Maryland Passed a Worker-Safety Law. Now the Agency Enforcing It Says It Needs More Staff.
workplace · October 8, 2026
Maryland passed a law designed to strengthen workplace-safety protections for public employees.
Now the agency responsible for enforcing those protections says it did not receive additional enforcement resources to do the additional work.
That deserves attention.
On October 7, 2026, officials from the Maryland Department of Labor and Maryland Occupational Safety and Health appeared before the General Assembly's Joint Committee on Fair Practices and State Personnel Oversight to discuss implementation of the Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act.
The following morning, Maryland Matters reported that MOSH had assessed $125,150 in civil penalties against state and local government employers under the expanded enforcement system.
That means the law is not sitting completely dormant.
Enforcement is happening.
But the hearing exposed another problem.
Who is going to enforce the law if the enforcement agency itself does not have enough people?
The Law Changed. The Enforcement Workforce Apparently Did Not.
MOSH Assistant Commissioner Christopher Williamson told lawmakers something that should not get lost underneath the penalty numbers:
"We were not given any additional enforcement resources to do additional public sector work as part of the [Davis Martinez] law."
That is significant.
Maryland expanded public-sector enforcement.
Public employers can now face monetary penalties.
Reporting requirements increased.
A workplace-violence prevention standard was required.
Public-sector safety received a higher level of statutory accountability.
But according to MOSH leadership, additional enforcement personnel did not automatically come with those responsibilities.
That creates an obvious question.
Did Maryland expand the mission without expanding the capacity to perform it?
Public safety agencies know this problem well.
Add responsibilities.
Add reporting.
Add policies.
Add programs.
Add inspections.
Add expectations.
Keep roughly the same workforce.
Then wonder why everything takes longer.
The Penalty Numbers Need Better Explanation
The reported $125,150 figure is important.
It should also be understood correctly.
Maryland Matters reported that regulators assessed $125,150 in civil penalties against public employers during the first eight months of enforcement.
The October 7 hearing also discussed approximately 40 public-sector inspections and enforcement actions arising from the new law.
But earlier MOSH reporting contains enforcement statistics presented through different categories, including inspections, cases resulting in citations, individual citations, serious violations, initial penalties, settlements, and amounts still owed.
Those numbers should not automatically be treated as interchangeable.
An initial penalty assessed is not necessarily the same thing as a final negotiated penalty.
A citation is not the same thing as an inspection.
An inspection containing several violations is still one inspection.
An amount assessed is not necessarily an amount collected.
That distinction is important.
The State should publish a simple enforcement dashboard showing:
- inspections opened,
- inspections completed,
- employers cited,
- individual violations issued,
- serious violations,
- initial penalties,
- negotiated or final penalties,
- penalties collected,
- cases still open,
- and average time from complaint to resolution.
If Maryland wants public-sector safety enforcement to create accountability, the public should be able to understand what the numbers actually mean.
AFSCME Is Now Raising a Staffing Question About MOSH
AFSCME Maryland Council 3 also addressed the committee.
Christian Gobel, the union's legislative and political coordinator, pointed to MOSH staffing as a concern.
The current State budget reportedly funds 97 positions for Maryland's occupational safety agency.
Gobel told lawmakers that the agency previously had as many as 200 positions and argued that staffing should be significantly increased.
That historical comparison is AFSCME's assertion.
But it creates an interesting parallel.
For years, AFSCME has argued that correctional staffing should not be judged solely by how many authorized positions happen to be vacant.
The larger question is whether the authorized workforce is sufficient to perform the mission safely.
Now apply that same standard to MOSH.
Ninety-seven funded positions tells us how many positions Maryland has authorized.
It does not tell us how many people MOSH actually needs.
Those are different numbers.
We Need a Workload-Based Staffing Number
This is where Maryland should avoid another denominator debate.
How many inspectors are authorized?
How many positions are funded?
How many positions are filled?
Those numbers matter.
But another number matters more:
How many inspectors are actually required to perform the work?
That assessment should consider:
complaints,
inspections,
fatality investigations,
workplace-violence cases,
follow-up inspections,
citation deadlines,
settlement activity,
consultation responsibilities,
data collection,
training,
public-sector reporting,
and the additional obligations created by the Davis Martinez Act.
