Talk:Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States)

Cites

needs citations to federal statutes and regulations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.165.191 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Page defaults to staying at the stable title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States) → Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 – Normal statute name includes year, but page already exists Wikidea 16:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Wikidea: (Variously named) occupational safety and health laws have been passed in many countries. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all in 1970, right? Hence, no conflict. All the more reason. Wikidea 21:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move. There's no evidence that the official name of this Act is also it's common name. Indeed, many reliable sources (including a few government web sites) state the name of the Act without adding the year. But there's an additional reason to maintain the current name -- there are many same-titled Acts, each applying to its own jurisdiction. And so, the real need for disambiguation is for the jurisdiction and not the year of enactment. For example, who but a specialist in international law will know that OSHA 1994 is a Malaysian law, but that OSHA 2000 applies to New South Wales? An insistence on using the official name will not help the general reader find what they are looking for. Quite the opposite, it will hinder that goal. The article's current title is quite clear in letting the reader know that this is the article for the U.S. law. It should not be changed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Question, Is this the only Occupational Safety and Health Act passed by the US? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's the only one passed at the federal level. But there are same-titled state laws, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Were any state laws passed in 1970? As far as I know, all state laws were passed after the 1970 law (which authorized states to adopt their own OSH acts to set higher standards if they wished without triggering federal pre-emption). - Tim1965 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Before 1970 was there no federal occupational safety and health law? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, no federal law prior to 1970. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no federal law of general applicability. There were special-purpose laws, such as the Atomic Energy Act and the Walsh-Healey Act (regarding work performed under government contracts). But, for the most part, the regulation of occupational safety was left to the states prior to 1970. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• In that case the current title is unambiguous. If a new version is ever promulgated, then it will become ambiguous. This is not a thing to worry about at this time. On the other hand, unless there is no other Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (United States) would still be necessary as a disambiguator, and most people probably will not know that it refers to the US federal act just by the date, so (United States) is still useful.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move. This move would make the subject even more vague as there are other OSHA laws in other countries. While the official title of the law is the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970," I don't think most people would consider that the common colloquial name. Unless we have a new MASSIVE overhaul to OSHA, I don't think there's a need for this full title change. Simply mentioning that it's the 1970 law in the article should be entirely sufficient. PureRED | talk to me | 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Wikipedia naming conventions for American legislation suggest two guidelines. First, that the year be included where that is in common use. Second, that federal laws use no additional identifier (such as "(United States)"); a disambiguation hatnote should be used to direct the user to non-primary legislation. Third, that an additional identifier (such as "(United States)") be used only if there are other nations which passed legislation with the same title in the same year. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support since the proposed move location uses natural disamhuguation and seems to be a valid name for the subject, possibly being a WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly the official name, but it isn't the common name. The Environmental Protection Agency doesn't feel it needed to specify the year (https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-occupational-safety-and-health-act) and neither did the authors of a recently-published legal guide (https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Practical_Guide_to_the_Occupational_Sa.html?id=FbUvT4HUn64C). NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a world outside United States. It has acts as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support by labor unions of the "Johnson Bill"

The page currently states that "Many labor leaders, including the leadership of the AFL-CIO, did not fight for the legislation, claiming workers had little interest in the bill" offering a book called _Bitter Wages_ as a reference (with no page numbers as part of the citation). I don't have access to the text of that book at the moment, but I do have access to a web publication from the US Department of Labor on the history of the bill the related legislation.

The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous Regarding the "Johnson Bill", it says

Organized labor supported the bill. George Meany, AFL-CIO president, headed a long list of union witnesses at the congressional hearings.

I am inclined to give weight to this reference over the citation in place, although I'm tempted to spend a couple of bucks on a used paperback copy of _Bitter Wages_ to attempt either verification or complete refutation.DoctorCaligari (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709205219/http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/dpt.htm to http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/dpt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Business

Purpose of Occupational Health & Safety Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.183.201 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)