Senate Confirms Michaels for OSHA

Last night, the Senate confirmed David Michaels as head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). President Obama nominated Michaels on Aug. 5; the course of his nomination was rocky at times.

Michaels now faces the challenge of restoring OSHA to its role as protector of our nation’s workers – a role the Bush administration had little interest in. During those eight years, the queue of occupational hazards in need of regulation grew longer, while the on-the-ground monitoring of worksites became more lenient.

OSHA has already shown some signs of life under the Obama administration, and now that Michaels has been confirmed, he can continue the process of getting OSHA back on track.

(Matthew Madia 12/04/09)

Comments

by Alex (not verified) on 12/15/09

I hated him too, but OMB

I hated him too, but OMB Watch's credibility is damaged by reporting like this, with its superfluous Bush-bashing. Without a direct quote from the administration confirming their intent, a statement like "...a role the Bush administration had little interest in" is speculation and opinion. I was about to ask that you simply juxtapose statistics showing the longer queues and greater leniency and directly compare them to the changes, but that brings me to my second point. The "signs of life" under the Obama administration was a link to an article that cited fines for a violation of "a settlement in September 2005 that required the company to correct potential hazards" - so it was during the Bush administration that the requirements to protect workers were initiated.

If you wish to help establish for posterity that particular administrations were bad, stick to pointing out facts, please. And pick ones that actually show our case. Further, the goal should be to educate people about the cause and effect of political decisions so we can support more beneficial decisions in the future, not to create a cartoon version of Washington where there are "good guys" to cheer and "bad guys" to boo.

With a few unnecessary snide comments and some sketchy links, you've turned this potential news article into little more than petty political graffiti. Aren't we supposed to be better than Limbaugh?

by Anonymous (not verified) on 12/23/09

Actually, your comment

Actually, your comment contains a glaring factual error. The article about OSHA taking action against BP refers to a 2009 action stemming from the unsatisfactory resolution of safety issues that resulted in the 2005 refinery explosion. And I quote:

"Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab said, 'BP was given four years to correct the safety issues identified pursuant to the settlement agreement, yet OSHA has found hundreds of violations of the agreement and hundreds of new violations. BP still has a great deal of work to do to assure the safety and health of the employees who work at this refinery.'"

Therefore, it actually is a good example of OSHA showing signs of life under Obama (though I would argue that agencies like this are still too slow to react to health and safety problems in the workplace and elsewhere).

I also don't consider a statement about Bush's lack of interest in workplace safety to be "superfluous Bush-bashing." You don't need a direct quote from an official (whom you likely couldn't trust anyway) to infer the intent of the administration; this isn't a court of law, and actions speak far louder than words when it comes to public policy. If you spend eight years ignoring or actively weakening workplace safety standards, which is exactly what the Bush administration did, it doesn't take much of a logical leap to understand that the administration was uninterested in, or even outright hostile toward, worker safety.

Even when snide comments are thrown in, the difference between many in the public interest community and the Limbaughs of the world is that public interest groups like OMB Watch and its bloggers base their opinions on facts, not wild imaginings or ratings-boosting conspiracy theories.