Page images
PDF
EPUB

of parasitic inspectors attempting to rise within their own bureaucracy at the expense of American business.

Yours very truly,

R. D. PETERSON, R.Ph., President.

A. C. DUELL & SONS, INC.,

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS,
New York, N.Y.

Oswego, N.Y., May 9, 1972.

In reference to your letter concerning the OSHA Act of 1970:

I will give you a picture of the small business side of this law. To begin with, New York State has been doing the same job for twenty years that the Federal Government is now doing. With the exception that New York State knows that without small businesses, New York State is done financially. The Federal Government, apparently, still has this to learn. However, if any one should be aware of this fact, you should be, for without small business your organization will be non-existent.

We have been inspected by Syracuse inspectors, but as yet, we haven't had a report on this, but we were told that if we hadn't had the Poster posted and the forms we were sent, filled out, as a warm up our fines would have been $450.00. After we received the Poster and forms we called Syracuse and several other labor offices in an effort to get some information but no one had any. We still have had no instructions on anything.

From talking with small business men in this area, none of us can stand any extra expense, either in unnecessary restrictions or fines and there better be more than a warm feeling, as you put it, in Congress, or a lot of small businesses are going out of business. So, you people better get this HR-12068 through or your trouble is just beginning.

We will let you know when we get our Sentence and how long we have to comply.

Very truly yours,

NEIL G. DUELL, Sec.-Treas.

SEABOARD MFG., Warren, Maine, May 23, 1972.

Hon. PETER KYROS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR, I am writing to state my displeasure with the O.S.H.A. I have no personal bad experience with the act yet but have heard a lot and have been to an informational meeting of the Dept. of Labor. I feel the requirements are too stiff for everyone but especially for the small businessman. In particular I think it is wrong that a firm is fined on a first violation without an opportunity to correct the situation. I suppose I should try to have everything in compliance before any inspection but not only is this expensive its almost impossible to interpret the regulations for a given situation.

With the price controls being what they are, which I am not against, then the state minimum wage going up and now O.S.H.A. along with all other government related requirements it nearly takes a full time bookkeeper just to handle the paperwork with no compensation forthcoming. If big government doesn't ease up I fear small business will be a thing of the past and I don't think this is the American way.

How do you stand on OSHA? What is being done to ease some of the strict laws in it? I would appreciate hearing your views.

Very truly yours,

D. DAVID KENNISTON.

CAROL LEE PRODUCTS,

Lawrence, Kans., February 7, 1972.

Sec. J. D. HODGSON,
U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SEC. HODGSON: We, here at Carol Lee Products, have an opportunity to expand our present operation to include a frozen food plant adjacent to our present mix plant. These facilities would produce and freeze all types of specialty

breads, danish rolls, pies and etc. We are planning on a large investment and at the peak of the operation should employ 25 to 30 people.

Now, having just attended the short course on the "New Job Safety Law" where I find that an inspector from the Dept. of Labor can come into my plant at any time, make an inspection and then demand changes without regard to cost or need. At the same time this inspector can levy fines up to $1,000.00 a day or this same agency, the Dept. of Labor, can shut down a portion of or the entire operation. There is also, as always, the threat of imprisonment. Our representatives in Washington have given this Agency the authority to accuse, try, judge and sentence us on the spot! I would wonder if this is constitutional? Are we still in America? After leaving the meeting, I went outside to see if the American flag was still flying.

I resent some untrained, unqualified, governmental employee, who has neither the ambition or finances to own his own business or for that matter, even the ambition to work for a living, to have the authority to tell me how to run my business. If the person, who represented the Federal government at these seminars to answer questions, is representative of the kind of people who will conduct these inspections then God Help America. His arrogant, belligerent attitude made me wonder if it is the government's intent to intimidate all business into total submission to government. Some of his statements in regard to one's attitude toward the inspectors tends to verify this feeling, because he indicated if one wasn't nice to the inspector, the fines could be higher. Also his implication that like a mule that had to be hit in the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention, he was going to be sure to get ours. Again, at this point, I wondered if this was truly our government and if this was really happening in America. After all he was addressing the business community of Lawrence, Kansas. Men, who represent a good portion of all the people who work in this community.

After attending this seminar, I would think it would be more logical to invest one's money in illegal drugs. The fines and risks are about the same. Sincerely,

LEE SCOTT.

