Protecting America’s Workers Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to strengthen worker safety and health protections by expanding OSHA's reach, increasing penalties for employers, and empowering employees and victims in the enforcement process.
What it actually does
The bill significantly amends the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) to expand its coverage to federal, state, and local government employees, enhance whistleblower protections, and dramatically increase civil and criminal penalties for violations. It also establishes new rights for victims and their families in enforcement proceedings, modifies procedures for inspections and investigations, and strengthens federal oversight of State occupational safety and health plans.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current OSH Act is outdated and insufficient to protect workers, citing inadequate penalties, limited coverage, and weak whistleblower protections. They contend this bill is essential to deter dangerous workplace practices, ensure accountability for employers, and provide justice for workers injured or killed on the job, aligning with the original intent of the OSH Act to assure safe and healthful working conditions for all.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's drastic increase in penalties and expansion of criminal liability could place an undue burden on businesses, particularly small businesses, potentially hindering economic growth and job creation. They may also contend that expanding federal oversight into state and local government workplaces could infringe on states' rights and create bureaucratic inefficiencies and unfunded mandates.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring dedicated time to understand its numerous amendments and procedural changes, which may exceed the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 101, amending Section 3(5) of the OSH Act
Expansion of OSH Act Coverage to Public Employees
This provision expands the definition of 'employer' under the OSH Act to include the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. This means that federal, state, and local government employees would be covered by OSHA standards and enforcement, similar to private sector employees, ensuring a consistent baseline of safety protections across all sectors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that public employees face similar, if not identical, workplace hazards as private sector employees and deserve the same level of safety and health protection. They contend that excluding public sector workers creates a dangerous double standard and that this expansion is a fundamental equity issue, ensuring all workers are equally valued.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that state and local governments already have their own safety regulations or collective bargaining agreements that address worker safety, and federal intervention could lead to redundant or conflicting regulations, imposing unfunded mandates on these entities without necessarily improving outcomes.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the goal of universal worker safety and equity with concerns about federal overreach and potential financial burdens on state and local governments, which may need to adapt their existing safety programs or create new ones.
Section 201, amending Section 11(c) of the OSH Act
Enhanced Whistleblower Protections
This section significantly broadens the scope of protected activities to include refusing to violate the OSH Act, reporting injuries/illnesses to employers or safety committees, and testifying before Congress. It also extends the statute of limitations for filing complaints to 180 days, establishes new investigative and hearing procedures, and allows for de novo actions in federal court if the Review Commission is inactive, explicitly stating these rights cannot be waived.
Section 351, amending Section 17 of the OSH Act
Increased Civil Penalties for Violations
This provision dramatically increases civil penalties for OSH Act violations. For example, maximum penalties for willful or repeated violations increase from $70,000 to $700,000, with a new minimum of $50,000 for repeated violations. Maximum penalties for serious violations increase from $7,000 to $70,000, with a new minimum of $20,000. It also mandates annual inflation adjustments to these penalty amounts.
Section 352, amending Section 17 of the OSH Act
Expanded Criminal Penalties for Workplace Incidents
This section introduces criminal penalties for employers (including officers and directors) whose knowing OSH Act violations cause 'serious bodily harm' to an employee, with imprisonment up to 5 years (10 years for repeat offenses). It also significantly increases the maximum prison sentence for violations causing death from 6 months to 10 years (20 years for repeat offenses) and explicitly states that state or local law enforcement can conduct criminal prosecutions.
Section 331, inserting new Section 9A into the OSH Act
Establishment of Formal Rights for Victims and Their Families
This provision grants victims (injured employees or family members of deceased/incapacitated employees) specific rights in OSHA inspections, investigations, and Commission proceedings. These rights include meeting with the Secretary, receiving citations/reports, being informed of contests, receiving pleadings, making statements, and being notified before citation modifications. It also mandates the Secretary to establish procedures and designate family liaisons to assist victims.
Section 314, adding new Section 8(i) to the OSH Act
Mandatory Investigation of Fatalities and Significant Incidents; Evidence Preservation
This provision mandates the Secretary to investigate any incident resulting in death or 'significant incident' (defined as in-patient hospitalization of 2 or more employees) that occurs in a place of employment. It also requires employers to promptly notify the Secretary of such incidents and take appropriate measures to prevent the destruction or alteration of any evidence, with exceptions for preventing further injury or property damage.
Section 401, amending Section 18(f) of the OSH Act
Secretary's Concurrent Enforcement Authority in States with Deficient Plans
This provision allows the Secretary of Labor to reassert and exercise concurrent federal enforcement authority (including inspections, citations, and penalties) in a State with an approved State plan if the Secretary makes an initial determination that the State plan is failing to comply substantially with its provisions. This concurrent authority can be exercised while the State is given an opportunity to remedy deficiencies, without immediately withdrawing the plan.
Defines 'authorized employee representative' broadly to mean 'any person or organization that for the purposes of this Act represents not less than one employee at an establishment... or other workplace' and 'includes a representative authorized by employees, a representative of employees, or any other representative of an employee under this Act.'
Section 102, adding Section 3(15) to the OSH Act
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms early in the bill, the breadth of this definition is notable and could be seen as a subtle but significant expansion of worker representation rights beyond traditional union contexts.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition ensures that any employee can designate a representative, even if not part of a formal union, to advocate for their safety and health concerns, thereby increasing worker empowerment and access to representation.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could allow for individuals or groups without formal accountability or expertise to interfere with workplace operations or inspections, potentially creating confusion, conflict, or undue burden on employers.
Estimated impact: Could significantly expand the number and types of individuals or organizations recognized as employee representatives in OSHA proceedings and inspections, potentially leading to more frequent employee involvement.
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 Section 9(d) to the OSH Act
Why it matters:Could be seen as a technical clarification, but it prevents OSHA from issuing 'unclassified' citations, which might be used in some cases to resolve minor issues without formal classification. This forces a more rigid classification system.
Case for: Proponents might argue this ensures transparency and consistency in enforcement, requiring OSHA to clearly categorize every violation. This can help in tracking repeat offenders and applying appropriate penalties, preventing ambiguity in employer records.
Case against: Critics might argue that this removes flexibility for OSHA to address minor or novel violations without imposing a formal classification that might be disproportionate to the actual risk, potentially leading to more contentious proceedings for minor issues that could otherwise be resolved informally.
Estimated impact: Will standardize citation practices, potentially increasing the number of formally classified (and thus penalized) violations, and reducing OSHA's discretion in handling minor infractions.
Mandates that time spent by an employee participating in or aiding an OSHA inspection shall be deemed 'hours worked' and that employees shall not suffer any loss of wages, benefits, or other terms of employment for such participation.
Section 313, amending Section 8(e) of the OSH Act
Why it matters:While seemingly minor, this provision addresses a practical barrier to employee participation in inspections by ensuring they are compensated for their time, which can be a point of contention and a significant disincentive for workers.
Case for: Proponents argue this removes a financial disincentive for employees to participate in critical safety inspections, ensuring that their valuable input is available to OSHA without personal cost. This encourages greater transparency and more thorough inspections.
Case against: Critics might argue this imposes an additional, potentially unbudgeted, cost on employers for time spent by employees during inspections, which could be lengthy and unpredictable, adding to operational expenses without direct productivity gains.
Estimated impact: Could increase employer labor costs during OSHA inspections and encourage greater employee participation, potentially leading to more comprehensive identification of hazards during inspections.