The Republican-controlled House Education and Labor Workforce Committee held a very interesting and helpful circus hearing yesterday on the “burden” of regulations allegedly crushing this country’s small businesses. “Interesting” and “helpful” — not because it provided any credible information about the so-called oppression of small businesses, but because it revealed Republican legislators’ focus on ideological rhetoric at the expense of worker protection, as well as their practiced ability to spout the lines of their corporate benefactors.
In other words: Hidden behind their rude, ignorant and condescending behavior was not real worker issues or even real small business issues, but simply election-year politics: Socialism! Regulations! Socialist Regulations!
You can watch the entire hour and a half hearing if you want to go through the pain. It’s somewhat entertaining — kind of like looking at a car wreck.
But if not, I watched it so you wouldn’t have to.
It wasn’t all bad. Here are some of the high and lowlights.
The hearing started off with Chairman Ryan McKenzie (R-PA) stating that the hearing was all about “empowering small businesses so that they can succeed and thrive.” One might ask if they could thrive by still following the rules that protect workers.
McKenzie, by the way, is engaged in a hard re-election fight, running against Bob Brooks, a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania firefighter and labor leader. McKenzie only won election by 4,000 votes in 2024 and the district is considered a “toss-up” by the Cook Political Report which considers McKenzie “one of the most vulnerable House Republicans in the country.”
Sub-Committee Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN) explained in her opening remarks that the Republican obsession with “getting rid of red tape” means getting rid of requirements for light on dark construction sites and whether a mine roof is going to hold. All of the OSHA regulations they complain about are on the books because workers were hurt or killed on the job and we have decided that its not going to happen again. And, of course, if we’re going to talk about the economy, she reminded us that Trump ended up $2.2 billion richer in the first year of this administration. And in case you’re counting, the median American worker would have to work 43,000 years to make that much.
Meanwhile, Omar added, Republicans don’t hate all red tape; they’ve added plenty of red tape of their own, taking away health care from 8 million Americans and ending food assistance for 4 million Americans.
Omar agreed with what I wrote yesterday: This is definitely not be one of them, but there are Congressional hearings that we really need. She noted that the Republicans have never bothered to hold a hearing on issues that working people actually care about like raising minimum wage, workplace violence, and child labor laws (even as they announce a plan to weaken protections for 14 year-olds).
AFL-CIO Health and Safety Director Rebecca Reindel provide spirited support in her testimony for regulatory protections, describing heartbreaking stories of workers in small business who had lost their lives in preventable tragedies because their employers didn’t implement mandatory and readily available measures to protect them. (28:49) She pointed out in her written testimony that
Just because a business is small in employment size doesn’t mean that it is safe. Small businesses can be very dangerous workplaces. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest workplace fatality rates (per 100,000 workers) occur in industries that have a high proportion of small establishments, including construction (9.2), mining (13.8), transportation (12.2) and agriculture (20.9).
She also described the benefits of regulation and OSHA standards: “Unions support strong regulatory systems because they save lives, spur innovation, increase economic fairness, uphold democracy and create a pathway for social progress—leveling the playing field so that the economy grows equitably.”
A Heat Standard that Causes Back Pain?
Of all the bad Republican witnesses, Elizabeth Milito from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) was probably the worst.
Pointing to a large, heavy notebook she had lugged all the way to the Rayburn Building, she lamented several times during the hearing the cruelty and futility of expecting a small employer to read, understand and comply with a 375-page heat standard.
Sounds burdensome.
But what she failed to mention was that 371 pages of the 375-page document were the required regulatory and economic analyses, cost-benefit study, feasibility analyses and regulatory summary. Fewer than 4 of the 375 pages made up the actual regulatory requirements. She could have stuffed those in the inner pocket of her purse and saved her back.
So was she lying spinning to make a point? Or maybe she had never bothered to open her notebook and read what was inside? Or is she just trying to scare her constituents about the evil government?
She also claimed that small employers would have to hire an additional employee just to understand the requirements and comply with the recordkeeping parts of the standard: like documenting the temperature and keeping training records — basically requirements that every OSHA standard contains. Asked to document the contention that small employers would have to hire more employees just to comply, she quoted a letter from one of her members.
Safety, according to Ms. Milito is a zero-sum game: “Every hour spent on understanding a new requirement, completing paper work, filling out a form or training an employees is time a business owner cannot devote to serving customers, training employees, expanding operations or creating new jobs.” I guess, according to Milito, You comply with OSHA standards or you run a successful business. You can’t do both.
