OSHA was created in 1970 to carry out the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which declared a national policy of ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for every man and woman. To carry out its mission, OSHA develops and enforces workplace safety and health standards, educates employers and employees about workplace hazards, and along with its state partners,conducts inspections of employers to assess compliance with applicable safety and health standards. Of the approximately 100,000 inspections conducted each year from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 1998, about 65,000 were conducted by the 25 states and territories with approved OSHA programs. Four of these states California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington half of the state inspections. OSHA and its state partners conduct inspections for a variety of reasons. Programmed inspections are inspections that are planned at the beginning of each year and are generally targeted at industries and particular employers with high injury or illness rates. During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, more than half of OSHA’s inspections were programmed. Sixty percent of the remaining inspections resulted from valid complaints (which OSHA is required by law to investigate) and fatalities and catastrophes that occurred in the workplace (which OSHA is required by policy to investigate). Although OSHA has the authority to inspect most types of establishments—from large manufacturing plants to small retail stores— some limitations govern when an inspection can be conducted. For example, OSHA does not have the authority to conduct any type of inspection at a farm that employs 10 or fewer employees and that does not have a temporary labor camp. For an establishment employing 10 or fewer employees in low hazard industries, OSHA does not have the authority to conduct a programmed safety inspection but can conduct other types of inspections.In addition, although OSHA generally can conduct inspections in any industry, it tends to focus its inspection resources on those industries that present the greatest workplace hazards to workers. For example, in fiscal years 1994 through 1998, OSHA conducted about 44 percent of its inspections in the construction industry, which has the highest death rate of any industry. OSHA conducted about 26 percent of its inspections in manufacturing, 11 percent in the service industry, 8 percent in wholesale/retail trade, and the remaining 11 percent in other industries. The term “labor unrest” is commonly used to indicate some type of dissatisfaction among workers, but there is no consensus about the ways in which labor unrest develops or the forms it takes. However, it is clear that there is some relationship between labor unrest and employees’ dissatisfaction with wages and working conditions. For example, a strike, which we are using as an example of labor unrest, may result, at least in part, from unsafe working conditions. On the other hand, a strike also might lead to unsafe working conditions if an employer calls in replacement workers who are less trained and thus may be more susceptible to injury. Allegations of unfair labor practices, another example of labor unrest, can be filed by employees if the employer subjects them to unsafe working conditions, or by an employer if workers conduct a work slowdown, which also could be in response to working conditions. As a result, conditions that lead to labor unrest and those that lead to safety and health violations may be related. The OSHA inspection rate at establishments that experienced labor unrest during fiscal years 1994 through 1998 was 6.5 times higher (8.6 percent) than at establishments that did not experience such unrest (1.3 percent). This may be related to OSHA’s statutory requirement to investigate valid complaints and union employees’ awareness of their right to file complaints with OSHA, in addition to its policy to investigate fatalities and catastrophes. During fiscal years 1994 through 1998, OSHA inspected, on average, about 8.6 percent of the approximately 22,000 establishments each year that experienced labor unrest (about 1,900 inspections a year). In contrast, OSHA inspected, on average, about 1.3 percent of the approximately 7 million establishmentseach year that did not experience labor unrest (about 93,000 inspections each year) (see fig. 1). The percentage of establishments with labor unrest that were inspected during fiscal years 1994 through 1998 ranged from about 5 percent to about 10 percent, while the percentage of establishments without labor unrest that were inspected ranged from about 1.2 percent to about 1.6 percent. The statutory requirement that OSHA investigate valid complaints and its long-standing policy to investigate fatalities and catastrophes may help to explain the higher rate of inspection for establishments with labor unrest. About 68 percent of the inspections at establishments with labor unrest were required because a complaint was filed (60 percent) or a fatality or catastrophe occurred (8 percent). In contrast, only 27 percent of all inspections OSHA conducted during this period were the result of a complaint (22 percent) or a fatality or catastrophe (5 percent) (see fig. 2). Thus, OSHA inspections at establishments experiencing labor unrest were 2.5 times more likely to result from a complaint, fatality, or catastrophe than OSHA inspections in general. Because of OSHA’s requirements to investigate valid complaints and fatalities and catastrophes, an OSHA inspection occurring at an establishment with labor unrest may be wholly separate from any ongoing labor unrest or may in fact be related to the labor unrest. For example, of the four establishments we visited in California that had labor