publican congress, or to a democratic congress will not remedy this, as we have bad both and the loop-holes in our IRS tax laws still exist. We adults often wonder why today's teenagers and young adults revolt, and refuse to conform to today's society. I feel this is probably our hope of the future. When our government digresses to the point where a law such as OSHA can pass both houses without debate, and place the power to ruin in the hands of government officials, it is time for a change. I don't agree with the tactics of the younger people, but I shall work for change in the future. I intend to abide by the old-fashioned methods of change, change at the polls, but I shall be more active to see that changes do occur. I realize many amendments are being proposed to the OSHA law, but what we need is representatives who will prevent such acts from becoming law. We must return to government by the people, not governing the people. I believe these feelings represent those of many, and I think you'll see this reflected in election returns this year. I hope we can salvage the good parts of our society and government. I don't think it's too late for us to repair what we have, but if major repairs aren't made, we'll see our system traded out for a different one whether we like it or not. Sincerely, ED COLLINS. FREMONT BEVERAGES, INC., Congressman TENO RONCALIO, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR TENO: I am today in receipt of your letter of April 7, addressed to "Federation of Independent Business Member", in which you enclosed a copy of an amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which you introduced into the House of Representatives on March 20. This is to advise you that two inspectors of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, regional office at Billings, Montana, made an inspection of the Fremont Beverages, Inc., premises on March 31, which resulted in citations and fines being assessed in the amount of $170.00. For your information I am enclosing photostatic copies of the citation that was issued to us. I am not so concerned with the fine that was assessed to us, but I am upset by the fact that we are making an earnest effort to bring our premises into compliance with the law, and a number of things were in the process of compliance when the inspectors arrived. You will recall that two years ago we installed a new canning facility here in Worland, and our equipment purchases amounted to over $300,000.00. It is highly automated and a high speed canning line requiring a number of electrical motors. At the time of the inspection, we were fined $85.00 because we did not have guards around the shafts running from the electric motors to the pumps, and in addition to the fines, we are going to be to the expense of installing guards on equipment that is only two years old-equipment manufactured by and purchased from reputable manufacturers. True, these OSHA requirements were not in existence at the time this machinery was manufactured; but I am sure that had the manufacturer thought this equipment hazardous, that they would have installed guards at the time it was installed in our plant. In other words, we are being fined for an omission by a manufacturer. I am just as interested in having a place that is safe for our employees as is the Government. I approve of what they are trying to do but I object strenuously to the way they are doing it. I firmly believe that if the Department of Labor is really interested in protecting the employee, that the inspector should first meet with the various companies and discuss these requirements with them and give them an opportunity, within a reasonable time, to bring their premises into conformance with the requirements of the Act. If you will examine the manual that is furnished businesses, it contains about as many words as the Holy Bible, and it requires one man many, many hours to read it and to assimilate the information that is in it. I think that there would be no opposition to what the Act is trying to do if it was presented in the light of assisting the various businessmen to conform rather than the Gestapo tactics now being used by the Department of Labor. I am heartily in accord with your amendment and I hope that you can secure the support of other representatives as well as senators to secure a modification of this Act. Yours very truly, NEWELL B. SARGENT, President. BAR 13 RANCH, Big Horn, Wyo., February 21, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR TENO: There is quite an uproar here about the Williams-Steiger Safety bill and the town is making a determined effort to write their Congressmen and Senators to ask them to vote for the bills which exempt small businesses. I have read the law and it is really very difficult to understand and I know that it will likewise be hard to enforce. The exemption of small businesses and the individual employers could well be met and would, I think, avoid imposing a needless burden on those of us who are trying to operate as individuals. The law as it is written seems to describe no standards but sends inspectors around who then become judge and jury of what is dangerous and what isn't. We are already bearing a very heavy bookkeeping burden and having a hard enough time making out. This will be another deterrent for young people thinking about going into agriculture, and a burden which may well put some of the older agriculturists out of it. I hope all goes well and that we will see you in Wyoming before too long. ALLEN O. FORDYCE. INDUSTRIAL ENGINE SERVICE, Hon. TENO RONCALIO, New Senate Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: As the owner of a small business and an employer, much of my time has been spent trying to wade through and decipher which parts of the Williams-Steiger Act will apply to me. We have always been safety minded and open to any reasonable suggestions, but the tactics employed in administrating this act are not the American way. Surely you, as a representative of the people, can seek and find an alternate to this law. ROBERT R. SIGMON. CAMPBELL OIL FIELD SERVICE, DEAR CONGRESSMAN RONCALIO: I am writing in regards to the new Federal Health and Safety Act (OSHA). For the past several weeks, I have read reports of Federal inspectors fining businesses in Wyoming for what I consider some very unfair charges. I recently attended a seminar in Casper on the OSHA act. What I learned disturbed me greatly. Mr. Beebe (District Director from Denver) made some very definite points; such as no business could pass the Federal Inspection, and no appeals had ever overturned their citations. I run a small independent business which I started from scratch. I know that there is no possible way to ever completely meet their requirements, as I do not believe that any business, large or small can. One of the items in the Federal Register is that ice in employees water cans is unhealthy. I believe this is a personal decision to be made by employes and not a dictate of the government. In a factory this may be feasible with water coolers, but