mailing of 45 cents an hour additional pay "or we will report you to the Government and here are the violations in your plants."

it is very prevalent. It is being done. The law was never intended for that.

The secrecy section of the law is next. An employer does not have a chance to face his accusers. Under the Department of Labor money I teach for the University of Minnesota. I teach basically union employees. I do not and have not received money to teach small businesses, although we have held about 100 seminars throughout the United States to small businesses to educate them.

We do this at our own cost and raise our own funds. But the Department of Labor grants money to train union employees, provide the materials, to teach an employee basically how to file a complaint in secrecy against his employer. This is not right.

If the employee would, as an example, take these things to his employer, the employer being many times responsible, would correct

them.

You have the case at the Alabama Power & Light Co. employee in putting 19-gage wire mesh over a pole out in the Okefenokee swamps, left and did not tack down the matting. Immediately, he went back and got into a fight with his foreman and called OSHA. From Mobile, Ala., the inspector went out. It took him 211⁄2 hours to drive out and find the pole, cited Alabama Power & Light under a general duty obligation, and gave them a $200 fine. The law permits this, but the law should not.

The key to the problem is that they don't have trained and qualified people, and that the hiring practices now are that they have to, I have been told, hire 25 percent minority people, 25 percent women, 25 percent Vietnam veterans, and 25 percent all others.

You see before you all the OSHA standards that are applicable. I had an engineer, and it took him about a month to do this, and we listed and provided this information to our people. We tell them how to get the standards and we have a very aggressive OSHA program in education for our people as all the other insurance companies have. Those standards marked with double crosses and asterisks, are not available.

Senator Curtis got his from the Library of Congress and he got two-thirds of them. I have half of them and it stacks 48 inches high. Nobody-nobody can get all these standards. One of the standards went out of print.

I talked to the girl myself. She said the last printing she thought was back in 1939 and they haven't had a printing since that time or had distribution of the standards. Yet it was adopted under OSHA.

You can't even get the standards that they promulgate. They state the regulations right through without even reading. This is what I believe. This is my personal opinion.

If someone were to buy these regulations they would probably spend thousands of dollars just buying them, let alone trying to get the standards interpreted.

Without exception I have gone to the Department of Labor and asked for an interpretation and I have been refused, not given interpretations, and have been told they would take it under advisement.

The letters we have written have never been answered. We cannot get interpretations of this. This is why you have problems in the field, because the people themselves don't understand the standards.

You have a copy of a letter that McNeill Stokes wrote to Dr. Walsh, head of the training department of the Department of Labor.

We requested copies of the training material from the Department of Labor and what they gave to their inspectors and how to interpret these standards. They denied us this material, said it was secret and confidential.

Dr. Walsh and the Department of Labor will not give us any of their instructional material. If I was from the AFL-CIO I would have that information tomorrow morning. You know that. That is how bad it is.

We can't even get information on how they train their people to interpret the standards.

Further, for many years a complete science has been established and known as system safety analysis. This is how you enact rules and regulations. You can go to the University of California and get a degree in this, because it is such an exact science. It has been regarded as a primary course for beginning safety engineers.

Of the four various methods, cost effectiveness is considered a critical part. There is cause and effect, techniques to adopt standards, where you break into what they call the tree method and you enact regulations, rules, and standards that take into consideration all accident causation.

As a critical part of the cost effectiveness method, the cost of changes in the work environment made to increase safety are compared with either the decreased costs or fewer serious failures or with the increased effectiveness of the work environment to perform its task and thus determine the relative value of the changes.

Ultimately, all work environment changes have to be costed. This method makes such comparisons explicit. When the U.S. Department of Labor enacted regulations, it didn't do any of these studies at all, even though they should have been safety professionals and known better.

If I or any other safety engineer recommended a change in work environment, it is basic, fundamental and primary that we would do a system safety cost analysis.

Why didn't the Department of Labor do such a study when they knew it was part of the recognized safety procedure?

As an explicit example, take the regulation on toilet seats. The cost to change toilet seats has not been rescinded and will cost us a quarter billion dollars.

Mr. HUNGATE. We will have to get to questioning at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF LEWIS C. BARBE

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Permanent Select Committee on Small Business. My name is Lewis Barbe and I am vice president of the loss control division of the Houston General Insurance Company in Fort Worth, Texas. We are a small insurance company writing approximately $17,000,000.00 in fire and casualty premiums each year. Before joining the Houston General Insurance Company I had been previously employed as corporate director of loss prevention for the American Hoist & Derrick Company, Manager of accident

prevention for Westinghouse Electric Company and as a safety engineer for the Sun Oil Company. I am a graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology_and have a bachelor of science degree in fire protection and safety engineering. I am a certified safety professional and a member of the Veterans Safety International, American and Canadian Society of Safety Engineers, being the first American ever elected to the Canadian society. I have been for many years a member of the National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Testing Materials, the American Industrial Hygiene Association. I was appointed to the Governor's Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety in Pennsylvania. I am also a member of the American National Standards Institute Committee Z41 and B30 representing the American Society of Safety Engineers and the American Industrial Hygiene Association as a Legislative delegate. I further am a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in London, England and a member of the British and Australian Safety Council as well as having chaired the Western Pennsylvania Safety Council Specialized Training Committee. I am the safety consultant for the Texas Nursing Home Association, the Southern Tile, Terrazzo, and Marble Contractors Association, the National Oil Jobbers Council, and the Tile Contractors' Association of America, Inc. The reason that I am here before this committee this morning is to talk particularly about the occupational safety & Health Act of 1970 and how it affects small businesses.

