Suggestion #6: SBA loan financing should be made available to cooperatives on the same basis as prescribed in this law for all small businesses. Cooperatives are not included. Suggestion #7: Our Senators and Representatives should be very cautious about the gossip they hear and study the fact before making statements to the press pertaining to the Williams-Steiger Act. We, who are in attendance at this meeting are definitely in favor of safer working conditions for all employees. We are not opposed to the Act. However, we do ask that consideration be given to our suggestions for modification and administration of the Act. A motion was made by Gordon Twedt of Maddock, North Dakota, and seconded by Bob Kramer of Jamestown, that the afore mentioned recommendations be approved and sent to the following list: Copies sent to the Senators and Representatives in Washington, D.C. All the people present. It shall be sent to the Workmens Compensation Bureau in Bismarck. To the regional offices in Denver and Billings and to Art Perdue of Dickinson, North Dakota and to the chairman of each of the North Dakota Managers Association Districts. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. MERTON BARDELL, Acting Secretary. Signed by Mr. Bardell, Mr. Orth, and 20 additional members of the association. Mr. LINK. I discussed with them the methods that were used, and that so far the Labor Department had put into effect only four specific regulations referring to farmers. In the course of our discussion, the chairman of this committee said: We know that there are unsafe conditions in small businesses and on our farms. None of us are against safety and against good health practices, but we want this thing so it can be administered in a manner that we can live with it. When the emotion of this thing dissipates, we are in the same wavelength. Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much. Mr. McKEVITT. Would you say it is a pretty emotional problem out in your State of North Dakota? Mr. LINK. It is. Mr. McKEVITT. Who are you getting the biggest influx from? Any particular small businessman, or from all of them? Mr. LINK. A pretty good cross section, country elevator operators, small shops, garages that employ four or five employees, implement businesses, parts and sales, and the like. Those seem to be the major concerns that have shown interest. Mr. McKEVITT. Can you give a few specific examples of complaints they have of the abuse of it? Mr. LINK. I have a few in my file. (The information follows:) Representative ARTHUR LINK, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, TOMAN ENGINEERING Co., Mandan, N. Dak., May 2, 1972. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LINK: I am very disturbed at the turn of events that the influence of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 is taking. Unfortunately I do not subscribe to the "Federal Register" which would have provided information at an earlier date and provided an earlier opportunity to make known my feelings. Correction would have been relatively simple at an earlier date. The unprecedented powers indicated for Federal inspectors without right of appeal seems so out of context with the American way. The inspectors under this Act walk on the job, and without warning an alleged violation is tabulated and fines assessed. To our knowledge this has occurred in at least two instances in North Dakota. The fines were quite substantial, one being for $400 and a second for $2,000. Further, we are reaping the results of increased construction costs in our underground work for sewer and water. Last evening we opened bids for sewer and water extensions involving work in granulated materials. Previous extensions and work in this area were premium priced because of the ease and simplicity involved in the operation. Because of the requirements of the "Steiger Act", a price which was generously estimated at approximately $100,000 was bid in at $189,000, or 89% increase in costs. This unprecedented jump in costs results in a large part from application of the "Steiger Act". For example: The construction basically is in an area of over-bank and flood plain composed mostly of sand and silt created by the Heart River. Two methods of construction are open to the Contractor. Either he will shore the trenches by tight sheathing, or he will "spud" or slope the walls to comply with the Act. The "Steiger Act" requires a one-to-one slope. At 18-foot depths this means 36 feet plus 2 feet of trench width, or a total minimum top width of 38 feet. Sloping the trench is cheaper than tight sheathing. This means that the Contractor will have to move and recompact 13.3 cubic yards of earth for every lineal foot of 18-foot depth trench, as compared to 6 cubic yards under accepted normal methods. At shallower depths of 12 feet, which is an average depth for sewers, this amounts to 6.2 cubic yards per lineal foot. Normal operations at the 12-foot depth would involve removal and recompaction of approximately 3 cubic yards of earth for each lineal foot of trench. Watermain installations, which average 8 feet of cover, now require 2.9 cubic yards per lineal foot as compared to 0.9 cubic yard under previous procedures. Material costs of watermain pipe have remained substantially the same over the years. Listed are the latest quotations for material for a May 1, 1972 bid opening. 