unrest and were inspected by OSHA during periods of labor unrest, two of the inspections were unrelated to the labor unrest that was ongoing at both sites. One inspection resulted because an employee broke his ankle; the other inspection resulted when a parent filed a complaint citing the possible presence of asbestos during the renovation of an educational facility. For the other two inspections, however, there were indications that the filing of the complaint with OSHA may have been a result of, or at least related to, the labor unrest ongoing at the time. In one case, union officials acknowledged that the OSHA complaint the union filed was related to labor unrest, and in the second case, the employer believed that a complaint filed by a union employee was in response to efforts to remove the union from the workplace. Despite the greater representation of complaint-driven inspections for establishments with labor unrest, inspections at establishments with labor unrest were just as likely to result in at least one violation or a violation classified as “serious” as were all inspections conducted by OSHA. For example, for both types of inspections during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, about 62 percent of all inspections resulted in at least one violation and about 90 percent of those had 10 or fewer violations. Similarly, when there were violations cited for establishments with labor unrest, about 51 percent of the violations were classified as “serious,” as opposed to about 53 percent for all OSHA inspections. Approximately 76 percent of the OSHA inspections at establishments experiencing labor unrest during fiscal years 1994 through 1998 were conducted at unionized establishments. In comparison, about 24 percent of all OSHA inspections during this time were conducted at unionized establishments (see fig. 3). According to OSHA officials, the higher rate of inspections for unionized establishments experiencing labor unrest may in large part result from OSHA’s targeting procedures. They said that OSHA concentrates its inspections in high-risk and relatively more unionized industry sectors, which include construction, manufacturing, and oil/gas extraction. According to OSHA officials, the greater dangers in these sectors and the greater presence of unionization may also be related to a higher degree of labor unrest. Regarding complaint-driven inspections at establishments with labor unrest, we found that 63 percent of those inspections at unionized establishments resulted from complaints compared with about 52 percent for nonunionized establishments. However, in general, OSHA inspections resulting from complaints did not vary significantly between unionized and nonunionized establishments, as the percentage of complaint-driven inspections at unionized establishments was only slightly higher than for nonunionized establishments (26 versus 21 percent, respectively). This indicates that during periods of labor unrest, complaint-based inspections are somewhat more likely at unionized establishments than at nonunionized establishments. Union, NLRB, and OSHA officials, as well as employer representatives, said that unionized employees are in general more aware of their worker protection rights and may be more likely to file complaints with regulatory agencies, especially during periods of labor unrest. An OSHA official said that unions are also more aware of the role of regulatory agencies, both in terms of protecting workers’ rights and as a bargaining tool during contract negotiations. Furthermore, according to a researcher well known for work in this area, establishments with labor unrest are probably predominately unionized because these employees are more likely to speak out and file complaints with agencies such as OSHA in times of unrest. Federal and state OSHA policies allow programmed inspections to be delayed if a condition such as a strike is significant enough to prohibit OSHA inspectors from witnessing normal work operations. However, according to federal and most state OSHA officials, this has rarely occurred. Two states highlighted conditions that would affect the decision to conduct a programmed inspection. Kentucky OSHA officials stated that programmed inspections would not be conducted if a picket line existed. The official said that several reasons existed for this policy, including concern for the safety of state inspectors and a desire not to get involved in employer/employee controversies. Vermont OSHA officials said that the state would postpone a programmed inspection if the company was on strike before the start of the inspection, and if a strike began while the OSHA inspectors were on site, OSHA inspectors would leave the premises and continue the inspection after the strike was finished. However, both federal and state OSHA inspection policies follow the statutory requirement that OSHA investigate valid complaints, and state policies follow federal policy regarding the investigation of fatalities and catastrophes. Under these policies, federal and state OSHA officials stated that inspections resulting from complaints, fatalities, and catastrophes are to be conducted even during periods of labor unrest. They also said that, as discussed above, these types of inspections accounted for the majority of those OSHA performed at establishments with labor unrest from fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In commenting on a draft of this report, Labor said that it recognized the limitations in the data available to address the objectives of the review. It believed that, because of these limitations, we could not conclude that labor unrest led to an increased likelihood of OSHA inspections. While the report estimates the percentage of establishments with labor unrest that were inspected by