OSHA, unions debate who gets the bill: 'tools of the trade' subject of proposed rule change

A proposed rule change published more than five years ago is still creating disagreement over who should pay for workers' safety equipment. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) took comments this summer on a proposal that would exempt employers from paying for certain types of personal protective equipment (PPE), considered "tools of the trade," that workers take from site to site.

Under the proposed rule change, published on March 31, 1999, employers would be required to pay for all OSHA-required personal protective equipment with the exception of "tools of the trade" such as safety toe shoes, prescription eyewear and logging boots. The agency never implemented the proposed rule change but did include finalizing the rule in its regulatory agenda for this year.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The reopened comment period ended Aug. 24; the agency received 52 comments, largely from business and employer-related groups and organized labor. Comments submitted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) asserted that the proposed rule was too broad in nature and would require employers to pay for all the personal safety equipment of their employees. According to the SHRM comments, the rules, as currently drafted, would require employers to pay for replacing PPE without any consideration as to why an employee needed new equipment.

SHRM suggested that OSHA exempt employers from paying for a worker's "tools of the trade" and that the agency define these tools clearly as personal items, including boots and clothing that touch the skin or objects worn in the ears or mouth.

"SHRM is not arguing that employees must pay for all personal protective equipment," said Wendy Wunsh, SPHR, manager of employment regulation for the SHRM Governmental Affairs Department. "SHRM is advocating that OSHA should not mandate that employers must pay and instead let the decision be made by HR professionals along with workers as to what would be best for both employee and employer."

Several labor unions made it clear in their comments to OSHA that they would strongly oppose any proposal that would exempt employers from paying for certain types of PPE. The unions argued that such a proposal would shift the burden of ensuring a safe workplace unfairly to employees.

"The proposal that some PPE are 'tools of the trade' is a veiled attempt to shift financial responsibility for safety from employers to workers and will create an incentive for employers to rely upon PPE rather than addressing the hazards through the hierarchy of controls," read comments from the Teamsters Union.

OSHA officials are reviewing the comments and will be working on the final version of the proposed rule change, which they say could be published before the end of this year. However, sources familiar with the issue say that OSHA is not likely to release any final rule changes until next year.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Society for Human Resource Management
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group