1 These material costs are substantially the same as prices quoted 5 years ago. The sewer material costs are substantially less. The indicated trend of construction costs seems to be accelerating and hastening the day when our small communities will cease to exist because they can not afford the necessities and niceties of life. Federal aid will not compensate for the differentials. Overall costs are increased proportionately on all items requiring excavation. I have been associated with underground installations for over 42 years. I have designed and supervised over one and one-half million feet of underground work, and there has never been a fatality on any of my projects. Ditch cave-ins have occurred, but standard shoring methods have proven effective. Our estimates have been generous and realistic based upon standard procedures of past performance. What I envision at this time is a probability that small Contractors and Construction associates may be forced to cease operations because of this insidious system of inspection and imposition of fines without recourse. I am heartily in favor of requirements and standards for occupational health and safety. However, I do most vehemently disagree with the manner and method of application and enforcement without regard to soil mechanics structure and geology for underground work with which I have experience and knowledge. I apologize for the length of this letter. I feel the details and facts should be known. If it is the desire of the Department of Labor to supervise the gargantuan construction companies because of poor safety records, I would suggest that support be given to H.R. 12068, which exempts nonmanufacturing firms and businesses with less than 25 employees. Cordially, TOMAN ENGINEERING Co. Consulting Engineer. ROBERT BERGLAND, TWIN CITY ROOFING, INC., Wahpeton, N. Dak., June 8, 1972. House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, DEAR MR. CONGRESSMAN: The writer is not a constituent but I understand your SBA committee will be dealing with the effects of OSHA on small businesses. I appreciate the opportunity of venting my feelings and will forward copies to my representatives. The roofing industry is a target industry under OSHA. While the record of our company has been good, it appears from our workmen's compensation premiums that the general accident record of the industry has been bad. The effects of OSHA on our company's safety program have been excellent. We have become more aware of our safety needs and have implemented an extensive program to ward off unsafe conditions. This is the good produced by OSHA. The negative effects produced however, are terrifyingly numerous, with the final result a complete shutdown of our operations. The major fault in the act appears to be in the utterly arbitrary and capricious manner in which it is administered. It appears from information derived from our trade organizations, that the judgement as to an unsafe condition is left to the discretion of the inspecting officer with no prior guidelines or requirements available. Another example is the ruling by OSHA that a roof is a floor. (Floors are made for walking on and they require guardrails on the perimeters.) Roofs however are not made for traffic and the requirements for protective guardrails are impossible since we must waterproof and install roofing on the area where the guardrail is installed, and this is a most difficult if not impossible task. An example of the clear intent to shut down business throughout the United States is the provision wherein the employer is responsible for the unsafe act of his employee. If our men, instructed to wear hard hats by the employer, violate that provision, the responsibility for that violation is the employer's. It seems to the writer that this is a clear violation of my constitutional righs for how can I be held responsible for the illegal act of another. It appears that our only course of action would be to fire the offending employee, an action guaranteed to create unsolvable problems with our unions. I read recently that it was estimated that construction costs were being increased up to 25% by this act. Certainly this would be a small price to pay for safety in the construction business. OSHA, however, is not producing safety in construction, but appears bent on harrassment of construction employers. It seems to me clearly designed to bring the industrial development of the United States to a screeching halt. Ideally an agency such as this would be in a constructive position to aid and assist employers in developing a safety environment. If said employer failed to implement such an environment then the agency would be in a position to file criminal complaints. Amendments to the act, of this nature, are mandatory if we are to avoid complete stoppage with the obvious results to our citizens and country. Respectfully, JACK WILLIAMS, President. MOTT, N. DAK.. Mar. 21, 1972. Representative ARTHUR LINK, DEAR MR. LINK: I wish to write to you in regard to the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970. Never in the twenty-five years of our farm life have I seen my husband so disturbed, provoked, upset, and even nauseated after coming home from one of the recent meetings held concerning the above new labor act. It behooves us seriously of what encroachment next. We have no other choice but to face the fact that we, too, must give up farming, and seek for another means of livelihood. No doubt also head for the "cities" & join the mob. We urge, beg, plead with you, Mr. Link, to fight desperately for Bill No. 12068 which would exclude the family farmer or small private business from the above bondage the Williams-Steiger Occupational Act of 1970. Only more unemployment & serious problems can result. Faithfully yours, Mr. and Mrs. ALBERT GRUEBEL. Hon. ARTHUR LINK, Member of Congress, WASHBURN, N. DAK., April 18, 1972. House Office Building, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE MR. LINK: I strongly urge you to vote to amend the WilliamsSteiger Occupational Safety and Health Act. This act