ALL-SIZE CORRUGATED PRODUCTS INC.,
Lancaster, Pa., March 3, 1972.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF,

National Federation of Independent Business,
Washington Building, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: It would be very beneficial if the Federation would point out to the powers that be, what is happening to those of us who are too small to have full time legal staffs, full time accounting staffs and full time staffs to read, understand, and guide us through the voluminous rules, regulations, and forms that the agencies of Government bury us with. Every time a new law is passed it creates a new enforcement agency, which sets itself up as policeman, judge and jury with practically no chance of appeal.

For example: I give you the new Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act. I have no argument with the Act and its intent, but the way these people are going about enforcing it is something else. The inspector came into our plant in January, 1972, asked me if I had heard of the Act, had I read the Act, did I have the rule book? I said, yes I know about it, no I had not read it, no I had not received the rule book. He gave me a copy of the Act and Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 105, which is 309 pages thick, with printing smaller than a newspaper. I just learned that it is being re-printed because they discovered it contains 1600

errors.

Then the inspector and I toured our plant. He found that we kept the ignition key in our fork-lift truck which is now illegal. We did not have a proper guard around our band-saw and there was more than 30# P.S.I. pressure coming out of our air hose nozzles, which was a new rule in the Federal Register. He was very nice and I thanked him.

Two weeks later we received a citation from the U.S. Department of Labor in which they fined us $35.00 for the air pressure violation. Please see the enclosed letter which explains my reaction to the fine. How did they arrive at $35.00, there is no schedule of fines. On what do they base the amount?

Mr. Barry has called me since and told me that he did not think we should have been fined when he turned us in, but there was not much we could do about it except go through a lot of legal procedure to appeal. I paid the fine.

The whole point is this, it is not fair to fine people and cite them for violations before the rules have been made available long enough to read and obey them. These are Gestapo tactics, and I strongly protest the attitude of the Government Agencies today toward business, especially the Department of Labor Agencies. They do not ask, they order you to open everything to them, and if you do not they fine you, and make it as difficult as possible to appeal. They do not make appointments and can become very rude and over-bearing if you are not able to see them when they appear without warning.

Please do what you can to get these problems corrected. My Small Business Associates are concerned, angry, and discouraged about this government harassment, and we would like to know what can be done about it.

Very truly yours,

NORMAN E. SMITH, President.

P.S.-Is there any possible way to ascertain the ratio of non-union companies to union companies that are being inspected by OSHA and how the size of the fines compare? I have read that in our area, non-union companies are really being taken for a ride.

Senator BUCKLEY,

New York, N.Y.

MAY 12, 1972.

DEAR SIR: Recently we had been given a $155.00 proposed penalty for alleged violations on corrections to be made on our building. We had no previous warning nor were we allowed to make the corrections to avoid the penalty since the penalties are mandatory according to the Occupational Health & Safety Act of 1970. Although upon notification to us, of these alleged violations, we promptly corrected them at a cost of over approximately $2000.00. The law states that these penalties must stand.

It is our feeling that this is a punitive law with little regard for the honest attempts for a small business such as ours to abide by the law with which we were not fully familiar. Although we do not dispute the intention of the law to improve health & safety standards, some of these rules are too strict and also the fines are unfair being assessed without the business having the opportunity to either correct them or to contest them. There is inadequate time to comply although we had been granted an extension but with the high costs we feel that longer extensions should be provided. We have approximately 25 or less workers at our factory and feel that the burden of the corrections of violations was enough without having to pay an additional fine of $155.00 in penalties. Unfortunately it is not worth the time to contest this $155.00 at present since it would be much too costly; we therefore notified the Dept. of Labor that we would pay it, but it is being paid under protest.

If you are able to either see that our $155.00 is refunded and that this law is made more just then I will feel that the intent of the law is to protect and not to punish. Copies of correspondence with the U.S. Dept. of Labor are attached. Respectfully,

BRUCE S. FLEISIG, President.

PHILLIPS BASKET CO., Omaha, Nebr., March 12, 1972.

Hon. CARL CURTIS,

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: We have been in business in Omaha for many years, making a living for our family and about 20 other employees.

We make wood products and among our equipment we have a saw-mill, two radial arm saws and a veneer mill. We have never seen any operate any place else that were guarded any better than ours are.

We were inspected by Mr. Win. W. White, Jr., compliance Officer of the U.S. Dept. of Labor on or about April 14th, 1972. Mr. White impressed us as a very nice considerate man and informed us our plant was in good shape compared with others in the same business.

However, on May 2nd we received two citations on the above mentioned equipment with a time limit of May 26th to conform, and a proposed fine of $195.00.

We are finding it impossible to buy guards and also impossible to have them made in the time allowed.