The scope of the law includes all small businesses and all small work establishments but it excludes the Federal Government. Thereby each and every time that I work with a small manufacturer: a small retail store: etc., and I explain to them that this law applies to everyone but the Department of Labor, U.S. Government, etc., and I explain that the Department of Labor just enforces the law; the small employers have quite a reaction. Do as I say not as I do. There is great inequity in this type of law. I do not think that anyone misconstrues the sole purpose of the law which has to provide a safety and healthful working environment but if State governments, and Government subsidized organizations are exempt from this law it sets a bad example for the small businessman. This law should be changed to be for all and not discriminate against the small employers. As you know the administration of the act is vested in the Department of Labor and after working many diligent hours with personnel in the Department of Labor I find there are many dedicated people but in doing and performing our safety engineering we find that for the most part those people employed in the occupational safety and health administration are nontechnical, non-trained and non-experienced for their job. It seems that there is a struggle existing between unions and management to blackmail each other, such as the John Beall case. The people who are out in the field working on a day to day basis implementing this law are completely not prepared either through their training or their work experience to implement this law or to cope with the technical standards, unions and management problems.

I would like therefore to recommend to this committee that they examine the qualifications of those people who are implementing the law. And I would recommend very strongly that the administration of the law be removed from the Department of Labor and that a National Occupational Safety and Health Bureau be established where you will not have pressure groups recommending personnel because of their effectiveness in unions, Government, business, and the candidates could be selected because of their traiing and work experience regardless of their background. How many trained graduate engineers are in the Department of Labor. This is the key to the problems I feel that we are having with this law. Specific examples are those people who at one time or another applied for positions with the Federal Government and were turned down because of non-union or non-political support. Many graduate engineers, about 800 I am told, did apply but very few received appointment. It is my understanding there is now a quota system for hiring. 25% minority, 25% women, 25% Vietnam veterans and 25% all others. There is less than 1% of the Department of Labor Staff that are graduate safety engineers and these men at best cannot perform any of the total functions that are needed. How can people who have worked in other fields and obtained their education in other occupations be put in jobs as law enforcement officers. In particular I am talking about people from the safety equipment supply field, the Martime Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Post Office Department, etc.

This now leads to one of the other major problems that we have to contend. Many small employers are readily and eagerly asking us to help them implement

80-497-72-14

the safety laws. Therefore I had one of my engineers itemize the United States Federal Register of May 29, 1971 and list the standards adopted by reference. I now find that many of these standards have been out of print for many years and are not available to anyone at this time. Some of the standards have been out of print I understand for more than 30 years. This leads me to believe that very little thought was given to the enactment of the standards and I am attaching a detailed list of all these standards, their cost, etc. for your inspection. The xx and represents standards that are out of print and not available. Please note the box of standards that is before you.

Can a U.S. Department of Labor law enforcement inspector, etc. give you interpretations of these standards to know what is a violation, or not a violation. For many years a complete science has been established and known as system safety analysis. It has been regarded as a primary course for beginning safety engineers. Of the four various methods of analysis "cost effectiveness" is considered a critical part. In the cost effectiveness method, the cost of changes in work environment made to increase safety are compared with either the decreased costs of fewer serious failures, or with the increased effectiveness of the work environment to perform its task and thus determine the relative value of the changes. Ultimately all work environment changes have to be costed. This method makes such cost comparisons explicit. When the U.S. Department of Labor enacted regulations it did not do any type of these studies, even though they should have been safety professionals and known better. If I or any safety engineer recommend a change in the work environment it is basic, fundamental, and primary that we would do a system safety cost analysis. Why then didn't the Department of Labor do such a study when they knew it was part of the recognized safety procedure. As an explicit example, take the regulation of toilet seats. Section 1910.141 (3) (ii) every water closet shall have hinged openfront seats. If every toilet seat is changed to comply with U.S. Department of Labor regulations the results and effort on small businesses would probably be: Total toilet seats---

Subject to act to be changed..

