of the act, and that is adopting standards without having given more forethought to the whole adoption process.

As you know from reading the act, the Secretary of Labor had up to 2 years to adopt these very same consensus standards. Under the substitute bill that had been offered, he would have had as long as 3 years to adopt these standards.

Obviously, less than 1 month was used to make the decision when the act was effective on April 28 and the publication, itself, came out on May 29. These standards were adopted wholesale.

I don't blame the Department of Labor for it as such, but these were the only standards available, and for some reason they felt the pressure to go ahead with these things instead of what would have resulted in their being accused of footdragging or not going along with the intent of Congress and not adopting standards quickly.

Mr. CONTE. How does the Chamber feel about exempting the small industry? Some authorities believe the limit should be 25 or less employees, and some believe 50 or less employees. Some of the small businessmen that I speak to are not so upset about the act, itself, but they are upset about the way in which the act is being administered and the way it is being forced upon them.

These men feel that they could live with the act and actually would want to live within the act if only they could have a greater opportunity to discuss some of the problems that they have in their industry with someone from the Department of Labor.

Has the Chamber taken a position on whether small industry should be exempted entirely from the act?

Mr. BERMAN. As President Lowe has stated in our testimony, we are reviewing the act and its administration to see where the changes should be made. Exempting the small employer would be a very direct way of relieving his problems.

On the other hand, we do see several changes that were they all implemented would tend to do the same thing.

As far as our position at this time is concerned, we are still evaluating the problem. We are still trying to look at just where a small businessman would qualify as such and where he wouldn't.

There are many problems with the act. As you well know, most of the businesses in this country are small businesses. Over 1.5 million businesses employ three people or less. There are too many problems with the act, itself, to just worry about exempting the small business

man.

If we were to do that, and I don't say this is our position but it is food for thought, there would be very few employers left subject to the act.

So there are all sorts of considerations that have to be taken into account. In any event, I think we can say on record that what we are seeking is relief for the small employer.

Mr. CONTE. This week's issue of U.S. News & World Report, contains an article illustrating the ridiculous standards setup. For example, the ban against ice in water, and the toilet seat cases, and so forth. That same story in U.S. News & World Report states that Association Secretary Guenther, who administers this Act, said that many of these standards have been done away with, that they are no longer being administered by his Department. Has the Chamber made a re

cent study to see whether, indeed, these standards have been or are being dropped?

Mr. Lowe. I don't think there is any doubt that the ridiculousness of some of these standards is very obvious. I am sure the Department of Labor is well aware of this, as the article in U.S. News & World Report brought out.

But the question arises about them currently being law. As they become ridiculous, they will be watered back, of course. How many of these regulations do we consider, per se, are ridiculous, we haven't made a study on. They only arise at the person's protest, of course. As time goes on, assuming we still try to implement this kind of philosophy on regulating industry in this manner, big and little, certain reasonableness will occur.

But to the million and a half small businessmen or even the larger ones, as changes are made some comply immediately and spend the money and then find out they wasted the money because of changes.

Mr. HUNGATE. Was that in line with your toilet partition testimony, that the man spends the money and then finds out he didn't have to.

Mr. Lowe. That is the horrendous part. There are those who say, "I will do the best I can and comply," and do comply and find it unnecessary.

Mr. HUNGATE. That is against his competitor who didn't do it. Mr. Lowe. Yes. We are in the horrendous situation of to comply or not comply. It could be somewhat the whims and fancy of the individual inspector. The right of protest is the pretty devious path, as we all know.

Mr. BERMAN. I might add, gentlemen, that there has been a lot of talk in the past about partitions in bathrooms, coat hooks on the back of bathroom doors, and ice in the ice water. But there is some more sophisticated criticism of these standards. What we are seeing is the tip of the iceberg in the way of standards.

