An Open Letter to the Good People of Michigan

Dear Michiganders:

You have a beautiful state. Though I don’t live there, I have friends who do, and I have had the pleasure of visiting many times.  The Upper Peninsula is one of my favorite spots.  And everyone I have met over the years has been friendly, welcoming, helpful, and hard working.

So it saddened (actually horrified) me to learn that one of your elected congressional representatives, Tim Walberg, is no friend of working people in Michigan (or anywhere else for that matter). And he clearly is no friend of OSHA and other agencies within the Department of Labor that provide important oversight, enforcement, information, and resources related to worker health, safety, and wellbeing.

And Tim Walberg isn’t just any Congressman. He is not only the Dean of Michigan’s House delegation (meaning he’s been there the longest), but he is also Chairman of the powerful House Education and Workforce Committee. This is the Congressional committee that oversees all labor-related issues in the country, from OSHA to Wage and Hour issues to the National Labor Relations Board. And for good measure, the committee also handles all education issues. For good measure, he proudly “holds the designation as Michigan’s most conservative Member of Congress, based on the American Conservative Union’s lifetime score.”

And nothing about his resume is good for workers — or the workforce.

Last week, Chairman Walberg sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer urging her to withdraw or rescind regulations he deems unnecessary and burdensome.  And says that by doing so, she would improve the lives of workers.

Improve the lives of employers, maybe – but workers?  No way.  I put on my public health hat to tell you why.

OSHA Regs on the Walberg’s Chopping Block

First up, he wants to rescind some existing OSHA rules. Just get rid of them.

• Walkaround regulation. This hard-fought regulation passed just last year gives workers – both unionized and non-unionized — the right to have a representative of their choosing accompany an OSHA inspector during an inspection. Even someone from outside the workplace, like a safety and health professional or someone from a workers rights group.And how, you may ask, does this have anything to do with public health, aside from the fact that public health includes worker health? Well, it gives workers an opportunity to point out or discuss health and safety risks with the OSHA inspector.  It acknowledges their knowledge and experience. Stronger worker involvement leads to better enforcement of safety standards and helps create a culture of safety and accountability in the workplace.  You can read OSHA’s press release here and the final regulation here.
• Recordkeeping rule. This rule requires employers in certain high-hazard industries to electronically submit injury and illness data to OSHA – data they are already required to keep.  OSHA will use the data for outreach and enforcement, and they will publish some of the data to provide workers, employers, job seekers, customers, researchers, and the general public with information about a company’s workplace safety and health record.
  .
  All in the service of incentivizing workplace safety and health and reducing work-related illness and injury.  Collecting and utilizing injury data can contribute to improved prevention of work-related injuries and deaths. Prevention and harm reduction are basic tenets of public health.  Read more here.  Why would Mr. Walberg not want to know – or want you to know – how many Michigan workers were injured or sickened because of their jobs?

And Mr. Walberg also has his sights on a couple of proposed OSHA rules:

• Heat injury and illness prevention standard. A rule that would protect outdoor and indoor workers from extreme heat.  Extreme heat poses a host of health hazards – from heat stroke and heat exhaustion to cardiovascular and respiratory stress.  And it can be deadly. Texas alone recorded more than 300 heat-related deaths in 2023.  So why in the world would Mr. Walberg oppose a standard that would give workers some protection from extreme heat – like shade, water, and paid rest breaks when temperatures soar?  How does this improve the lives of working people in Michigan?  Constituents – please ask him. He has no reason to answer a Michigan-loving citizen in Boston.
• Emergency response rule. This rule would replace an outdated fire brigade standard and cover a broader scope of emergency responders, including firefighters, emergency medical services providers, and technical search and rescue workers.  The 1989  standard does not address the full range of hazards facing emergency responders and lags well behind changes in protective equipment. Our emergency responders put  their health, safety, and very lives on the line for us every day.  Aside from traumatic injuries from fires and explosions, falls, and transportation incidents, they risk exposure to hazardous substances and combustion products, infectious disease, violence, and the stress dealing with emergencies. These exposures and conditions can cause acute and chronic health effects, from cancer to cardiovascular and respiratory disease  and mental health disorders. Why would Mr. Walberg oppose updating a 30+ year old standard to help protect your and our nation’s first responders from these very real health risks?  Ask him.

OTHER LABOR ISSUES ON WALBERG’S CHOPPING BLOCK

Walberg is calling on the DOL Secretary to rescind (get rid of) several rules or proposals under the Wage and Hour Division.  I’ll touch on just a few here.

• The overtime rule. This rule extended overtime protections to more lower paid salaried executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) workers. As of July 1, 2025, the standard salary level for the overtime exemption is $1,128 per week – equivalent to $58,656 per year. Hardly a living wage for families, but apparently too high in Walberg’s estimation.  Have you seen the price of eggs lately, Mr. Walberg?  Read more here,
• Minimum wage for federal contractors. Trump’s executive order on March 14, 2025, rescinded the minimum wage requirement put in place by former President Joe Biden for $17.75 per hour.  President Trump doesn’t want federal contractors to make that much. And why does Mr. Walberg agree? How is this good for workers?  You tell me….
• Employment of Workers with Disabilities Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act This is a proposed rule that would phase out the Department’s issuance of special certificates that allow employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the subminimum wage under certain circumstances.  By asking the Secretary to withdraw the proposed rule, Mr. Walberg is essentially endorsing the practice of paying disabled workers less that the minimum wage.  Again, how is this good for disabled workers in Michigan and elsewhere?

Bottom Line

I suspect that Mr. Walberg and many of his Republican colleagues have never met a health, safety, environmental, or labor regulation that they liked.  So his letter to the Labor Secretary Chavez-DeRemer should not have surprised me.

But I am a glass half-full person, so I’m hoping the Secretary meant what she said in her March 12, 2025 email to all DOL staff:  “we will solidify the renewal of the American Dream by ensuring every American has access to a good-paying job, safe working conditions, and a comfortable retirement.”

Sincerely,

Kathleen