Should you view OSHA as a hostile entity seeking to reduce your competitiveness and profitability, or is there a way to use OSHA to improve your competitiveness and profitability? In the first case, you would play “catch me if you can” games with OSHA and rely on luck to protect your employees. Although this strategy is common, it does not produce good long-term results.

A much better way to think about OSHA is to think of its regulations as simply a set of industry codes. In fact, if you look at the electrical section (1910, subpart K), you’ll see that much of it matches the corresponding parts in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. And these matches are text-based. This is because for decades, until his retirement, OSHA’s electrical requirements officer worked with people in the electrical industry to achieve this. He deferred to people in the industry, instead of arbitrarily making non-expert requirements. His successor retained this practice.

So we can now turn to the NEC, specifically 90.2, and grasp two concepts:

1. Practicality. It’s about the practical protection of people and property, although in the case of OSHA it’s just about people. This is not a guide for untrained persons, strongly implying independent judgment beyond the stated requirements. In other words, just because OSHA doesn’t explicitly require something, doesn’t mean you can argue that it’s not actually required.
2. Adequacy. You just need to cover the basics of security. This is not about efficiency or other goals. You can go beyond simple adequacy by instilling a methodology in how work is done.

During a panel discussion at an industry conference, a manager at an electrical utility company said his company didn’t care about complying with OSHA regulations. He then clarified that his company’s safety policy easily meets OSHA requirements, as it exceeds them “for the same reason we might recommend increasing the size of a neutral beyond the code minimum “. The reason is to achieve the goal rather than check the box.

Part of the idea behind exceeding OSHA requirements based on real-world conditions is that it is better to err on the side of imposing excessive safety measures and not need them than to go light and wish you hadn’t.

A question that often arises about this thinking, and even basic OSHA compliance, is, “Doesn’t this reduce your competitiveness and profitability?” » This question is based on the idea that security is an added layer of time and effort that comes at the expense of productive time. But what many companies have discovered is the opposite.

Returning to this manager, he added that he could not remember the last time his company had to return to the site to carry out free alterations. The reason, he explained, is that they have a system for getting the job done. And safe working methods are integrated into this system. Through good job briefings, well-rehearsed procedures and methodical working practices, human error has been reduced to a negligible level. And when there is a problem, “we don’t spend all day chasing our tails to solve it.”

As with any other code, consider OSHA regulations the minimum necessary. It’s worth taking the time to review your safety program and work procedures for weaknesses relative to OSHA requirements. Yes, this will help your business avoid a fine. Yes, it will help your business avoid profit loss caused by inefficient (as opposed to methodical) work practices. But the big advantage is that you take the practical steps necessary to ensure your employees are properly protected from hazards that arise on the job.