Latest news with #DepartmentOfLabor
Entrepreneur
3 hours ago
- Business
- Entrepreneur
How Much Do Amazon Employees Make? Salaries Revealed
New data revealed how much Amazon pays its employees, including CEO Andy Jassy. How well does e-commerce giant Amazon pay its employees? Newly available public documents revealed the salary ranges Amazon paid software engineers, data scientists, product managers, and other staff. According to the filings, obtained by Business Insider, Amazon is paying software engineers in its Amazon Web Services cloud division as much as $185,000, while software developers working at make up to $263,700. Related: Here's How Much a Typical Nvidia Employee Makes in a Year The filings also show that Amazon pays data scientists as much as $230,900. Financial analysts take home a maximum of $204,028, and technical product managers can make up to $235,200. The data is drawn from 11,300 documents that Amazon filed with the U.S. Department of Labor in the first quarter of the year while onboarding foreign workers. The data only pertains to foreign hires and only includes base salary, not signing bonuses, stock options, or other forms of compensation. In comparison, Meta pays $120,000 to $480,000, Google pays $109,180 to $340,000, and Microsoft pays $82,971 to $284,000 for software engineering talent. The filings show that Amazon pays other roles on the team as follows: Applied Scientist: $83,491 to $260,000 $83,491 to $260,000 Business Analyst: $79,518 to $143,100 $79,518 to $143,100 Data Engineer: $70,262 to $236,344 $70,262 to $236,344 Product Manager: $109,782 to $200,000 $109,782 to $200,000 Program Manager: $81,600 to $162,700 $81,600 to $162,700 Quality Assurance Engineer: $86,320 to $185,000 While these roles can pay in the six figures, they are outside the norm for most Amazon workers. Approximately 65% of Amazon's workforce is employed in operations and fulfillment roles in its warehouses, including positions like warehouse associates and delivery drivers. That composition is reflected in more general measures of Amazon's pay levels. For example, according to Amazon's annual proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission this year, the median global Amazon employee made $37,181 in 2024. The same document showed that Amazon paid CEO Andy Jassy $1,596,889 in 2024, or about 43 times more than the median global employee. Related: Here's How Much a Typical Google Employee Makes in a Year U.S.-based Amazon employees are compensated better than their global counterparts. The annual proxy statement revealed that the median annual compensation was $47,990 for full-time U.S. employees, an approximately $10,000 increase from the pay of a median global employee. According to Amazon's latest quarterly earnings report, released in May, the company employs 1.56 million people worldwide.
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Gen Z Burnout Is Impacting 83% — Here's How Managers Can Reduce Stress
Gen Z burnout is taking a toll on productivity, but managers have the power to make a difference. Is Gen Z burnout real? According to the United States Department of Labor, 83% of this generation of employees experience the highest level of work-related stress, and 54% report that occupational burnout is significantly impacting their personal lives. Now, Gen Z is not the only generation going through corporate stress. However, they are burning out at considerably higher rates than any previous generation. Why? Why is one generation burning out at such a massive rate? Several factors contribute to this issue facing Gen Z. Why Gen Z Burnout Is Different (And Worse) One of the most significant factors is that 74% of managers view this generation as problematic and challenging. So, when a Gen Z worker who is exceptional and talented comes through the doors for an interview, it's no wonder that they feel compelled to combat the stereotype of their generation. Over 70% of managers already view Gen Z as a problem. So, imagine being from this generation and trying to prove yourself in the workplace? It can't be easy. When you step into the office, you already have all the cards stacked against you. If a Gen Z worker wants to stand above the assumptions that encircles them, they need to work above and beyond the job requirements. This means that instead of finding balance, they overwork to prove their worth to the company. After all, when 42% of hiring managers consider age during resume reviews and 4 in 10 claim to have an outright bias against Gen Z candidates, it's no surprise that employees from this generation feel like they have to work twice as hard to secure their job and to prove themselves as valuable to managers. Having to work above and beyond and feeling like you can never say no or establish boundaries at work is the surest way to set yourself up for burnout. According to a 2025 report from meQ., a people analytics software company, many are feeling deep uncertainty, pessimism, and disconnection. When they surveyed US-based employees, they found that nearly half (42%) of workers report a high degree of stress due to job uncertainty. Among those who experienced a high degree of uncertainty-related stress, 68% showed signs of higher productivity impairment due to burnout. Jack Kelly, a senior contributor to Forbes, discusses the impact of uncertainty on the stress levels of Gen Z. In his article, he suggests, 'The promise of the American Dream, once touted as