OUR OPINION; OSHA'S INCURSION.

For a moment there, we thought U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis Herman had lost it. Then, she convinced us our assumption was correct.

Under Herman's leadership, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a directive that businesses must ensure the safety of telecommuters and other employees who work at home.

The ruling called for an outrageous government intrusion into private homes. It also had potentially steep costs for businesses that have innovative incentives to lure and retain workers.

This week, after news of the November decree became widely known, the Labor Department was besieged with complaints from businesses across the nation. So Herman smartly withdrew the opinion.

She said the directive was intended to answer an inquiry from one company, and not intended to be a nationwide policy. She was forced to make the distinction because such publicly posted directives are usually used as guidelines by other businesses.

Herman made it clear that no new government policy had been imposed on home workers.

Good save, right?

Then came the whammy.

Herman said the issue raises questions that may need to be addressed with new laws or regulations.

We fear those new rules will overly burden businesses and may jeopardize the practice of telecommuting.

As more people ask to work at home and businesses accede, the face of the workplace will change. Because of that it's possible the Labor Department will require the same safety rules that apply in office buildings to apply in home offices.

That means an OSHA inspector may be making a visit to your house to make sure it's hazard-free. Remember: The OSHA inspector always rings twice.

How would you like a federal inspector to tell your kids to keep their toys out of the hallways?

Liability issues pose more questions. How far will the OSHA requirements go? Will they make homeowners install new wiring to handle business computers? Install handicapped-accessible bathrooms? Who pays for the safety features?

Who is financially responsible if a worker trips over a living room chair while talking business on a company-owned cell phone?

If businesses are saddled with these costs, what's the point of encouraging telecommuting?

These are all serious questions that must be weighed as the nation and local governments deal with environmental issues, urban sprawl and traffic congestion.

Policy-makers need to devise rules that make sense for the employers' bottom line and employees' quality of life.

We don't need Big Brother or Big Sister peeking in our windows to make sure we meet federal guidelines.