OSHA, we do not draw any conclusions about a specific relationship between the existence of labor unrest and OSHA inspections. In fact, the report discusses a variety other factors that affect an establishment’s likelihood of inspection by OSHA. Labor’s comments are reproduced in app. II. Other technical comments provided by Labor were incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Leonard R. Page, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board; the Honorable C. Richard Barnes, Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; relevant congressional committees; and others who are interested. Copies will be made available to others on request. If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in app. III. We were asked to determine (1) the extent to which employers experiencing labor unrest are more likely to be inspected than employers not experiencing labor unrest, and (2) whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has policies for performing inspections during labor unrest and whether these policies are being followed. To determine whether employers experiencing labor unrest are more likely to be inspected than employers not experiencing labor unrest, we (1) identified the universe of establishments that experienced labor unrest and determined how many of these were inspected by OSHA and (2) determined how many of the establishments that did not experience labor unrest were inspected by OSHA. To identify policies for conducting inspections during labor unrest, we obtained OSHA policies and interviewed federal OSHA officials. We also obtained inspection policies from each of the 25 states and territories that conduct their own safety and health programs. We also interviewed officials from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS); the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); representatives of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Labor Policy Association, the AFL-CIO, and a California longshoremen union; and David Weil, an associate professor of economics from Boston University known for his research on occupational safety and health. In addition, we visited four California employers that had experienced various forms of labor unrest and had been inspected by OSHA during a period of labor unrest to obtain information about the inspections. Labor unrest is a vague term with many connotations and no precise definition. To perform our analysis, we first identified the various documented forms of unrest. Accordingly, we obtained information from the only two sources that systematically collect and maintain information on events that may be related to labor unrest—NLRB and FMCS. Using these sources, we were able to identify establishments that experienced (1) charges of unfair labor practices, (2) union campaigns to organize employees, (3) efforts to decertify (remove) a union, or (4) work stoppages (strikes). For purposes of this report, we define labor unrest as the occurrence of one or more of these four conditions. From NLRB we obtained a listing of all cases on file during fiscal years 1994 through 1998 that involved charges of unfair labor practices (either against an employer or against a union), union efforts to organize employees, and efforts to have a union decertified as a bargaining representative of employees. This accounted for approximately 40,000 cases each year. From FMCS we obtained a listing of all establishments that had a work stoppage during fiscal years 1994 through 1998. This resulted in about 400 cases each year. These establishments may have had multiple cases on file with NLRB during a fiscal year and may also have had a work stoppage according to FMCS. As a result, we had to review manually each case in the two agencies’ databases to obtain an unduplicated count of establishments for each fiscal year (see table 1). Once we had an unduplicated list of establishments that experienced labor unrest, we selected a random sample of 400 establishments from each of the 5 fiscal years. Our sampling procedure permitted us to generalize the sample results to the entire universe of establishments experiencing labor unrest. After we selected our sample establishments, we compared them with OSHA’s Integrated Management Information System (IMIS), which tracks OSHA inspection activity, to determine whether an inspection was conducted at a particular establishment. Because labor unrest can exist over a period of time, we decided to include any OSHA inspections conducted at the sample establishments 6 months before the earliest date on record with NLRB or FMCS and 6 months after the latest date. For example, if NLRB recorded charges of unfair labor practices filed against an employer on November 9, 1997, and again on September 15, 1998, then we counted all OSHA inspections at this establishment between May 9, 1997, and March 15, 1999, as a match. Inspections before May 9, 1997, and after March 15, 1998, would be considered outside the period of labor unrest. Using this methodology, we determined that OSHA inspected 172 of the 2,000 sample establishments. We then projected these results to the universe of establishments experiencing labor unrest. As shown in table 2, we estimated that, of the approximately 108,000 establishments with labor unrest during this period, about 9,300 were inspected by OSHA (see table 2). According to BLS, approximately 7 million establishments existed nationwide each year from 1994 through 1998. We had already determined, using the NLRB and FMCS database, that there were approximately 22,000 establishments each year that experienced labor unrest. We then subtracted this number from the total establishments identified by BLS (see table 3) to calculate the total number of establishments without labor unrest. We then determined the