This is an invitation to members of the OHS Section to join an online discussion about the future of workplace safety and health in the United States.  To get this discussion going, a few weeks ago I distributed a draft paper, titled “Getting Home Safe and Sound? OSHA at Thirty-Five.”  For those who have not yet seen the draft it is available on The Pump Handle blog ( http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com / ) and the Defending Science website ( http://www.defendingscience.org / ).

The basic theme is that 35 years after passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the promise of worker protection remains substantially unfulfilled.  There is much challenging work left to be done that can’t be accomplished by simply trying harder to do more of the same.  The paper suggests three areas for change:

• stronger and more creative implementation of the OSHAct;
• statutory improvements to the OSHAct; and
• a variety of measures outside the OSHA framework. 

Numerous possible improvements to the OSHA model have been proposed by many individuals and organizations over the years.  However, even with the best list of reforms in hand and the best people in key leadership positions, success will be beyond reach without significant change in the political landscape so that worker protection becomes a much higher and more visible national priority.   The paper suggests several measures to help achieve this change:

• reframing the language of worker protection to link it with broad resonant themes of health and human rights;
• assembling coalitions around issues of shared importance to labor and environmental groups, community organizations and public health professionals;
• building an institutional infrastructure; and
• strengthening our scientific base.  

The paper begins with a short stand-alone set of principles, priorities and practical actions – a roadmap or framework for change.  The choice of a limited framework rather than a long shopping list is rooted in the belief that accomplishing change requires sharp focus by multiple parties on a common set of objectives so energies can be concentrated and coordinated instead of diffused.  Thus, while this list of principles, priorities and practical actions is a working draft and suggested changes are invited and needed, improvements should be along the lines of achieving a more compelling and better articulated short list rather than expanding into a more inclusive longer one.  The roadmap is followed by a set of questions to help focus discussion and commentary.  This is followed in turn by the main narrative, appendices and references. 

I look forward to your review, comments, and suggestions for improvement.  I am interested in four types of comments:  1) reactions to the roadmap; 2) feedback on the supporting arguments in the main narrative; 3) commentary on the issues raised in the discussion questions; and 4) thoughts about next steps.  While I would be happy to get comments sent directly to me at masilver@u.washington.edu or silvermas@comcast.net, I strongly suggest that you contribute to the online discussion at The Pump Handle (http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/).

submitted by Michael Silverstein

masilver@u.washington.edu