Massachusetts, the pioneer in factory safety and health, found a generally high level of cooperation from employers. Sometimes the workers themselves tampered with safety guards, either out of ignorance, resistance to change, or, if they were paid on a piece‑rate basis, a desire to increase their rate of production. Moreover, safety devices were often improperly installed or used. Some, however, resisted the laws, because they resented government interference in principle or they believed that particular safety precautions interfered with efficient production or they considered the cost of installation too high, or all of the above. Many employers went beyond the minimum legal requirements. 57 The low key approach seemed to allay many employers' concerns and won a degree of voluntary cooperation from manufacturers in almost every state involved. The obvious benefits of reduced turnover, increased employee morale, and higher productivity more than offset, in most employers' minds, the required financial outlay for improvements. Manufacturers accepted factory safety and health legislation fairly readily. However, even states such as New York and Massachusetts, which had strong laws and good support for inspection, stressed compliance through cooperation rather than coercion.Ĭompliance with the laws and with inspectors' orders and suggestions varied widely also, but there is no question that enforcement had a significant impact on employers and on workplace safety and health. In some states, delayed hiring of inspection staff made it difficult for them, even if they desired, to start out aggressively enforcing the law and fining large numbers of employers. Right from the start, however, most states adopted a cooperative and educational approach to enforcing workplace safety and health laws.

Some states emphasized enforcement of laws on woman and child workers and other labor legislation rather than safety and health laws. There were wide variations in size of inspection staff, ranging from over a hundred to none at all. Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)Įnforcement of factory acts in the states was as varied, and yet as similar, as the body of laws itself.Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOMBD).Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP).Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP).Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM).Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS).Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (OCIA).Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ).Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).Employment and Training Administration (ETA).Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB).Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB).

Factory town rufus