There are requirements, for instance, that were you to have a sprinkler system that you had installed 10 years ago in your establishment to protect inventory in the building, that that sprinkler system must comply, in at least two sections of the standards: One, that it has to have certain diameter piping, there must be so much water available, and there is also another section that says that the sprinkler system must be in good working order.

You are violating the act if you don't do what those standards say. However, there is no standard in the act that says you must have a sprinkler system. The ridiculousness of that position is apparent. As I say, these are things that are below the surface. There are many of those. Once again, I don't criticize the Department of Labor for them being there, except for the fact that they were adopted too hastily.

I do criticize them for not pulling them back sooner.

Mr. Lowe. On the subject of employee training, and I don't want to overemphasize except to me it is the most important fact, which is more important, to have your fire extinguishers exactly 5 feet from the floor where they are located or have your employees trained to know exactly where those fire extinguishers are, how to use them and when to get them.

The important things is utilization of equipment, not being 5 feet from the floor. Let's suppose in the grandfather clause which might come into being, that the older companies had extinguishers, adequate ones and well inspected but located in other places.

Should they rearrange all of those and reeducate all of their employees to where they are, when they spent years saying "That extinguisher will always be at that place and when you get into these conditions, this is how to use them." Unsafe acts cause accidents. Not exclusively, but 85 percent of them.

That is where our training program is concentrated on the persons who can create safe conditions, the direct supervisors.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Bergland.

Mr. BERGLAND. Employees have told me they have tried to get information from OSHA as to what they must do in order to comply with the regulations. OSHA has responded by saying, "Yes, we will pay your plant a visit but if we find you in violation you will be subject to fine." These employers have then gone to safety engineers or to insurance companies. They have been visited by the insurance company representatives who have said, "Here is what you must do to comply." They have complied in good faith or at least they thought they complied. They were subsequently visited by an OSHA inspector who found they were not in compliance and fines were assessed.

This really disturbs me. Referring to your testimony on page 3 and the application of section 21, it says "consult with and advise employers."

To your knowledge, has the Department of Labor developed a program to consult with and advise employers so that they know what they must do?

Mr. Lowe. To my knowledge, I know of no case where there has been. a program developed in any way to call on and advise employers prior to inspections being held in those areas. To my firsthand knowledge, I know of no case where that has been done.

Mr. BERGLAND. As far as you know, they have simply ignored this provision of the law?

Mr. Lowe. I don't know that I can say ignored. At least it didn't transpire.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. McKevitt.

Mr. McKEVITT. If you are running for reelection, you are doing a good job as president of the chamber. You express yourself well and I want to compliment you on your testimony.

Mr. Lowe. Thank you.

Mr. McKEVITT. Near the end of your statement, on page 9, you refer to Esther Peterson, former legislative representative for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Would you clarify what she means by her statement, "What is surprising to me is the lack of enthusiasm and action on the part of the labor organizations. I feel we all should share responsibility for the failure of the act."

Mr. Lowe. Do you want to go ahead?

Mr. BERMAN. I guess I would have to answer that, sir, as I plucked the statement out of a report from the AFL-CIO. Miss Peterson at the time was addressing an IUD convention of the AFL-CIO, and this was a convention held prior to the legislative push which eventually resulted in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Although the statement is taken out of context, I feel that it very aptly describes the surrounding comments that Miss Peterson made. That is that she felt that the labor organizations, when the safety bill was presented in the 90th Congress did not feel that it was worthy of what would be considered a major lobbying effort on their part. They did not go to bat for it. There were many other interests which they obviously felt were more important by their participation in legislative action on these other issues.

She was surprised that, up to that point in time, the labor organizations had not been successful in arousing each other or in arousing Congress to push heavily for this act, and that they obviously felt it was not as big a problem as she did.

Mr. McKEVITT. Do you mean labor organizations are not very enthusiastic about the provisions of the act?

Mr. BERMAN. All I can say is after that convention a lot happened. Mr. McKEVITT. Such as?