Happily, you actually can do both. Ms. Reindel helpfully informed the Committee of OSHA’s Onsite Consultation Program which provides free inspections, training and information for small employers without involving enforcement.
Republicans and business associations like to pretend the Onsite Consultation Program doesn’t exist because it conflicts with their narrative of poor small businesses who can’t afford to figure out how to comply with OSHA standards. A search of NFIB’s website for OSHA’s consultation program turns up almost no results. You’d think a small business association that claims to value workplace safety and worries about the cost of compliance for their members would be shouting the benefits of the free OSHA consultation program from the rooftops.
But Milito did have a few solutions for preventing workers from dying from heat exposure. No heat standard, of course. Just use the General Duty Clause (GDC).
We’ve already discussed extensively in these pages the problems with relying exclusively on the General Duty Clause and how using the GDC is actually more difficult for small employers than complying with a standard that contains specific requirements they can follow.
Also, she added, OSHA should provide more education for employers (been there, done that, workers keep dying).
And then, she added, there’s the OSHA National Emphasis Program for heat (which has mysteriously dropped all inspection goals.)
Ironically, when asked what small employers are already doing to protect workers from heat, Milito described how NFIB members are “going the extra mile” above and beyond any OSHA requirements: providing water, free cold refreshments, rest, shade, training, breaks as needed, changing schedules to cooler times of the day and air conditioned vehicles.
In other words, everything the heat standard would require. (Except having to read 375 pages.)
She was also congratulated by Republicans on the Committee for NFIB’s support of H.R. 6213, the “Heat Workforce Standards Act of 2025” that would prohibit OSHA from ever issuing a strong heat standard.
“We’re in the Education and Labor Committee and we don’t even have a Department of Education!” — Rep. Haley Stephens
Haley Stephens (D-MI) asked no questions but provided an energetic condemnation of the Trump administration in general (53:15) Criticizing the DOGE cuts and Republican attempts to destroy the federal government, Stephens observed that “We’re in the Education and Labor Committee and we don’t even have a Department of Education!” (Possibly my favorite quote of the day.)
Glen Grothman (R-WI), complained about the government’s overregulation of young people even though studies show that “having a job when you’re 16 or 17 years old correlates positively in later life.”
His complaint was tragically ironic, considering that a few years ago, 19-year-old Mitchell McDaniel was killed in a grain auger on a small farm in Grothman’s district. OSHA was not able to issue citations or even investigate Mitchell’s death because of Congressional language that forbids OSHA from stepping foot on small farms, even after a worker is killed.
Grothman had raised this issue in previous hearings and had promised Mitchell’s mother, Stacy Sebald, that he would work on removing that language. But that was then…
And yes, Congressman, we all agree that work is great for kids. But not dangerous work that could kill them. Mitchell McDaniel’s work did not correlate positively in later life.
Faux Empathy
The hearing really warmed up when full Committee Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) asked questions. (48:00)
Walberg, who I remember as an amiable, grandfatherly — if very conservative — Congressman went on a rant about the “faux empathy” of Democrats and labor unions. “a faux empathy that tries to make it sound like they care about the workplace or employees when in fact all they want is the continued control!”
As opposed to the Republicans who have “true empathy” for what the workplace needs because they understand workers are like “family” to their employers and their “most important asset.”
Regarding the tragic deaths that Ms. Reindel described, Walberg smugly countered that those unfortunate workers were “injured” (actually killed) even though there were safety standards covering their jobs. “It didn’t stop that from happening!”
What point he was struggling to make? He explained that “to use those illustrations…the faux empathy that goes on there underlines the fact that control is there. And of course our colleagues are afraid to push back against the socialists that are attempting to take over our country for fear that they’ll come after them as well.”
Yeah, I’m not sure what that meant either. Maybe he was trying to prove that regulations don’t work? I wonder if he had ever considered the proposition that if those workers were killed because their employer violated existing OSHA standards, and that more (and not fewer) OSHA inspectors might have prevented that from happening?
Stupid question.
All Costs, No Benefits
Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin described in his testimony how his organization, the American Action Forum, tracks the “burden cost” imposed by every regulation on the private sector, and complimented the Trump administration for slashing those burden costs.
But, of course, the costs alone are meaningless without comparing those costs to the benefits of regulations. Asked by Ranking Member Scott whether his reports also take into account the benefits to workers and society from preventing injuries and deaths, Holtz-Eakin admitted that they don’t count benefits. “We don’t do anything on injuries and deaths.” Which, of course, is the whole point of OSHA, MSHA and EPA regulations.
