US dataswitch to UK
Occupational Health and Safety Technicians
evaluating situations or making determinations when a worker has refused to work on the grounds that danger or potential harm exists, preparing or reviewing specifications or orders for the purchase of safety equipment and recommending corrective measures to be applied based on results of environmental contaminant analyses. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: maintaining all required environmental records and documentation. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Collect data on work environments for analysis by occupational health and safety specialists. Implement and conduct evaluation of programs designed to limit chemical, physical, biological, and ergonomic risks to workers. The job title says “occupational health” or “safety technicians”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But occupational health and safety technicians is not one task. It is 26 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 22%
- changing shape
- 10%
- staying human
- 68%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 30 out of 100 (25–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 26 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for occupational health and safety technicians is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
5 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Preparing or reviewing specifications or orders for the purchase of safety equipment
This is reading one thing and writing another: specifications in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare or review specifications or orders for the purchase of safety equipment, ensuring that proper features are present and that items conform to health and safety standards.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing and checking equipment specifications against safety standards is document comparison work software is good at.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining all required environmental records and documentation
This is reading one thing and writing another: all required environmental records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Maintain all required environmental records and documentation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping required environmental records is structured document work that software stores, checks and formats well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing records or reports concerning laboratory results
This is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Review records or reports concerning laboratory results, staffing, floor plans, fire inspections, or sanitation to gather information for the development or enforcement of safety activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling relevant facts out of reports, results and inspection records is exactly what document-reading software excels at.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining credentials, licenses or permits to ensure compliance with licensing requirements
This is reading one thing and writing another: credentials, licenses or permits in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Examine credentials, licenses, or permits to ensure compliance with licensing requirements.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking licenses and permits against requirements is straightforward record-matching that software does quickly and consistently.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
2 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Planning emergency response drills
The software now makes the first pass at emergency response drills, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Plan emergency response drills.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drill plans and scenarios follow well-known templates that software drafts well, though someone has to run the drill.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending corrective measures to be applied based on results of environmental contaminant analyses
The software now makes the first pass at corrective measures, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Recommend corrective measures to be applied based on results of environmental contaminant analyses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Recommending fixes from contaminant results is rule-based interpretation against published limits, which software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
19 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Evaluating situations or making determinations when a worker has refused to work on the grounds that danger or potential harm exists
This work happens in the physical world: situations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Evaluate situations or make determinations when a worker has refused to work on the grounds that danger or potential harm exists.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging a work refusal means being at the spot, seeing the hazard and dealing with the people involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment
This work happens in the physical world: personal protective equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Supply, operate, or maintain personal protective equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Handing out, fitting and maintaining protective equipment is physical work with real kit.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing consultation to organizations or agencies on the workplace application of safety principles
The value here is that a specific person handles consultation and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide consultation to organizations or agencies on the workplace application of safety principles, practices, or techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Safety advice is well documented and easy to draft, but clients usually want it discussed with a person they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Testing workplaces for environmental hazards
This work happens in the physical world: workplaces, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Test workplaces for environmental hazards, such as exposure to radiation, chemical or biological hazards, or excessive noise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Hazard testing needs instruments placed and read in the actual workplace, even though results are interpreted at a desk.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 16 tasks
Maintaining logbooks of daily activities
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: logbooks of daily activities in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Maintain logbooks of daily activities, including areas visited or activities performed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Logging where you went and what you did is simple record-keeping, though only the technician knows what happened.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collecting data regarding potential hazards from new equipment or products linked to green practices
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: data regarding potential hazards, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Collect data regarding potential hazards from new equipment or products linked to green practices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Some hazard information comes from published product data, but much requires seeing the equipment in use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conferring with schools, state authorities or community groups to develop health standards or programs
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles schools, state authorities or community groups and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Confer with schools, state authorities, or community groups to develop health standards or programs.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drafting standards is straightforward, but agreeing them with schools and community groups depends on live discussion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Examining practices at green building sites to determine whether adherence to green building standards alters risks
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: practices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Examine practices at green building sites to determine whether adherence to green building standards alters risks to workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Judging whether green building practices change worker risk needs someone watching how the site actually works.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting worker studies to determine whether specific instances of disease or illness
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for worker studies, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct worker studies to determine whether specific instances of disease or illness are job-related.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding whether an illness came from the job needs medical judgment and workplace detail that is rarely all written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing documents to be used in legal proceedings
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: documents, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Prepare documents to be used in legal proceedings, testifying in such proceedings when necessary.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The documents can be drafted by software, but only a person can stand up and give evidence.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training workers in safety procedures related to green jobs
