Protecting America’s Workers Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Courtney, Joe [D-CT-2]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to strengthen worker safety and health protections by broadening OSHA's jurisdiction, increasing accountability for employers, and empowering employees and victims.
What it actually does
H.R. 3036 significantly amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) to expand its coverage to public employees, enhance whistleblower protections, and increase civil and criminal penalties for violations. It also establishes new rights for victims of workplace incidents and their families, streamlines enforcement procedures, and strengthens oversight of State occupational safety and health plans.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the OSH Act is outdated and that current penalties are insufficient to deter violations, leading to preventable injuries and deaths. They contend that expanding coverage to public employees ensures equal protection for all workers, while enhanced whistleblower protections are crucial for employees to report unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation. Increased penalties and victim rights are seen as vital steps to hold negligent employers accountable and provide justice for affected families.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill imposes excessive regulatory burdens and financial penalties on businesses, potentially hindering economic growth and job creation. They may contend that existing protections are adequate and that drastic increases in penalties could lead to over-enforcement or discourage employers from operating in certain sectors. Concerns could also be raised about the expansion of federal jurisdiction into state and local government workplaces.
The bill is 19 pages long and involves numerous amendments to existing law. An informed reader would need a dedicated 30-45 minutes to understand its implications, which is a reasonable time investment for a bill of this scope.
Section 101, amending OSH Act Section 3(5)
Expansion of Employer Definition to Include Public Sector
This provision redefines "employer" under the OSH Act to explicitly include the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. This extends federal OSHA coverage to public sector employees who were previously excluded, ensuring they receive the same safety and health protections as private sector workers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that public employees face the same workplace hazards as private sector workers and deserve equal protection under federal law. This closes a significant gap in worker safety coverage.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that this expands federal overreach into state and local government affairs and could impose unfunded mandates or significant compliance costs on public entities, potentially diverting resources from essential public services.
Tradeoffs
Balances the goal of universal worker safety with concerns about federalism and the financial implications for state and local governments.
Section 201, amending OSH Act Section 11(c)
Strengthening Anti-Retaliation Measures for Employees
This section significantly expands protections for employees who report safety concerns or refuse to perform hazardous duties. It broadens the scope of protected activities, extends the statute of limitations for filing complaints from 30 to 180 days, and establishes detailed procedures for investigation, hearings, and administrative appeals. It also allows for preliminary reinstatement orders and provides for comprehensive relief, including compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees.
Section 301, amending OSH Act Section 5(a)(1) and adding 5(c)
Clarification and Expansion of Employer's General Duty
This provision clarifies that an employer's general duty to furnish a safe workplace extends to recognized hazards that the employer creates or controls, or to which the employer exposes any employee (including those of other employers) or any other person performing work at the site. It also states that each employee or other person exposed to a hazard in violation of this duty may constitute a separate violation.
Sections 312 and 315, amending OSH Act Section 8(c)(2)
Mandatory Electronic Reporting, Site Logs, and Prohibition on Discouraging Reporting
This bill mandates that employers promptly notify the Secretary of any work-related death, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye. It prohibits policies that discourage accurate injury reporting or discriminate against employees for reporting. It requires annual electronic reporting of injury and illness data (consistent with 2016 DOL regulations) and mandates site-controlling employers to maintain a site log for all recordable injuries/illnesses for all employees at a worksite, including contractors. Section 315 clarifies that the duty to maintain accurate records is ongoing and does not expire if records were not initially created.
Section 331, inserting new OSH Act Section 9A
Establishment of Victims' Rights in OSHA Investigations and Proceedings
This section grants specific rights to victims (employees or their family members in case of death/incapacity) during OSHA inspections, investigations, and proceedings. These rights include meeting with the Secretary, receiving copies of citations, being informed of contests, receiving notifications of proceedings, and having an opportunity to make statements before the Commission or during settlement negotiations. It also requires the Secretary to establish procedures to inform victims of their rights and designate family liaisons.
Section 342, adding new OSH Act Section 10(d)
Immediate Abatement for High-Gravity Violations; Stay Procedures
This provision mandates that the period for correcting violations designated as "serious," "willful," or "repeated" begins immediately upon receipt of the citation, even if the employer contests it. For these high-gravity violations, filing a notice of contest does not automatically stay the abatement period. Employers can file a motion for a stay with the Commission, but must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that a stay will not adversely affect worker health and safety. Expedited procedures for stay hearings are established.