has already put too many people in this area out of work and has caused unnecessary expense to others. Sincerely, JACK L. WIESE, NORTH DAKOTA MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Congressman ARTHUR LINK, Washington, D.C. DEAR ART: I apologize for my delay in answering your letter concerning the Williams-Steiger Act and its potential problem areas in a State like North Dakota. I am particularly interested in H.R. 14393 which you have introduced. I believe this would be of real help to the people of North Dakota and still help to bring about proper compliance and adherence to good safety practices. I think it is difficult to create legislation of this nature that will treat all agriculture and business alike without consideration of vital differences in different states of the country. We appreciate your effort in this matter and look forward to some improvements in this Act in the future. With sincere personal regards. Sincerely, I. E. SOLBERG, Managing Director. TIOGA MACHINE SHOP, INC., Congressman ART LINK, Cannon House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN LINK: We are writing on this Occupational Safety and Health Act. It is our belief that this bill is going to make it difficult, especially us smaller firms to comply, causing many to terminate their business because of it. This can do nothing more than add to our already over burdened unemployment and welfare payments. We have felt that our State Workmen's Compensation Bureau, whom have looked after the safety of workmen for years have done their job. Why then was it necessary to have a federal bill such as this passed? We have already heard talk in the petroleum industry, whom we depend for our work, that they are cutting back funds for U.S. exploration, and looking into putting more money into foreign exploration. There are too many firms already either manufacturing or assembling in foreign countries, shipping products back into the United States. We can not help but think that this bill will cause more of them to look into the possibilities of moving out where bills such as this will not effect them. It hasn't been too long ago that the meat processing establishments came under federal legislation. This caused many of them to close their doors. I fail to see where the quality of meats we purchase is any better, only higher in price. We have been working for three years on a state level trying to get the railroad industry to get some reflectroized tape on the sides of all their railroad cars. These older box cars, flat cars, and dark coal and tank cars you can hardly see at night, especially during rain and snow storms. We believe there have been more people killed in train-vehicle accidents in North Dakota, than have been killed by industrial accidents. We would appreciate your views on this bill. Yours truly, F. L. EKLUND, President and General Manager. MAHRER IMPLEMENT Co., Flasher, N. Dak., March 20, 1972. Re Occupational Safety & Health Act, House bill No. 12068 asking for all nonmanufacturing have less than 25 employees, be exempt from the strict OSHA. Hon. ARTHUR LINK, Representative, DEAR MR. LINK: Likely you are acquainted with this Bill. The OSHA as it now is, is too rigid for Auto & Implement dealers in our area. You having farmed for many years, understand the manner and shape of tractors, combines and farm equipment that breaks down in the field. When a farmer is delayed on account of unservicable equipment, he wants good and fast repairs. Machines generally come in spattered with oil and grease. To get a job done so that no unnecessary delay, the machine is repaired without a wash and other cleaning jobs. This will cause dirt and grease on floors and surroundings. Should an OSHA representative come in he would likely chalk down, especially if he would never had any farming experiences. We aim to keep our surroundings clean and neat, but if caught under conditions not acceptable to the Inspector, would be fined. The cost of requirements may be prohibitable to many small businesses. We would solicit an affirmable vote on H.R. bill No. 12068. MAHRER IMPLEMENT Co. By R. A. MAHRER. STIPPICH GRAVEL & READY MIX Co., Hon. Representative ARTHUR A. LINK, LAVERNE STIPPICH & SONS, Hettinger, N. Dak., June 5, 1972. DEAR SIR: Please do something about the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act. In our State of North Dakota mostly made up of Small Businesses and Small Farms this act is designed to break small Businesses and small Farms. At least get rid of the penalty clause without warning, this leaves all of us at the mercy of the inspectors. This is not the American Way. Your consideration of this will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, LAVERNE STIPPICH. Congressman ARTHUR LINK, Washington, D.C. BURBIDGE SEED CO., INC. Park River, N. Dak., May 8, 1972. DEAR ARTHUR: As farmers and agricultural processors we are very concerned about the far reaching implications of the new Occupational Safety and Health Act. We like most other agricultural businesses find it nearly impossible to comply with the restrictive rules and regulations of this act. Believe me, we do everything humanly possible to promote, instill, and enforce safety in our organization. Further, we believe that some form of occupational safety rules and regulations should be legislated and enforced, however, let it be reasonable. We appreciate your efforts on this extremely important matter. Best regards, BURBIDGE SEED CO., INC., Mr. McKEVITT. Do you have any in mind that you would like to share? Mr. LINK. Scaffolding that is required for the building of one-story structures has the same requirements as for a structure of a much higher height, and they see this as unnecessary. |