The deregulation gamble: When worker safety becomes a political pawn

There’s a peculiar kind of math at work in Washington these days. The Trump administration’s Department of Labor wants to eliminate more than 60 workplace regulations — including requirements for adequate lighting at construction sites and seatbelts for migrant farm workers — just as new research reveals that nearly half of North American workers have experienced workplace accidents or illnesses, either personally or through a family member.

The timing would be comical if it weren’t so concerning. While labour secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer boasts about delivering “the most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government,” the EcoOnline survey of 5,700 workers tells a different story: 81 per cent of workers say they feel safe at work, yet 46 per cent have been touched by workplace incidents. That’s not a ringing endorsement of our current safety systems — it’s evidence we need to do better, not less.

The proposed deregulation reads like a greatest hits collection of “What Could Go Wrong?” Strip away minimum wage protections for 3.7 million home health care workers. Remove requirements for adequate lighting at construction sites. Eliminate seatbelt requirements for agricultural workers. Limit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s ability to penalize employers for unsafe conditions in “inherently risky” professions.

The rationale behind these changes sounds reasonable enough on paper: reduce burdensome regulations, cut compliance costs, restore American prosperity through deregulation. Michael Marsh, president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, captures the frustration perfectly, asking if you can imagine “a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months.”

But here’s where the political rhetoric meets workplace reality. The EcoOnline study found that stress-related incidents accounted for 54 per cent of all workplace accidents and illnesses — rising to 68 per cent in Canada. Chemical exposure affects 44 per cent of workers, with nearly 40 per cent saying their companies aren’t actively working to replace hazardous substances. One-third identify as lone workers, and only 45 per cent of them strongly agree their employers take their safety seriously.

It might be cliche, but we’re talking people — no abstract statistics. The numbers represent the construction worker who falls through a hole because there wasn’t adequate lighting, the home health aide working 60 hours a week without overtime protections, the migrant farm worker afraid to report unsafe conditions for fear of losing their visa renewal.

Rebecca Reindel from the AFL-CIO puts it bluntly: “People are at very great risk of dying on the job already. This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.”

The counterargument isn’t without merit. Carrie Lukas from the Independent Women’s Forum argues that making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities. There’s truth to that — regulatory compliance does add costs, and those costs can limit access to services.

Good intentions not enough

But this misses a fundamental point about workplace safety regulations. They exist not because bureaucrats enjoy creating paperwork, but because experience has taught us that good intentions and market forces alone don’t prevent workplace injuries and deaths.

The requirement for adequate construction site lighting didn’t emerge from regulatory whimsy — it came from workers falling through holes and off scaffolding in poorly lit conditions.

The proposed rule changes reveal a philosophical shift best described as “concerning.” The U.S. government wants to strip OSHA district managers of their authority to require improvements to mine safety plans and training programs, arguing that current regulations give managers “the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress.”

This sounds like procedural righteousness until you remember that mine safety isn’t typically improved by congressional debate — it’s improved by people who understand mining operations requiring specific safety measures.

Regulation has saved lives

Perhaps most telling is the proposal to limit OSHA’s general duty clause for “inherently risky professional activities.” The rule specifically mentions that Congress surely didn’t intend to “eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld.”

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what workplace safety regulation actually does. Nobody’s trying to eliminate punt returns or NASCAR racing. But when a stunt coordinator puts actors at unnecessary risk, or when SeaWorld trainers work with dangerous animals without proper safety protocols, OSHA’s ability to intervene has saved lives.

The EcoOnline survey offers a glimpse of what workers actually want: 70 per cent said they’d feel safer with more digital health and safety tools, and 62 per cent are open to artificial intelligence improving workplace safety. They’re not asking for less safety oversight — they’re asking for smarter, more effective safety systems.

Debbie Berkowitz, former OSHA chief of staff, warns that limiting the agency’s enforcement authority would be a mistake: “Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they’ll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have.”

Workers want safe workplaces

The deregulation push reflects a broader tension in modern business: the balance between regulatory burden and worker protection. But when 81 per cent of workers say they’d consider leaving due to poor working conditions, as the EcoOnline study found, the business case for safety becomes clear. Companies that cut corners on worker safety don’t just risk regulatory penalties — they risk losing their workforce.

The real question isn’t whether we need workplace safety regulations. The question is whether we’re smart enough to design regulations that actually protect workers without strangling business innovation. That requires nuance, expertise and a commitment to getting the details right — qualities that seem in short supply when safety becomes a political football.

As the Trump administration prepares to roll back decades of worker protections, perhaps it’s worth remembering that behind every workplace safety regulation is someone who didn’t make it home at the end of the day.

That’s not red tape — that’s someone’s life.