

Dismantling OSHA would take us backward to a time when injury and death were routine parts of a day’s work. We in Britain learned that in the 19^th century. If we care about lives, about dignity and about a fair economy, America must reject this dangerous proposal - and strengthen OSHA instead.