Section 351, amending OSH Act Section 17(a), (b), (c), (d), (j)
Substantial Increase in Maximum Civil Penalties
This section dramatically increases the maximum civil penalties for OSH Act violations. For example, willful or repeated violations increase from $70,000 to $700,000, and serious violations from $7,000 to $70,000. It also mandates annual inflation adjustments for all civil penalties. The definition of "repeated" violations is expanded to consider an employer's history across all states and federal jurisdictions.
Section 352, amending OSH Act Section 17(f), (g), (h) and adding new 17(k), (o)
Enhanced Criminal Penalties for Fatalities and Serious Bodily Harm
This section significantly increases criminal penalties. For a knowing violation causing an employee's death, imprisonment increases from 6 months to 10 years (20 years for repeat offenders). It introduces new criminal penalties for knowing violations causing serious bodily harm (up to 5 years imprisonment, 10 for repeat). It also clarifies that "employer" for criminal purposes includes officers and directors, and explicitly states that the Act does not preclude state or local criminal prosecutions.
Section 401, amending OSH Act Section 18(f)
Secretary's Authority for Concurrent Enforcement in States with Deficient Plans
This provision allows the Secretary of Labor to reassert and exercise concurrent federal enforcement authority in a State that has an approved State OSHA plan if the Secretary makes an initial determination that the State plan is failing to comply substantially with its provisions. This can occur while the State is given an opportunity to remedy deficiencies, without waiting for a full plan withdrawal.
Requires OSHA to issue a final rule clarifying that the duty to make and maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illnesses is an ongoing obligation that continues as long as records are required to be kept, and does not expire if the employer initially fails to create them.
Section 315(a)
Why it matters:This addresses a specific legal interpretation issue (the *Volks* decision) that limited OSHA's ability to cite employers for failing to keep accurate records beyond a 6-month statute of limitations if the initial record was never made. By clarifying the "ongoing obligation," it effectively overturns that interpretation. It's a technical fix to a legal loophole.
Case for: Supporters argue this is essential to ensure employers cannot escape accountability for failing to maintain accurate injury records by simply not creating them in the first place, which is crucial for data collection and enforcement.
Case against: Critics might argue that this creates an indefinite liability for employers regarding recordkeeping, potentially leading to citations for very old omissions, and that it retroactively changes the understanding of a legal obligation.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on OSHA's ability to enforce recordkeeping requirements, potentially increasing citations and improving data accuracy.
Prohibits the issuance, modification, or settlement of any citation without a designation enumerated in Section 17 (e.g., serious, willful, repeated, other-than-serious).
Section 322, adding new OSH Act Section 9(d)
Why it matters:This is a technical requirement to ensure all violations are categorized, which directly impacts the severity of penalties and the employer's history. It prevents ambiguity in enforcement actions.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures clarity and consistency in enforcement, making sure every violation is properly classified according to its gravity, which is important for both deterrence and tracking employer compliance history.
Case against: No strong organized opposition is typically raised against this specific provision, as it primarily standardizes enforcement practice. Some might argue it removes flexibility in minor cases.
Estimated impact: Minor procedural impact, ensuring consistent application of penalty categories.
If the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) fails to issue a final decision or order within one year after accepting a petition for review from an administrative law judge's decision, because the Commission lacks a quorum, the ALJ's decision will be deemed the final order and can be appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Section 343, adding new OSH Act Section 10(e)
Why it matters:This provision directly addresses a recurring problem where OSHRC's ability to function is hampered by political appointments and vacancies, leading to significant delays in resolving contested citations. It's a structural fix to ensure cases don't languish indefinitely.
Case for: Supporters argue this is a critical reform to prevent employers from indefinitely delaying abatement and penalties by exploiting OSHRC's inability to form a quorum. It ensures timely resolution of cases and upholds the intent of the OSH Act.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could lead to less thorough review of ALJ decisions if the Commission is under pressure to meet deadlines or if the quorum issue is a symptom of broader problems. Some might see it as an encroachment on the independent review function of the Commission.
Estimated impact: Significant impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of OSHRC's review process, potentially reducing backlogs and speeding up enforcement.