Search Details

Word: osha (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...move consumer activists say will raise insurance rates and accident costs. Despite a request by the Administration to delay its decision, the Supreme Court ruled last June that cost-benefit analyses cannot be required when setting federal health standards for the workplace. Nevertheless, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has had the number of its inspectors cut by 11%, and the Administration is determined to relax many of the OSHA regulations that businessmen feel are unduly costly...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Let the Buyers Beware | 9/21/1981 | See Source »

...case [in which 7.5 million radial tires were recalled for defects] is an example of an action too big for state government to handle." Roberta Lynch, who helped lead an unsuccessful fight in the Illinois legislature for a workplace chemical warning regulation similar to the national rule canceled by OSHA, agrees that states can play only a selective role: "One reason OSHA was created was that states had the responsibility before and did not do a very good...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Let the Buyers Beware | 9/21/1981 | See Source »

...decision was a four-word phrase that Congress used in the 1970 law that OSHA administers. The measure directed the agency to set standards assuring that "to the extent feasible," no worker would suffer material impairment of health from exposure to toxic substances, including cotton dust. By and large, OSHA read the word feasible to mean technologically possible, but the industry argued for a primarily economic definition. Wrote Justice William Brennan for the majority: "Congress itself defined the basic relationship between costs and benefits, by placing the 'benefit' of worker health above all other considerations save those making...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Law: Dangerous Dust | 6/29/1981 | See Source »

...ruling, while a serious setback for the Reagan Administration's deregulation effort, is far from a death blow. James C. Miller III, who heads a White House deregulation task force, emphasized that the court's decision dealt only with the OSHA statute covering toxic substances. Indeed, Justice Brennan cited several regulatory laws, including ones on the environment, that specifically allow the Government to weigh costs against benefits. Now if the Administration wants to do the same thing with toxic substances in the workplace, it may have no choice but to ask Congress to amend the statute accordingly...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Law: Dangerous Dust | 6/29/1981 | See Source »

Some observers had expected the court to rule more favorably on cotton dust because of its decision last year striking down a limit on benzene vapors in factories. In that case, however, the court never reached the cost-benefit question, in part because four Justices concluded that OSHA had failed to show that the proposed standard was even necessary to assure worker health...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Law: Dangerous Dust | 6/29/1981 | See Source »

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next