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: workers, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train workers in safety procedures related to green jobs, such as the use of fall protection devices or maintenance of proper ventilation during wind turbine construction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Safety training materials are easy to produce, but showing workers how to use fall gear happens in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating the public about health issues or enforcing health legislation to prevent disease
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the public, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Educate the public about health issues or enforce health legislation to prevent disease, to promote health, or to help people understand health protection procedures and regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Public health education materials are easy to draft, but enforcing the law needs an authorized officer on the ground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Collecting data related to ecological or human health risks at brownfield sites
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: data, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Collect data related to ecological or human health risks at brownfield sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Brownfield risk data has to be sampled on the site itself, though the analysis afterwards is desk work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting interviews to obtain information or evidence regarding communicable diseases or violations of health or sanitation regulations
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: interviews, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct interviews to obtain information or evidence regarding communicable diseases or violations of health or sanitation regulations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: People disclose sensitive health or compliance information when a person they trust is asking face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing tests to identify any potential hazards related to recycled products used at green building sites
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: tests, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Perform tests to identify any potential hazards related to recycled products used at green building sites.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Testing recycled materials means handling samples and running tests at the building site or lab.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Verifying availability or monitoring use of safety equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: availability, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Verify availability or monitor use of safety equipment, such as hearing protection or respirators.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Seeing whether workers are actually wearing their protection means walking the floor and watching.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing or calibrating equipment used to collect or analyze samples
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prepare or calibrate equipment used to collect or analyze samples.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Preparing and calibrating sampling instruments is hands-on work with the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Helping direct rescue or firefighting operations in the event of a fire or an explosion
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: direct rescue, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Help direct rescue or firefighting operations in the event of a fire or an explosion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Helping direct a rescue or firefighting response requires being at the incident.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Testing or balancing newly installed HVAC systems to determine whether indoor air quality standards are met
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: installed HVAC systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Test or balance newly installed HVAC systems to determine whether indoor air quality standards are met.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Testing and balancing an installed HVAC system means taking readings and adjusting hardware on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Inspecting fire suppression systems or portable fire systems to ensure proper working order
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: fire suppression systems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect fire suppression systems or portable fire systems to ensure proper working order.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Checking a fire suppression system works means physically inspecting and testing the installed equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $61,560a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 30,590in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: all required environmental records in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: maintaining all required environmental records and documentation and preparing or reviewing specifications or orders for the purchase of safety equipment. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where personal protective equipment gets done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Maintaining all required environmental records and documentation is going; supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment is not.
So, given all that: 22% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 10% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 68% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 26 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles supplying, operating or maintaining personal protective equipment, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to occupational health and safety technicians (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was occupational health and safety specialists: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 30/100 here, with only 22% of the task list in the top band, and “evaluate situations or make determinations when a worker has refused to work…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide consultation to organizations or agencies on the workplace application of safety principles…, and their equivalent is to inspect or evaluate workplace environments, equipment, or practices to ensure compliance with safety…. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and Prevention Workers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect fire suppression systems or portable fire systems to ensure proper working order, and their equivalent is to maintain fire suppression equipment in good condition, checking equipment periodically to ensure that…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Fire Inspectors and Investigators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already inspect fire suppression systems or portable fire systems to ensure proper working order, and their equivalent is to conduct inspections and acceptance testing of newly installed fire protection systems. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 22% of its task weight, across 26 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Inspectors of standards and regulations is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Inspectors of standards and regulations and Environmental health professionals. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for occupational health / safety technicians, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 22% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for occupational health / safety technicians. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for occupational health / safety technicians launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Occupational Health and Safety Technicians?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 26 official task statements scored for Occupational Health and Safety Technicians (United States, SOC 19-5012), 22% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 30 out of 100 (range 25–36, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Occupational Health and Safety Technicians” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Maintain all required environmental records and documentation” (81/100, very high); “Examine credentials, licenses, or permits to ensure compliance with licensing requirements” (81/100, very high); “Review records or reports concerning laboratory results, staffing, floor plans, fire inspections, or sanitation to gather information for the development or…” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Occupational Health and Safety Technicians” stay human?
- About 68% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Inspect fire suppression systems or portable fire systems to ensure proper working order” (0/100, minimal); “Test or balance newly installed HVAC systems to determine whether indoor air quality standards are met” (0/100, minimal); “Help direct rescue or firefighting operations in the event of a fire or an explosion” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Occupational Health and Safety Technicians” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 22% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 68% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Occupational Health and Safety Technicians calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 26 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.