Mr. BERMAN. Such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Mr. MOKEVITT. Which was no accident.

What I have discovered in my area is that management, as well as labor, abuses this act.

Sometimes I wonder if we are hampering the labor-management relationship by not permitting them to resolve by themselves what they can do on a safety education basis rather than having inspectors force this on them.

Is labor aware of and/or concerned about these abuses?

Mr. BERMAN. I think most of labor's criticism of the act since its passage has been that it hasn't been enforced vigorously enough. They continue to point to the fact that penalties have not been heavy enough, which, of course, flies in the face of the rationale that the act is intended to protect employees, when they are only pushing for penalizing employers for past violations.

They have also heavily criticized the Department of Labor for not having a large enough inspection force.

Mr. CONTE. On page 61 of our hearings in the HEW Appropriations Committee, Mr. Guenther gave us this AFL-CIO Executive Council statement:

We have weighed the President's words against his deeds and found them wanting. The record is one of foot-dragging, flabby enforcement, adulteration of special provisions of the act setting forth specific rights and protections for employees.

Labor also had received a letter from Congressman Daniels of New Jersey which said, "Now the hopes of this Congress and their constituents have been undermined by inept and lax administration of important parts of the occupational safety and health law. The spirit of protecting the lives and health of our workers is barely discernible."

Consequently, they are being hard-hit on the other side pretty well,

too.

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, they are.

Mr. McKEVITT. Let's get away from the ice water and toilet seats for a minute and go back to the sophisticated criticisms you referred to.

In addition to the sprinkler system examples, can you provide us any more examples of what you call abuses?

Mr. BERMAN. Yes, sir; I can. In the manufacturing industry, there is a standard that has been around for some time. It says you must guard the area in a heavy press whether it be a press that knocks out watch gears for a normal watch or whether it knocks out stampings that are eventually made into roof tops for automobiles, and those that stamp out roof tops for automobiles or rails for a frame on a truck are pretty big presses.

The standard says that you have to guard the machine in such a way that the employee will not lose his finger or his arm in that machine. We agree with that.

There are several ways to do it. Some range from electric eyes that would shut the machine off were the employee to put his hand in a dangerous area, the area they call the point of operation, to such devices as actually putting straps on the man's hand which are then tied through a chain or some sort of connecting linkage to the press ram itself, so that as the ram comes down to stamp out a part, his arms are drawn up out of the point of operation.

All of those devices tend to make it physically impossible to do it, that is, to get your finger caught and lost in the press. When this standard was adopted, there was a change, and this was a change prior to it being adopted by the Secretary of Labor, but keeping in mind that it was an advisory standard it was something that wasn't applicable to all employers, it was something that you could pick up if you wanted to.

That change said that you can no longer put a piece in that press by hand at any time, in any way.

In addition to having to continue to guard the press as you had originally, that is. That standard as it presently reads means that if you shut the press off entirely, pull the plug, if you will, that man still could not put a piece of metal in that press and plug the machine in again and let it run a cycle, and then pull out the plug again. No matter how you guard that press. This means that small manufacturers are now having to go to robotized feeding, feeding parts into these dies. All of these dies have to be changed and there are several thousands of dies that cost untold dollars to reconstruct in a way that will accommodate this standard, that will accommodate an automatic feeding system.

I still believe that there are people who are users of presses, and in fact, I know you will hear testimony citing this example tomorrow, perhaps, in more detail, that don't even know of this standard.

By 1974, they are going to have to comply with this later standard that I talked about. Unfortunately, 1974 isn't a very long time for dies that have useful lives of 10 years or more. But in 1974 those will all be legislated out of existence.

Mr. McKEVITT. Getting away from regulations for awhile, counsel, what do you feel is the most needed change in the law itself?

Mr. BERMAN. Responsible administration of the law itself.

Mr. McKEVITT. Do you think the law itself is adequate? Have you no objection to the law in its present language?