Bills Introduced to Exempt Home Offices from OSHA Regulation

(January 31, 2000) Several bills have been filed in the House that would exempt home offices from OSHA regulation. OSHA recently issued, and then withdrew, an advisory opinion that employers are responsible for complying with the OSH Act for their home employees.

At least three bills have already been filed. One bill, filed by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) on January 24, is aimed specifically at exempting home offices from the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

This bill, HR 3518 IH, provides that:

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to employment performed in a workplace through the use of a telephone, computer, or other electronic device which is located in the residence of the employee engaged in such employment."

Rep. Davis represents a suburban district in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. This district includes both a high concentration of high tech companies, and considerable traffic congestion.

The cosponsors of his bill include Representatives of three other suburban Washington DC districts: James Moran (D-VA), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Connie Morella (R-MD).

Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL)

A second bill, filed by Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL), is a broader bill. It would exempt all home employment. This bill, HR 3530 IH, provides that "Nothing in this Act shall apply to employment performed in a workplace which is located in the residence of the employee engaged in such employment."

A third bill, HR 3539 IH, was filed on January 27 by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). However, it is substantially the same as the Shaw bill.

These bills are a reaction to an advisory opinion issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on November 15, 1999. The opinion was not publicized until January.

This opinion stated that:

"The OSH Act applies to work performed by an employee in any workplace within the United States, including a workplace located in the employee's home. All employers, including those which have entered into "work at home" agreements with employees, are responsible for complying with the OSH Act and with safety and health standards."

On January 6, Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman "withdrew" the opinion, and called for a "national dialogue" on the subject.

On January 26, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Charles Jeffress, submitted a statement to the House Education and Workforce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in which he stated that "OSHA will not hold employers liable for work activities in employees' home offices."

Lawmakers are not satisfied. "I want to make sure that the Department of Labor does NOT destroy the option of working at home for parents of children across this country," said Rep. Shaw in a press release on January 24. "Their ill-conceived policy threatens the growth of telecommuting and inhibits the ability of single parents, former welfare recipients and anyone who is trying to raise a family and work at the same time.  I am sure that when OSHA was created, this wasn’t what its framers had in mind."

"Given the way this administration does business, I'm taking nothing for granted," said Rep. Hayworth.

"These regulations are anti-family and anti-environment. Companies will now rethink a telecommuting option for workers. If workers can no longer work out of the home, it will mean more commuting, more pollution, more traffic congestion, and less time with family," said Rep. Hayworth. "This administration has put the interests of trial lawyers ahead of the environment and the family."

In addition, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), has suggested that he might use the appropriations process to limit OSHA authority. He is Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.