Maybe 97 positions are enough.
Maybe they are not.
Maybe 200 would be excessive.
Maybe it would not.
The point is that neither number answers the staffing question by itself.
Start with the workload. Then determine the workforce.
That is the same standard that should apply inside DPSCS.
Legislators Are Asking the Same Question
This was not simply AFSCME criticizing staffing.
Senator Clarence Lam raised the larger enforcement problem during the hearing.
His concern was essentially this:
Stronger standards accomplish only so much if there are not enough people available to determine whether employers are actually complying with them.
That is difficult to argue with.
You can write the strongest workplace-safety regulation imaginable.
If complaints sit uninvestigated, inspections are delayed, follow-up takes too long, or enforcement personnel are overwhelmed, the protection becomes weaker in practice.
Senator Katie Fry Hester also raised concerns about workplace violence among Maryland State employees.
The hearing referenced federal data showing approximately 66.9 serious workplace-violence injury cases per 10,000 Maryland State government workers, compared with a national State-government rate of approximately 37.0.
That number requires precision.
Those figures represent injury-incidence rates.
They are not a count of every violent incident occurring in State government.
Still, the comparison deserves examination.
Especially in a State that just enacted legislation specifically requiring stronger workplace-violence protections for public employees.
This Matters to DPSCS Even Without a New DPSCS Citation
Nothing from the October 7 hearing establishes that DPSCS received any of the reported citations.
It does not establish a new DPSCS-specific violation.
That distinction needs to remain clear.
The significance is broader.
Maryland has now created a stronger external enforcement mechanism for public employees who face occupational hazards.
That can matter tremendously inside DPSCS.
Correctional facilities.
Community supervision.
Field assignments.
Workplace violence.
Equipment.
Training.
Staffing.
Recognized hazards.
Organizational risk.
Employees can raise concerns internally.
AFSCME can advocate.
DPSCS can create policies.
Management can implement safety initiatives.
But MOSH represents something different.
External enforcement.
That matters when an internal disagreement becomes a question of whether an employer is meeting an occupational-safety obligation.
But external enforcement only works if the external enforcer has enough capacity to do the job.
Then There Is the October 1 Deadline
There is another issue that should not disappear underneath the staffing discussion.
The Davis Martinez Act says:
"On or before October 1, 2026, the Commissioner, in consultation with the Board, shall adopt regulations" establishing workplace-violence protections for employees of public bodies.
That is statutory language.
Not a goal.
Not a suggested timeline.
Shall adopt.
As of October 8, MOSH's public-facing webpage still describes the Workplace Violence Prevention Standard as being developed and links to a document identified as the Draft Workplace Violence Prevention Standard as of September 17, 2026.
The October 7 hearing indicated that the MOSH Advisory Board had approved the draft in late September.
That is progress.
But Advisory Board approval and legal adoption of a regulation are not necessarily the same thing.
The public record should make the answer simple:
Was the regulation legally adopted by October 1, 2026?
If yes, publish the final regulation and effective date clearly.
If no, explain why the statutory deadline was missed and provide the path to final adoption.
This should not require detective work.
The Timeline Is Becoming Important
| Date | Development | Accountability Significance | | --- | --- | --- | | May 31, 2024 | Parole and Probation Agent Davis Martinez is killed during a home visit | Raises major questions about field safety and institutional risk management | | May 20, 2025 | Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act signed into law | Creates stronger public-sector workplace-safety accountability | | October 1, 2025 | Major provisions take effect | Public employers become subject to expanded MOSH enforcement and monetary penalties | | July 2026 | MOSH publishes its first public-sector safety and health report | Creates an initial public enforcement baseline | | September 17, 2026 | Draft Workplace Violence Prevention Standard published | Proposed employer obligations become publicly reviewable | | Late September 2026 | MOSH Advisory Board approves the draft standard | Moves the workplace-violence rule further through the regulatory process | | October 1, 2026 | Statutory deadline to adopt workplace-violence regulations | Public-facing MOSH information does not yet clearly establish final legal adoption | | October 7, 2026 | MOSH and AFSCME brief Maryland legislators | Enforcement staffing and agency capacity become documented legislative concerns | | October 8, 2026 | Maryland Matters reports $125,150 in public-sector civil penalties | Shows that the new enforcement authority is being exercised |
Everybody Is Responsible Until Somebody Has to Enforce It
This development belongs directly beside the earlier conversation:
Everybody Is Responsible, So Nobody Is Responsible.