Cost per seat to change (labor and material)

Total cost--

15,000,000

8,000,000

$30

$240, 000, 000

This is just too ridiculous for words. I do not know what is meant by the regulation except to change all the toilet seats that are round and do not have open fronts. A cost of a quarter of a billion dollars to small business. Is this really what Congress meant to achieve in OSHA. I believe not, because this regulation is not a rational judgment. OSHA is full of such ridiculous rules and regulations. So what happens. Each individual labor law enforcement officer then becomes his own law as many of the inspectors do not enforce these regulations. Therefore the law enforcement officers are discriminating in the enforcement of the law. Are coat hangers not in lavatories really an unsafe condition. How about ice in water. These are violations of the OSHA regulations. People have been so cited. I am sure that the American National Standards Institute, the National Fire Protection Association and other consensus standards organization will state that their standards initially were not designed to be used as a law to put people in jail and fine them for violations.

Therefore it is my hope that all standards adopted should be revoked and new ones published that would be specific, and fair to everyone and that the new regulations would be made available to all people in the U.S.A. What do you think of regulations that have been enacted by the U.S. Department of Labor for which no one can obtain a copy. Specifically the Construction Safety Act, etc. and when you do obtain those standards that are available the U.S. Department of Labor law enforcement officers cannot understand or interpret the standards for you. How then may honest people comply with this law and not go bankrupt or be fined and put in jail. The recordkeeping requirements or the law require a report if a girl for example typing cuts one finger and cannot type with that finger for the rest of the day. The employer must fill out a supplemental report; post the information to a log and post the accident to his summary. This is not recordkeeping to determine accident causation, corrective action, provide analysis, recommendations to establish control barriers to prevent the recurrence of the same accident; determine job qualifications, evaluate supervisors performance. Statistics gathered under OSHA are purposely distorted and confused and mislead you to believe there is a national disgrace

in accidents of industrial establishments and small businesses in this country. Here I believe there is a deception on the part of the Occupational Safety & Health Statistics to mislead the public; cause excessive recordkeeping hardship on small businesses and in general publish ridiculous requirements for recordkeeping.

These requirements on recordkeeping are published and required for only one reason. To swell the accident statistics and to provide more jobs for the Department of Labor. These recordkeeping requirements should be changed to give a true picture of American employers, and the people rsponsible for recommending these regulations removed as incompetents. Compliance inspections are again a problem. Think of yourself as a small business. A small shop and the government enacting legislation that put you in violation of a law that you couldn't even get information about. What do you do. Who can you call for help. Our company has tried to fill this need. Imagine an employer with 30 or 40 employees with 400 violations. What would you decide to do. Build new according to the law. What if your building was built in 1880 in New Orleans. This law, I would say overnight put 99% of all employers in violation of the law. This is truly unfair. Now the unions are aware of these laws and also use them to obtain pay raises and organize employers. This is an abuse of the law for which there is no restriction. If a union wants to organize a business they can threaten to call in the OSHA inspector and in general use the law for their own end. A law is needed here to put a stop to this and prevent these abuses and put OSHA in proper prospective. A man has a right to face his accusers. Not so under OSHA. This must be changed.

The secrecy section must be opened up and abolished. Also the law penalizes employers if employees violate safety regulations. This must be changed in the interest of fairness. Employee negligence should be punished and the law administered equally. Training is one of our major problems. I have published what I call an OSHA 1B compliance manual for nursing homes, etc. and we have tried by lecture seminar to teach people what is required of them under the law. Why then will the U.S. Department of Labor grant money for teaching union employees how to file secret complaints against their employer but not to small businesses for seminars. The owner of the establishment needs to know what to do to be in compliance with the law. Why then does the U.S. Department of Labor not make available even its training material when requested for us who train and work with small businesses. What and why the lack of cooperation in training small employers but the cooperation and money and material to train labor unions. Why can we not obtain copies of the Department of Labor training program for inspectors. Now, how about SBA loan's. How many have been submitted and approved. Try to get a loan as a small business. Have you ever talked to a loan officer of the SBA and filled out a SBA form. I have been denied copies of the SBA form 4 to mail to our small businesses that we work because the SBA loan officer told me to have the people come in to the office so they could talk them out of an SBA loan as the majority would not qualify. Now for errors and omission insurance for safety engineers. Here every safety engineer that I know has had his insurance cancelled.

I personally was told by underwriters at Lloyds of London that they cannot insure against the whims of the law enforcement officials of the department of Labor. They will not even issue a policy for me with a $1,000 deductible and $50,000,000 maximum for $6,000.00 in premiums per year. No other company will insure me or any other safety engineer. I agree with them. How can they insure something where they know no one can go through all the rules, regulations of the Department of Labor and still be subject to the general duty clause, and the personality and opinions of an untrained, uneducated labor law enforcement officer.

Last but not least, why does the area director in Dallas, Texas make press releases, call a TV news interview two days before the employer even receives his citation. Does not this destroy confidence in the law for small businesses. (See Peuparald citations.)

As a result of all of these inequities that for many, many months have been cited to the Department of Labor's deaf ears, it is my hope that this committee will be able to obtain some help and cooperation for the small business individual in getting cooperation from the Department of Labor to correct these inequities. Therefore, gentlemen, please stop what is going on and let's all take two steps backwards and abolish what we have done. And then take one step forward and redo everything with logic and reason. In other words, Stop what is going on and go back and do it correctly and fairly with common sense.