the reward for academic success and higher education, has turned sour for many Gen Z. Parents encouraged their children to excel in school and pursue college degrees, assuring them of a bright future. However, this path has led many young adults into a financial quagmire.' The job market is constantly shifting for Gen Z, and many of them are tired of trying to navigate the rising tides of change. A recent article in Fortune highlighted this phenomenon, finding that many employees are highly stressed about world affairs, with almost 70% stating that it's impacting their productivity in the workplace. Let's stop for a moment and let this sink in. If you're a manager right now, there's a massive chance that more than half of your employees are unable to give 100% because they're doom-scrolling world events and ending up stuck in fear. So, what can you do differently? How can managers reduce Gen Z burnout? Here are three ways you can help reduce their stress by 40% this week. Three Immediate Actions That Work 1) Micro-Feedback Systems. I know what you're thinking. What exactly are micro-feedback systems? Well, they're small-dosed systems that give you the ability to understand where your employee is coming from and how you can support them in real-time. These can take the form of short surveys, emoji reactions to questions, or even thumbs-up/down buttons. Micro-feedback gives you and your team the chance to converse and get to the heart of the problem, without overwhelming them with a long form to fill out. 2) Vulnerability-Based Leadership I like to refer to this practice as a go-first methodology. Vulnerability-based leadership gives your team the confidence to open up because they have the chance to watch you do it first. Employees, especially those in Generation Z, are often reluctant to open up about their stress levels immediately. But when you lead by example, it empowers them to share about what they're going through because they feel supported. 3) Transparent Salary Progression Paths Gen Z is pragmatic. They want to work for companies where they can excel and see a future. When you allow this generation of workers to see how they can do that with a salary blueprint, they feel like they can trust the process and work toward a tangible goal. Being transparent about salary progression is key to retaining Gen Z for the long haul. So, What Now? How do you combat Gen Z burnout? Well, traditional management methodology has been the standard approach for years. Even during the Stone Age, Fred Flintstone still had to answer to a higher authority before he could leave his 9-5 and enjoy the weekend. But what if we shook it up a little? What if you could reduce the stress level of your Gen Z employees by 40%? If you try out these three strategies, you might find yourself with a happier, more constructive, and dare I say, less stressed Gen Z workers.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
More men are returning to the office. Here's why that matters for women.
The return to office is in full swing, but you might notice more men around the water cooler. According to the Department of Labor, men are returning to the office in greater numbers than women. In 2024, 29% of employed men reported working from home, down from 34% the previous year. Approximately 36% of women worked from home last year, unchanged from 2023. What's behind these numbers? It's likely a result of return-to-office initiatives in male-dominated industries like tech, Cory Stahle, senior economist at Indeed, told Yahoo Finance. Women accounted for only about a quarter of computer and mathematical jobs in 2024, according to the data. For some roles, like computer programmers and computer hardware engineers, the share is even lower — 17.8% and 14.3% — respectively. 'Many of these return-to-office efforts are coming at a time when demand for workers in male-dominated industries has weakened, giving employers the upper hand,' Stahle said. As for the unbudging number of women working remotely over that two-year period, there could be an explanation for that finding as well, according to Stahle. Female-dominated fields such as private education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and state and local government have been less affected by return-to-work mandates, he said. 'Many of the jobs in these industries are already in-person roles.' Obstacle for gender equity Whether women are trying to move up or break into fields where office time is required, the trend away from remote arrangements could have far-reaching repercussions for gender equity. Here's why: Nearly 9 in 10 CEOs said in a 2024 survey that they 'will reward employees who make an effort to come into the office with favorable assignments, raises, or promotions.' That could also play out in the gender wage gap that has persisted across industries for decades. Last year, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned, according to Pew Research Center. Will the pay gap get worse if in-office attendance is a prerequisite for pay bumps? "In theory, remote work can be viewed as either a positive or negative amenity: It may offer greater scheduling flexibility, enhancing work-life balance, but it may also limit access to face-to-face mentoring and raise concerns about potential career growth penalties,' said Zoë Cullen, a lead researcher for a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study on remote work. We do know that roughly 8 in 10 CEOs envision a full return to the office in the next three years, and many of those making it mandatory have threatened employees with termination if they fail to follow the company's return-to-office mandate. So far, the types of jobs being hit by these mandates have been well-paying, white-collar roles, Stahle said. 