Maryland passed the law.
Good.
MOSH developed the enforcement structure.
Good.
Public employers are being inspected.
Good.
Citations and penalties are being issued.
Good.
A workplace-violence standard has been drafted.
Good.
But eventually somebody has to do the work.
Somebody has to receive the complaint.
Somebody has to determine whether an inspection is warranted.
Somebody has to enter the workplace.
Somebody has to interview employees.
Somebody has to review documents.
Somebody has to identify violations.
Somebody has to issue the citation.
Somebody has to monitor abatement.
Somebody has to return when the employer does not correct the problem.
That requires people.
We cannot spend years arguing that DPSCS cannot safely perform its mission without adequate staffing and then pretend staffing does not matter at the agency responsible for enforcing DPSCS workplace-safety obligations.
The principle has to travel.
A Law Is Only as Strong as the System Behind It
The Davis Martinez Act represents progress.
Maryland moved public-employee safety beyond promises and placed additional requirements into law.
That matters.
But legislation is the beginning of an enforcement system.
It is not the completion of one.
The next accountability questions are measurable:
Has the final workplace-violence standard actually been adopted as required by law?
How many enforcement personnel does MOSH need to carry out its expanded responsibilities?
How many of those positions are currently filled?
How long does it take MOSH to respond to serious public-employee safety complaints?
How long does it take to investigate and close cases?
Are employers correcting hazards after citations are issued?
Those answers will tell us far more than another press release.
Because Maryland has already answered the first question.
Should public employees have stronger workplace-safety protections?
The General Assembly said yes.
Now comes the harder question.
Did Maryland build enough enforcement capacity to make that promise real?
A safety law without sufficient enforcement can become another protection that looks stronger on paper than it operates in practice.
And after everything that led Maryland to name this law after Davis Martinez, that cannot be where this story ends.
Sources
Maryland Matters, "Regulators fined state, local government offices $125,150 for workplace safety violations," October 8, 2026.
https://marylandmatters.org/2026/10/08/regulators-fined-state-local-government-offices-125150-for-workplace-safety-violations/
Maryland General Assembly, Joint Committee on Fair Practices and State Personnel Oversight, October 7, 2026 briefing on implementation of the Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act.
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Media/false?clip=FPS_10_7_2026_meeting_1&cmte=fps&ys=2026rs
Maryland Occupational Safety and Health, Public Employees' Safety and Health / Davis Martinez Act implementation page.
https://labor.maryland.gov/labor/mosh/moshpesh.shtml
Maryland General Assembly, House Bill 176 / Chapter 609, Davis Martinez Public Employee Safety and Health Act.
https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/HB0176?ys=2025rs
Maryland General Assembly, enrolled HB 176, statutory requirement for adoption of workplace-violence regulations on or before October 1, 2026.
https://www.mgaleg.maryland.gov/2025RS/bills/hb/hb0176E.pdf
Key takeaways
- MOSH told Maryland legislators on October 7 that it received no additional enforcement resources specifically to perform the expanded public-sector work created by the Davis Martinez Act.
- Maryland Matters reported $125,150 in civil penalties against State and local government employers under the new enforcement structure.
- Inspection counts, citation counts, initial penalties, final penalties, and amounts collected are different measures and should be reported separately.
- Maryland's occupational-safety agency has 97 funded positions in the current budget, while AFSCME argues substantially more resources are needed.
- MOSH staffing should be evaluated against workload and enforcement responsibilities, not simply authorized headcount.
- Legislators independently raised concerns about whether MOSH has sufficient capacity to enforce new workplace-safety standards.
- Nothing from the October 7 hearing establishes a new DPSCS-specific citation or violation.
- The Davis Martinez Act required workplace-violence regulations to be adopted on or before October 1, 2026.
Related articles
All articles