Dusty Roach
Greetings! While contemplating what topic I would write about, I came across an educational video from a safety company. In this video, a certified safety professional discusses a bill, introduced by Representative Andy Biggs, aimed at abolishing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This safety professional delved into the bill’s contents, as well as its historical context and the potential consequences for workplace safety if OSHA were eliminated. I found the article intriguing.
In light of recent political events, including the activity of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in scrutinizing federal bureaucratic waste, I must admit I had never thought of DOGE looking at OSHA, but having watched that video, that thought did occur to me.
Having started the same year in the oilfield as OSHA did—in 1971—I have seen all 54 years of OSHA’s performance, both the bad and the good—and I was initially giddy about the prospect of Rep. Bigg’s bill to eliminate OSHA. But after much consideration and deep soul-searching, I backed off the initial glee. Here is why:
When the new Administration implemented DOGE, I enjoyed seeing the activity of eliminating governmental overreach and trimming the fat. Too many times, I have seen situations where OSHA operated on a mindset of catching individuals culpable of less-than-safe operations, even when these operations were managed by employees who were without the means or knowhow to be in fully OSHA compliant 100 percent of the time. Conversely, looking at our own industry and its safety performance over time, we are moving through the Galaxy of Safety in a 4-cylinder spacecraft, missing one cylinder. Granted, I’ve been guilty at times of exaggerating or embellishing a point. However, it is not a stretch to say that the larger corporations have the edge where compliance is concerned. The mom-and-pop organizations are at a huge disadvantage—largely due to lack of sufficient budget to spend on safety compliance. For the smaller companies, this is a formidable challenge. It is not a level playing field, because companies’ resources are not equal.
As I have stated before, there are three main types of failure, where accidents are concerned: a person or company is either unwilling (to comply), unable (to comply), or untrained (in how to comply). This statement, sweeping though it is, stands up to close examination and stands the test of time.
After recently attending a meeting of the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP), I was amazed at all the science, math, and theory that goes into the thinking in the safety world. For someone to be a Certified Safety Professional today says about that person’s qualifications to administer the discipline of safety.
On the other hand—going back to OSHA and its perspective—we can see that OSHA, with its budget and (limited) staffing considerations, is not able to be everywhere all the time. OSHA personnel are not miracle workers. They are usually spending more time and money on investigations of accidents as they are on proactive, preventative measures. OSHA has more rules and regulations than Carter has pills (as the saying goes). The downside is that every one of the rules and regs were put in place due to accidents. The system is inherently reactive, not pro-active.
The general public typically assumes that every accident will lead straight to a new rule. But observers have found, after much research, that generally there were already rules and regulations in place. They were just not followed or not known. Why? Because usually someone was unwilling, unable, or untrained to practice what they have been taught. The average worker gets lost in all of the regulations. The larger companies have the means and resources that are available to follow up, ensuring compliance. Yet even among the larger companies there are no guarantees of compliance.
When the regulations are accompanied by adequate, well conceived guidelines for administering those regulations, the oil and gas company has the means to “inspect what they expect.” That’s good. Still, providing information of safety regs, as to what a company can expect regarding safety, is the easiest leg of the equation. And yet it does not guarantee compliance. The reality is that not all will heed what is learned in the classroom.
So, going back to the original intent of this particular column, I ask, is OSHA a necessary entity? I ask not just for our industry but for the nationwide workplace as well. My short answer is Absolutely Yes. Are they spread thin? Yes. Do OSHA employees care? Most of them genuinely do. Are there gaps and lapses as to what to look for, to make the O&G workplace safe? Yes. Some of the inspectors don’t know a rod transfer from a seat nipple. You must understand that our industry is not the only industry that they oversee. Therefore, granting some grace to OSHA, I feel that they are a necessary entity.
Everywhere we go, people fudge on rules and regs. I’ve seen Certified Safety Professionals exceed the speed limit going to an accident scene. How safe is that? They took individual exceptions, just as do some of the workers they seek to protect. Our job is to grasp the real world issues, stay in compliance, and enable all employees to go home safely. Period. Achieving that is difficult. Caring does not guarantee safety. But not caring does guarantee accidents.
As I am often inclined to do, I quote the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt: “ I don’t care how much a person knows, until I know how much a person cares.”
Lastly, it’s not how many hits you have in baseball that counts. It’s how many times you reach home safely that counts. —Dusty
Dusty Roach is a safety professional based in Midland. He is also a public speaker on subjects of leadership and safety, and he maintains a personal website at dustyroach.com.
Leave a Reply