'If a worker can't or chooses not to return to the office and loses their higher-paying job as a result, that will have clear implications for the pay gap and the economy,' he said. The arc of remote work Remote work has been facing into the wind all year. Organizations that describe their workplace environment as remote shrank dramatically between 2024 and 2025, according to a study by Payscale. Despite the pressure, plenty of workers, not just women, are standing their ground on full-blown return-to-office attendance and are willing to take a pay cut to hold on to some flexibility. A majority of job candidates would accept a pay cut to work remotely, according to a new survey by Criteria Corp. On average, employees are willing to accept a 25% pay cut for partly or fully remote roles, according to the NBER study. All that said, the balance of power has shifted. In 2023, when workers had the upper hand in a tight labor market, the odds of being penalized for not coming into the office were low, or in many cases, not realistic for employers, who were well aware that workplace flexibility was one way that they could hang on to and lure skilled workers. Return-to-office demands by many tech-oriented employers, including Amazon, Google, and Meta, hit a fever pitch earlier this year. 'In a softening labor market, employers have more leverage to demand in-office work,' Marc Cenedella, founder of Ladders Inc., a career site for jobs that pay $100,000 or more, told Yahoo Finance. 'The great resignation is over. The great return is upon us.' Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Hybrid to the rescue Compromise, however, has inched in. And that playbook can work for many women, who still shoulder a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities for children and aging parents, and need and value flexibility more than men. Flexible work benefits have stabilized enough to suggest a permanent place in employers' benefits, according to a new SHRM Employee Benefits Survey. Overall, hybrid office environments — where attendance is generally three days a week for so-called knowledge workers (not front-line ones) — are the norm now at more than half of companies, followed by traditional office environments at 27%, with remote-first environments making up only 16% of office types, per Payscale data. In fact, while 4 in 10 organizations deployed a return-to-office mandate in recent years, an increasing number have done a bit of soft shoe around the specific requirements and have loosened the rules depending on job type and for those who are top aging population factor Long-term trends in the workforce could ultimately help women gain ground. 'As the baby boomer generation ages and companies grapple with fewer younger workers and our labor market tightens, companies can't afford to overlook any segment of the workforce, especially women,' said Gwenn Rosener, co-founder of recruiting firm FlexProfessionals. Because fewer people are born each year, our workforce is going to start to shrink, and we need workers to make products, provide services, and pay taxes, Bradley Schurman, a demographic strategist, told Yahoo Finance. 'So, as we enter this period of the Super Age, with more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 18, this is going to create market conditions that are going to increase the demand for workers of all ages because the supply is so low,' he said. 'Women will be able to negotiate for greater benefits and for greater salaries and more flexibility. And it's not just women, disabled and other marginalized groups will likely benefit too." Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work," and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Life after DOGE
When Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency took a chainsaw to the federal workforce this winter, the dust felt like it might never settle. The administration said the initiative was designed to "streamline the Federal Government, eliminate unnecessary programs, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency." Chaotic rollouts, weekend emails, contentious court battles, tech wunderkinds let loose, and muddled directives came to define the early months of the Trump administration's cost-cutting effort. Nobody knew what the next week might bring. Now, as the initiative's six-month mark approaches — and a Supreme Court ruling allowed the stalled firings to proceed — many former federal workers have had time to reflect on what it all meant. "It's always going to be part of who I am, regardless of what my jobs entail in the future," former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee Tom Di Liberto told Business Insider. "I'll always be known as that, as part of that group of people." In a series of conversations with BI, six former government employees spoke about their career shifts, their advice to other workers, and what life is like outside the government. Egan Reich, 45, Department of Labor Reich joined the Department of Labor in 2010. He worked in a variety of roles, including director of media and editorial services. During Trump's first term, Reich