Champaign Socialism
But if you really want entertainment — and education about what today’s Republicans are really about, check out Rep. Randy Fine’s (R-FL) tirade. (1:25:15)
He began by asking the AFL-CIO’s Rebecca Reindel whether she had ever worked in the private sector? Her response that she had worked in a bakery, restaurant and ice cream shop didn’t satisfy him because she wasn’t responsible for the implantation of OSHA regulations in those jobs.
“When we have someone representing labor, that is the workers….And there should be some respect, because not a single business would exist in this country if it did not have workers.” — Rep. Ilhan Omar
He kindly assured her that it wasn’t her fault that she was so completely unqualified to be a witness before the Committee, but rather the fault of Democratic members of the Committee who committed the crime of inviting her.
Excuse me if I quote him extensively. But it’s important to understand what we’re dealing with here.
“They knew your background, they knew you didn’t have a single day of experience actually living under the regulations that you strongly think are such a great idea. I think that says a lot about the world we live in.
Yeah, not a knock on you that the Democrats live in this world of champagne socialism, that they couldn’t find one business, they couldn’t find one person in the private sector, they couldn’t find even one worker who had to live under these things to come in here and talk about how all of these regulations are so important. That’s the problem with socialism.
It’s great to think about when you’re in Washington D.C. as a lobbyist, or you’re in the government, but the world that I come from, where I spent 22 years, I had to live under the idiotic regulations that so many politicians came up with, that made it harder for me to hire people to build my business and to grow.
And I have news for you, if you’re in business and your workers get injured, that’s generally bad for your business. If you’re in business and your workers die, that’s generally bad for your business.
Are there bad actors? Are they out there absolutely? But I would also point out there are bad politicians and there are plenty of bad regulators as well.
Now this rant hardly deserves a response, but I will point out a couple of things: First, the Committee Minority (in this case, the Democrats) are only allowed one witness, so it makes sense to invite a witness who has a broad understanding of all the issues that may be raised. When we (the Democrats) were in the majority and had more witnesses, we always invited a worker who had to work in a workplace where there were no effective OSHA standards and they feared for their lives every single day. (Also, you may have noticed that the Republicans didn’t invite any “real” small business owners to the hearing.)
One other thing I need to rant a bit about. Regulators (even “bad regulators”) don’t sit in their little offices all by themselves dreaming up “idiotic” and impractical socialist regulations to cover non-existent issues in order to control American workplaces. Every standard that OSHA issues is the result of years (and sometimes decades) of scientific and economic research, feasibility studies, site visits, cost-benefit analyses, extensive written public comment periods, public hearings that can last weeks and several rounds of painstaking review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
The End is Near
The hearing mercifully ended with closing statements. Rep. Omar provided an angry rebuttal to the Republican attacks, saying that she was tired of Republican attacks on Democratic witness for “not having a real job.” And disgusted by these people who can talk about socialism “without recognizing the lived experience of what brought us here.” She characterized Fine’s remarks as idiotic and reminded the Committee that the only witness on the panel that speaks for workers was Ms. Reindel. “When we have someone representing labor, that is the workers….And there should be some respect, because not a single business would exist in this country if it did not have workers.”
“We all want safe workplaces. Regulation is the cost of doing business; working people’s lives must not be.” — Rebecca Reindel, AFL-CIO Health and Safety Director
Ranking Member McKenzie ended on a high note in his characterization of Ms. Reindel’s defense of strong worker protections: “It is obstinate, it is obstruction and it is not based in any kind of reality.”
But when they go low, I quote Rebecca Reindel: “We all want safe workplaces. Regulation is the cost of doing business; working people’s lives must not be.”
Bottom Line
It is the job of Congress to pass legislation and provide oversight of government agencies and difficult public issues. This Congress has failed. Miserably. (Spend an hour and a half watching this hearing if you don’t believe me.)
The only way we will see real Congressional oversight — especially related to the real problems facing workers today — is for Democrats to take back Congress so that the American people can take an honest look at this administration’s abject failure to protect workers, its failure to support OSHA and MSHA, promote strong, effective regulatory safeguards and adequately fund the agencies that Congress authorized to protect workers.
In November we can make that happen. If we can replace Ryan McKenzie with representatives that represent workers — like Bob Brooks — and do that a few more times in the House and Senate, we will see some real investigations and hearings. Hearings that actually address issues important to workplace safety and workers in general.
You know what to do.
A condition where the economic impact shifts depends on the specific industry structure. My experience showed that many firms adapt quickly when facing new requirements.