This month, the US Department of Labor has issued a flurry of proposed new federal rules. Some are innocuous. For instance, one change makes inflationary adjustments to union federal financial reporting rules.
Many others, however, if implemented, could have very damaging effects, making workplaces more dangerous. Some would roll back federal labor standards, including withdrawing minimum wage protections for over 3 million care sector workers.
The comment period will close for one proposal on July 30 and for two dozen more on July 31….The rest remain open for comment until September 2.
In sum, the proposals—argue Julie Su (former secretary of labor under President Joe Biden), Rachel West (former special assistant to Biden for Labor and Workers), and Director of Economy and Jobs Andrew Stettner of the Century Foundation—threaten to “put the lives of workers across the economy at risk.”
What Are the Changes?
Helpfully, the Century Foundation has compiled a list of the 64 proposed changes, of which nearly two-thirds were issued either by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)—which is one way of saying that the changes primarily affect federal safety regulations.
An estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage…and made ineligible for overtime pay.”Of these, 60 of the 64 proposals are not final, as the public comment period remains open: the comment period will close for one proposal on July 30 and for two dozen more on July 31 (some commenters have requested additional time, which may or may not occur). The rest remain open for comment until September 2.
Among the proposed rules changes currently undergoing comments are the following:
- Multiple changes to mining safety rules: Eighteen of the 64 proposed rules changes concern mining safety and health, which include eliminating MHSA district managers’ authority to require mine operators to take additional steps to improve ventilation systems or roof control plans (measures to prevent roof collapses in mines).The national union United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) in its comment letter noted, “The short 30-day comment period provided for the proposed MSHA rule (as well as 17 others that the Agency published at the same time) does not provide ample time to allow the UMWA to properly review, research, and develop meaningful comments.” The union has asked for a 60-day extension to the comment period.
- Minimum wage protections removed for up to 3.7 million home healthcare workers: The Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), under 1975 rules, excluded “workers providing companionship services and live-in domestic employees” from FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. A 2013 rule change, however, prohibited professional home care agencies from claiming this exemption. Now, the Donald Trump administration is seeking to reverse that rule. Cathy Bussewitz at the Associated Press described the effect: “An estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage…and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren’t covered by corresponding state laws.”
- Rollbacks on migrant farmworker safety: The Department of Labor is proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation. Or, as the Trump administration put it, “The Department proposes to rescind requirements…that were collectively referred to in that rule as ‘protections for worker voice and empowerment.’” According to Su and her colleagues, up to 350,000 seasonal foreign farmworkers with H-2A visas would be affected.
A public comment letter from Daniel Sheehan of the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP) is scathing in its assessment: “The farmworkers affected by this rule are predominantly low-income, Spanish- or Indigenous-language-speaking men from rural areas of Latin America…They are essential to the US food supply chain, yet they are also uniquely vulnerable to retaliation, wage theft, and unsafe conditions. Weakening their rights does not improve the efficiency of the labor market—it deepens structural inequities and perpetuates a system of economic dependence and fear.”
- Lights out: Twenty-five of the 64 proposed rules changes involve OSHA, which is responsible for workplace safety. One would rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, which would affect 800,000 construction sites Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO’s occupational safety and health director, told Bussewitz at the AP that rescinding the standard would be a mistake because “there have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there’s not adequate lighting.”
- Reduced discrimination protections: Most notably, this involves rescinding affirmative action provisions for federal contractors to seek out qualified women or people of color for jobs, as well as also related rule changes for apprenticeship programs and workforce development. Additionally, a separate rule change would reduce requirements for contractors to consider hiring people with disabilities, including ending a “seven percent utilization goal for employment of qualified individuals with disabilities.”With contractors in particular, one aspect of the proposed rules changes involve reducing data collection requirements. As Su and her colleagues sardonically note, “Under new rules, federal contractors would no longer be required to collect data critical to identifying barriers to employment, presumably because it’s easier to claim discrimination doesn’t exist if you no longer track evidence of it.”
The above gives a flavor of what is at stake. Additionally, another rule change would allow states to privatize employment placement services. There are also more than a dozen OSHA proposed changes that specifically target safety rules around chemical hazards. See, for example, this proposed change to reduce safety regulations for workers facing possible lead exposure.
“Weakening [farmworker] rights does not improve the efficiency of the labor market—it deepens structural inequities.”
It is also worth noting that a Biden administration proposal to phase out federal subminimum wage certificates for nonprofits employing people with disabilities—formally known as section 14(c) and better known as “sheltered workshops”—long criticized for being exploitative—is out. The rule was proposed in December, 2024, so late in Biden’s term that it was easily withdrawn by administrative action.
The Role of Public Comments
How can advocates and the public respond? One path for challenging the rules is the public comment process. As Mara Youdelman, managing director of federal advocacy for the National Health Law Program, helpfully explains, public comment is mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act.
The public comment process became federal law in 1946. While comments are not all-powerful, they are not toothless either. Indeed, the fact that comments are not toothless helps explain why among the 64 rule proposals, a final one is called “Rescinding Unnecessary Notice and Comment Procedures.”
As Youdelman details, “The agency really has to review all the comments. While it does not have to explain why it did (or did not) make changes suggested by the comments, it does need to address significant issues that commenters raise. The agency will also need to explain the types of comments it received and whether it made any changes to its proposed rule based on those comments.” An agency may override comments, but, if it does, those comments often can serve as the basis for legal challenges.
How to Comment
Comments can vary greatly in length—from a single paragraph to multiple pages. The nonprofit Protect Democracy offers this simple guide for writing comments. Among their pointers: read the regulation first, take a clear stand, name your experience or expertise (lived experience counts as well as academic knowledge), write from your perspective, draw on your own experience in your comments when you can, cite sources that back the claims you make, and, while this part seems obvious—be sure to cite the proposed rule number that you are responding to.
The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation also offers some helpful pointers and offers examples of how past comments have been decisive in how regulations were modified or withdrawn.
Of course, comments are a tactic. They are no more of a substitute for organizing than a lawsuit. Nonetheless, it is easier to stop or alter federal regulations before they are final rather than afterward. So, now would be a good time to read up and speak up.