said, federal workers were largely left alone to do their jobs. When the president's second term came around, the energy across federal agencies was noticeably different: Reich said that press inquiries revolved around DOGE, HR, or IT, rather than grants, policy, or enforcement. "For a couple months, as appointees trickled in and DOGE started to make itself known, it became a very strange, paranoid, alienating experience," Reich said. "It became clear they really wanted people gone." He accepted the agency's second deferred resignation offer in April, which allowed employees to resign while receiving pay through the fall. "There was just no way I was going to make it through four years of this," he said. Reich is now on the job hunt, finishing up a TV pilot with his brother, and spending more time with his daughter. He's casting a wide net when it comes to communications roles, and has applied for around 25 jobs, he said. He tries hard to ensure he's not falling into self-pity. "I'm glad that I'm not there, but I'm anxious, right? I'm just knowing I need to pay the mortgage and find a job, and hopefully it will be one where I can still spend time with my daughter." His day-to-day hasn't changed much: He wakes up and goes to bed at the same time, and school drop-off and pick-up remain the same. His disorientation stems from something a bit more existential. "It's been a lot more of a change in my mind and ways of looking at the world than lifestyle. Something has definitely broken. It's a lot bigger than my job," he said. Kira Carrigan, 36, Office of Personnel Management Carrigan started at OPM in December 2024. She had a remote job as an HR specialist. Carrigan has been unable to search for a new role because she's moving across the country for her husband's military job. Federal jobs are especially important for military spouses, since they typically offer more scheduling and work-from-home flexibility than the private sector. She started working at OPM on December 16, and was fired less than two months later on a mass video call. "I miss my job and the remote work ability to allow me continued employment through my military spouse relocation," Carrigan said. Carrigan said she refused deferred resignation both times it was offered, and she's pursuing an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board in a last-ditch attempt to regain her federal employment. "I do want to return, but I would have significant moral issues serving under this administration," she said. Barring a return to the federal government, she said, "I'm hoping to find something in my local city government or school district." Rachel Brittin, 47, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Brittin started at NOAA in 2023. She coordinated with the agency's private and public sector stakeholders. Brittin was first fired from NOAA on February 27, reinstated, and fired again on April 10. "Losing my job at NOAA was more than a career setback — it was emotionally exhausting and deeply disorienting," Brittin said. "I poured myself into the mission, only to be abruptly cut out." Getting fired as a probationary employee was a challenge; Brittin said she didn't have any chance to defend her record. Brittin said she's applied to dozens of jobs, including in the private sector, and hopes to stay in communications at a mission-driven organization, but it's been hard to land anything with so many "highly qualified candidates" on the market. Ideally, she'd stay at a science-based organization, but is open to other opportunities. Brittin sees her job in the federal workforce as an "asset," in part because she mastered in-demand skills: "Navigating complexity, staying mission-focused, working under pressure, adapting to change." For now, she's "hanging on" financially, and her husband has a secure job that's keeping them afloat. She's tried to stay busy by taking online courses, volunteering to help friends and startups, and networking. "Knowing others in the same boat as me has helped me feel not so alone," she said. Tom Di Liberto, 40, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Di Liberto started at NOAA in 2023. He worked in public affairs and was a climate spokesperson. After being fired as a probationary employee in February, Di Liberto said he was lucky to find work as a media director at a nonprofit climate organization. But getting there wasn't easy, and he knows many others are still grinding through the job hunt. He said former federal workers should remember being fired doesn't reflect their worth and they shouldn't be afraid to discuss the reductions in force with potential employers. "It was also a bit weird during the interview process when asked to describe yourself and why you want this job. I did not have plans of getting a new job," he said. He said he made sure to emphasize his primary mission is addressing climate change. His job search began in February, and he started his new job in early June. He spent frugally and leaned on his wife's income to support their family. During those months, he cooked more and cut back on takeout; he also prioritized his mental health with walks and Legos. The private sector has been an adjustment, he said. It's been odd, for example, to work with fewer people and be able to upgrade software quickly instead of over a few months. Di Liberto also estimated that the NGO jobs he was looking at paid between 20% and 40% less than his role at NOAA. He's reminded