percentage of establishments without labor unrest that were inspected by OSHA. We first converted the number of inspections conducted on a yearly basis (about 100,000) to establishments inspected, as OSHA may conduct numerous inspections at a single establishment. To do so, we identified the number of different addresses at which OSHA conducted inspections during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the method OSHA officials suggested to approximate unique establishments inspected. We had already identified the number of inspections OSHA conducted at establishments with labor unrest, so we subtracted this number from the estimated number of establishments at which OSHA conducted inspections (see table 4). We then divided the number of OSHA inspections at establishments without labor unrest for each fiscal year by the number of establishments nationwide that did not have any labor unrest to determine the proportion of those establishments that were inspected by OSHA (see table 5). Because we used a sampling procedure to estimate the OSHA inspection rate at establishments experiencing labor unrest, we cannot identify whether a particular establishment in OSHA’s database that was not in our sample experienced labor unrest. Thus, we could not obtain inspection characteristics for those OSHA inspections conducted at establishments without labor unrest. As a result, we can compare inspection characteristics for those establishments that appeared in our sample only against all OSHA inspections. Inspections at establishments experiencing labor unrest comprise only about 2 percent of all OSHA inspections. The characteristics we compared include: reason for inspection, union status of the establishment inspected, size of the establishment inspected, and industry designation of the inspected establishment. Information on the first two variables is contained in the report. We found that IMIS data on establishment size were of questionable reliability, so we did not present information on this variable. For the last variable, industry designation, we found that differences existed between the percentage of various industries inspected by OSHA in general and during times of labor unrest. We found that although OSHA was in general more likely to inspect construction establishments, for establishments with labor unrest, OSHA was more likely to inspect manufacturing establishments (see fig. 4). A number of different factors could have contributed to this. For example, NLRB’s database, the primary database we used to identify establishments experiencing labor unrest, might contain primarily manufacturing establishments. However, NLRB officials would not confirm whether manufacturing establishments would be more apt to be in its database than any other industry. Because we were unable to obtain an explanation for the differences in inspection rates, we present this data for informational purposes only. In addition to those named above, the following persons made important contributions to the report: Linda W. Choy, Joseph G. Evans, Lyle H. Lanier, Jr., Kevin F. Murphy, and James P. Wright. The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Ordersbymail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Ordersbyvisiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Ordersbyphone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed worker protection, focusing on: (1) the extent to which employers experiencing labor unrest are more likely to be inspected than employers not experiencing labor unrest; and (2) whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has policies for performing inspections during labor unrest and whether these policies are followed. GAO noted that: (1) establishments experiencing labor unrest are about 6.5 times more likely to be inspected by OSHA than establishments not experiencing labor unrest (8.6 percent inspected compared with about 1.3 percent) during fiscal years (FY) 1994 through 1998; (2) the statutory requirement that OSHA investigate valid complaints and OSHA's policy to investigate a fatality or catastrophe may be related to the higher rate of inspection for establishments experiencing labor unrest; (3) about 68 percent of the approximately 1,900 OSHA inspections conducted each year at establishments experiencing labor unrest resulted from complaints, fatalities, or catastrophes; (4) in contrast, only about 27 percent of the approximately 100,000 total inspections OSHA conducted each year resulted from complaints, fatalities, or catastrophes; (5) about 76 percent of the establishments with labor unrest that were inspected by OSHA from FY 1994 through FY 1998 were unionized, as compared with about 24 percent of all establishments inspected by OSHA over this period; (6) while it did not appear that unionized establishments were in general more likely to receive a complaint-based inspection than nonunionized establishments, GAO's analysis did find that, among establishments experiencing labor unrest, there were a higher proportion of complaint-based inspections at unionized establishments than at nonunionized establishments; (7) OSHA's policy concerning inspections during labor unrest provides discretion for programmed inspections; (8) OSHA may delay programmed inspections during periods of labor unrest, such as a strike, which would prevent OSHA inspectors from witnessing actual work operations; (9) however, OSHA officials said that it has rarely delayed these inspections; and (10) statutory requirements or OSHA's long-standing policy dictate that inspections resulting from valid complaints, fatalities, or catastrophes--which accounted for the majority of OSHA's inspections at establishments with labor unrest during FY 1994 through FY 1998--must be performed, regardless of whether labor unrest exists.