In the 1st place we have never had an accident on the machines in question (not saying that we couldn't have) we were not given enough time to have guards made, that were never made before, and we think the fine was uncalled for.

Very truly yours,

WALTER L. PHILLIPS.

APPENDIX B.-LETTER FROM SECRETARY GUENTHER TO NATIONAL OIL JOBBERS.

COUNCIL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

Mr. JOE R. HORKEY, President,
National Oil Jobbers Council,
Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., May 12, 1972.

DEAR MR. HORKEY: You have been informed in our former correspondence that careful consideration will be given to the presentations made by your Council on your interpretations of the meaning, intent, and application of Section 1910.106 (b) (2) (vii). Drainage, dikes, and walls for aboveground tanks, of the Occupational Safety and Health Standards. In essence, your Council's presentations have pointed out that the above standard primarily addresses itself to public safety rather than employee safety.

Our Office of the Solicitor has studied this particular standard and has suggested that your Council, and other interested parties, be advised as follows. Since the expressed purpose of this standard, interpreted from its text. is to avoid harm to adjoining property and to waterways, "paragraph (b) (2) (vii) of Section 1910.106, is not intended to apply when its requirements do not have a substantial relationship to the safety and health of employees."

Further, you are advised that the entire section is under long range review because the primary emphasis on public safety is common to many other provisions in this section. A clear delineation of employee safety is needed. The proposal for modification will be published in the Federal Register, affording opportunity to all interested parties to comment.

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to all industrial and congressional inquirers who have written us on this subject in order to obtain a unanimity of understanding.

Very truly yours,

GEORGE C. GUENTHER, Assistant Secretary of Labor.

APPENDIX C.-CIRCULAR FROM NATHANIEL HILL ASSOCIATION ON "FRONTIERS

OF OSHA"

NATHANIEL HILL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Raleigh, N.C.

DEAR SIR: Attached is our first issue of "Frontiers in OSHA." We thought you might like a firsthand look at this new publication designed to inform and assist cost and profit responsible executives. It is our purpose to keep you abreast of what's happening in OSHA and to assist you in charting your course through the constantly changing requirements.

It is our intent to report on our follow up of actual inspections, to advise of changes and developments and, in general, to provide you with background and specific information that will assist you in avoiding unnecessary costs in complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

"Frontiers in OSHA" is available to you now on a special introductory offer for six months, including this issue, at a cost of Eighty-Four ($84) Dollars. If you like what you see, please complete the form below and we'll send you, free, a copy of the digest of most frequently violated standards (from Walsh-Healey) and an index to Volume 36. Number 105, Federal Register, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Very truly yours,

NATHANIAL M. HILL.

Please send "Frontiers in OSHA" for five months to the address below. We understand our cost for this Special Introductory Offer is $84.00 Please bill company. Check enclosed.

Name
Company
Address

Signature

Position

Date

Mr. HUNGATE. The next witness will be Mr. L. C. Carpenter, vice president, Midcontinent Farmers Association.

TESTIMONY OF L. C. CARPENTER, VICE PRESIDENT, MIDCONTINENT FARMERS ASSOCIATION, COLUMBIA, MO.; ACCOMPANIED BY AL HOFFMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, MISSOURI FARMERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HUNGATE. I have had the privilege of knowing Mr. Carpenter for some time.

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to present a short statement. I have Mr. Hoffman with us, our general counsel, who has had to deal with this problem for the last year, who is knowledgeable on this subject and who has met several problems head on. I think we can give some information which your committee will be interested in.

Mr. HUNGATE. We are pleased to have you with us.

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Mr. Name is L. C. "Clell" Carpenter, vice president of Midcontinent Farmers Association with headquarters in Columbia, Mo.

I am appearing here today in behalf of approximately 156,000 members in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and other adjacent States.

I have with me here today Mr. Al Hoffman, general counsel of Missouri Farmers Association with headquarters in Columbia, Mo. For clarification, members of the Midcontinent Farmers Association include members of the Missouri Farmers Association in Missouri and as aforestated a sizable number of members from States that adjoin Missouri.

Mr. Hoffman is more intimately acquainted than I with the day-today problems of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and will be available for answering questions that you may wish to ask.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee. We do have some concern about the mandatory provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 as these relate to farmers and their cooperative businesses.

Before we voice those, however, let us say that we are sympathetic and generally in accord with the basic intent of this act. We hope that through research, education and increased safety awareness OSHA can reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards in agriculture.

Our major concern is with the mandatory standards as spelled out in the regulations and the strict and arbitrary enforcement procedure permitted by the act as these apply to farmers and their cooperative business activities.

« PreviousContinue »