of his past life living in DC, where he encounters others who were also let go from government jobs. Di Liberto's first grader recently brought up his father's job loss in school, where it led to a class-wide conversation, he said. Jonathan Kamens, 55, US Digital Service Kamens started at USDS in 2023. He was a software engineer and was detailed to a cybersecurity role at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Kamens was fired from the US Digital Service — now the US DOGE Service — in February, and he landed a new job in March working remotely for a private-sector company based in Australia. He said that he's fortunate to be getting a paycheck, but the slashing of the federal workforce continues to weigh him down. "In micro, I have a job, I'm getting paid to work, I can support my family. But in macro, the whole world is burning," Kamens said. He added that it's difficult to live his normal life "and continue to work in a system that in many ways is disintegrating around you." He said that he's "minimally engaged" with other colleagues who left the federal workforce because it was taking a toll on his mental health. He said public servants who are still employed with the federal government face challenges under the continued influence of DOGE. "There is a really strong normalcy bias happening," Kamens said. "In order for them to continue to function, they have to believe that this is just another administration and it will be fine after the midterms or 2028." Nagela Nukuna, 30, US Digital Service Nukuna started at USDS in 2022. She advised on and implemented domestic policy, working across agencies on funding, innovation, and automation projects. Nukuna never saw herself working for a nonprofit. But that's where she landed after she was fired from the USDS on February 14. "I ran through most of my savings to weather that time," Nukuna said. "Luckily I was able to get a job but I did have some financial hardship and strain over that time, especially because it was just unexpected." Her government job paid a lot less than private sector positions she'd held before, so she was in the red since taking her job at USDS. Her spending didn't drastically change after getting fired, since it was already carefully calculated. Nukuna began to look for jobs outside the government after the election. Some of her work at USDS was related to immigration, and she thought she might be impacted by future job cuts. She said she applied to 85 jobs, mainly in the tech and AI spaces, and "got a bajillion rejections" before landing her current role at an education nonprofit a month after her firing. Generally, Nukuna tried to use her past government work to her advantage during the job search, and said some interviewers asked if she could work with people she disagreed with politically. "Luckily, because I started earlier, I had some leads already and people that I've been talking to, and I just went on high drive once I got fired," she said. "There was a period where I was doing like five interviews a week and all day exercises." She said she does mental health check-ins with friends who are still working for the federal government. Nukuna said she likely would have left her USDS role voluntarily due to the mental toll it was taking on her. Although she had previously worked in the private sector, she chose the nonprofit route this time because she was "really drawn to the mission" and the people. Read the original article on Business Insider Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
16-07-2025
- Forbes
OSHA Seeks To Disclaim Authority Over Sports And Entertainment Workers
Photo byThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the United States Department of Labor, is tasked with enforcing the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), a 1970 law meant to improve the health and safety of American workers and their workplaces. The law's application to the inherently dangerous occupation of professional sports has been unclear. However, OSHA has taken legal action in the entertainment world, including an effort that ended SeaWorld shows in which trainers went into the water with orcas, over the dissent of now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Relying on Kavanaugh's dissent, OSHA has filed a proposed rule in which it now says it has no authority over 'known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.' Free Willy's Trainers Among other regulatory dictates, the OSH Act requires employers to provide their 'employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.' This requirement is known as the General Duty Clause. To establish a violation of the General Duty Clause, OSHA must establish that: (1) an activity or condition in the employer's workplace presented a hazard to an employee; (2) either the employer or the industry recognized the condition or activity as a hazard; (3) the hazard was likely to cause, or actually caused, death or serious physical harm; and (4) a feasible means to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard existed. In 2010, after the orca Tilikum caused the death of a SeaWorld trainer, OSHA cited SeaWorld for violations of the General Duty Clause. Following an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge found in OSHA's favor. That decision was upheld in 2014 by a split decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The majority held that eliminating 'waterwork' (trainers swimming with the whales) was a practical method of abating the known risks to the trainers without materially affecting SeaWorld's business. The case included a notable dissent from then-Judge Kavanaugh. In Kavanaugh's view: 'In the sports and entertainment fields, the activity itself frequently carries some risk that cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering the nature of the activity as defined within the industry. Tackling is part of football, speeding is part of stock car racing, playing with dangerous animals is part of zoo and animal shows, and punching is part of boxing, as those industries define themselves.' Consequently, Kavanaugh argued, OSHA was without the authority to 'completely forbid an industry from offering its product' and stated further that 'in sports events and entertainment shows, there is no distinction between the product being offered and its production: the product is the production.' OSHA On The Sidelines OSHA has jurisdiction over almost all private sector employees in the United States, which would also include players in the major American professional sports leagues. However, despite the obvious and extensive injury risks associated with playing professional sports, OSHA has never taken any action in that arena. In fact, in the few instances in which OSHA has received inquiries concerning its regulatory authority over NFL players, it has declined to engage. In response to letters from an insurance company and fans, OSHA has implausibly stated that NFL players are independent contractors, and not employees, and therefore not within its jurisdiction. Additionally, in a 2008 letter, OSHA stated that it had 'no specific standards that address protection for professional athletes participating in athletic competitions,' and that '[i]n most cases . . . OSHA does not take enforcement action with regard to professional athletes.' Indeed, even amid and after the concussion crises and litigation concerning the NFL in the 2010s, OSHA did not seek to get involved. In a 2018 law review article, my co-authors and I examined at length OSHA's authority over the NFL workplace and the political and practical reasons for its non-involvement. Notably, it is difficult to assess how OSHA could regulate the NFL workplace, i.e., which activities (e.g., tackles, hits) it could ban or restrict, without fundamentally changing the nature of the game. Ultimately, given that NFL players are represented by a powerful union that has collectively bargained extensive health and safety provisions into the collective bargaining agreement with the league, OSHA's involvement was always highly questionable (though the use of Guardian Caps in the NFL is generally consistent with the General Duty Clause). OSHA Quits The Game On July 1, 2025, OSHA filed a proposed rule through which it seeks to interpret the General Duty Clause as excluding from its jurisdiction 'known hazards that are inherent and inseparable from the core nature of a professional activity or performance.' More specifically, OSHA says it cannot 'prohibit, restrict, or penalize inherently risky activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.' In crafting the proposed rule, OSHA quoted extensively from Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in the SeaWorld case, though it did not analyze how its proposed rule would apply in practice. OSHA also claims that its regulation of the sports and entertainment industries invokes the major questions doctrine, through which, according to OSHA, regulatory agencies are not to act on questions of 'vast economic and political significance without a clear congressional mandate.' In OSHA's view, there is no indication that the General Duty Clause was intended by Congress to 'prohibit the core design of performances or sports.' OSHA concluded that its new rule would affect individuals classified as professional athletes, actors, dancers, musicians and singers, and other entertainers and performers. In total, there are an estimated 115,620 people employed in these roles. Confusingly, OSHA estimates that the rule will only affect 1% of these employees, or about 1,100 people. This estimate is hard to square with the fact that in any given year, there are about 2,000 players in the NFL, 1,000 players in MLB, 750 players in the NHL, and 500 players in the NBA. OSHA further estimates that 514 employers would be affected by the rule but did not explicitly reference or discuss any such employers. OSHA then estimated, without any explanation, that the rule would save each employer an average of $1,000 annually, resulting in a total estimated cost savings of $514,000. While professional sports have not faced OSHA action, entertainment productions – such as the Ringling Brothers circus and the Broadway production of Spider-Man – occasionally have. Consequently, OSHA's estimated cost savings seem to have at least some basis. Commentators At The Bat The public has until August 30, 2025 to submit comments on OSHA's proposed rule before OSHA can issue a final, binding rule. OSHA has specifically asked the public to weigh in on how many employees and employers would be affected by the rule and its potential benefits and costs. The NFLPA and MLBPA declined to comment about whether they intend to submit comments to OSHA. Given that OSHA has not previously involved itself in professional sports, the more likely commentary would come from employees and their unions in the entertainment world.