working in oil fields under the hot sun all day with no cool water, I feel is unfair. I have cited just one of the many very unrealistic rules. I am 100% for safety of all my employees, but how, when human nature is not perfect, can a person run a business that is perfect, which is what these regulations are written for. I hope that my business and all the rest in the United States can count on your help to bring this bill into more realistic points on safety. If this bill is allowed to remain, I am certain that many small businesses will have to close their doors, and possibly some of the larger businesses. I do not believe the idea is wrong, just that it is too perfect. Yours truly, JOHN CAMPBELL. COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Congressman TENO RONCALIO, DEAR SIR: I just returned from a seminar explaining the impact of the WilliamsSteiger Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. Being a small businessman, with one female and two male employees, this law has serious implications.on our business. It is my feeling that to comply to the letter of the law would quite likely be economically infeasible for our company, even if it were possible for me to find out exactly what I should do. I agree with safety rules and inspections, but the gestapo techniques outlined by Mr. Strahm of the U.S. Department of Labor, Billings, are very un-American, by the old sense of the word. I think it is high time you people in Washington reconsider who works for who. I thoroughly hope the attitude of the three or four hundred businessmen at today's meeting is adequately reflected in the upcoming elections. There were so many absurd things pointed out regarding this law today that I could not begin to cover them all. One prime example is the fact we are required to have two rest rooms, if we retain the one female employee we have. We must decide whether to put in a second rest room, or attempt to train a man for this job. Neither is an attractive thought. Our present rest room is probably used about thirty or forty minutes of any given day. One of the most disheartening facts is that we will be responsible to comply. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" was used repeatedly by Mr. Strahm. Yet several times during the question and answer period he was unable to answer questions. He also admitted that copies of the laws are unavailable at this time. Also, he admitted one would have to be quite knowledgeable in both law and safety to read and understand the law. He also stated that 20% of those inspected received no violations, and 40% received no penalties. I construe this to mean 60% did receive penalties. Morbid proof that if inspected I am likely to receive one or more penalties. If I were in a position where I could readily terminate my employees, and handle my business alone, I definitely would. I envy those who will be able to apply this solution, and I feel many will. Who then will hire those so terminated. I feel I may very likely spend a sizable investment attempting to comply with the law, and still receive violations and penalties if inspected. In seven and one-half years in business here we have had one lost-time accident. The employee hurt his finger and eventually lost a finger nail. I heard nothing today which indicated this accident might have been prevented by this law. I feel if this law is not corrected, if proper "education to the law" is not provided before penalties are imposed, and exceptions made, the results will be catastrophic nationally. I have always opposed the government dictating to the people, and feel this is the most drastic step ever in American history. I trust your feelings on this matter will be forthcoming. ED COLLINS, Taxpayer U.S.A. CAMBRIA FOREST INDUSTRIES. INC., Hon. TENO RONCALIO, DEAR TENO: Last evening the State Occupational and Health Administration people held a meeting here in Newcastle to acquaint the local people with this law. I counted over 300 people in attendance, which indicates the concern of all people, not just businessmen and employers in this law. Teno, people are mad 80-497-72 at the power this gives the Federal Government over their actions. No one in attendance at this meeting spoke in favor of the law or any part of it. I was even approached at joining a concerted effort by business people in this town to not allow inspectors to enter our property. Naturally something like this is ridiculous but it does give you an indication how people feel. Don Owsley, head of the Wyoming OSHA and three of his assistants chaired the meeting. In most instances he and his people were unable to adequately answer questions on particular problems concerning their safety regulations as they would affect local industry. In other words Teno, we are forced to comply with a law we don't understand, and also where the people who are to enforce the law won't tell you what is required for compliance. Your usual answer to a question is referred to your reading the Federal Register. I don't believe I am any more stupid than the average employer, but I'll be damned if I can make heads or tails out of these laws the way they are written. Why can't the Department of Labor make up a separate booklet for each industry and in layman's language define the law as they intend to enforce it? We were told last night that to date 26 federal inspections have been conducted in Wyoming. The 26 inspections resulted in 26 citations and in fines in each case. In other words, every inspection to date has resulted in a fine. Teno, there is something wrong with a law when in each and every case a fine is levied. 88% of all industrial accidents are due to carelessness of the worker. Nothing that an employer could do or not do would have prevented them. 3% of the accidents are due to Act of God. 9% of accidents could have been prevented. This law automatically assumes that any and every accident is due to the negligence of the employer. The employee is never at fault. Teno, this is a rotten law, it must be changed and personally I appreciate your effort in getting this done. Sincerely, PETER FIELD. CARROLL A. RIGGS SEED Co., Shoshoni, Wyo., February 25, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, Washington, D.C. DEAR TENO: I am writing you regarding the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. I have been to several meetings where those charged with its enforcement have explained how the law will work and how it will be inforced. This law seems to take away all responsibility of the employee to use any descretion on his part in the execution of his job. For whatever happens the employer is to blame, regardless. This law will result in a slight increase in unemployment. However, the biggest deterrent is the reduced productivity per employee and this when employee productivity is not keeping pace which only adds still more to our very grevious problem of inflation. By this I mean the employee is using too much time in placing or replacing shields to an ultra high degree of safety as demanded in this act. To put the matter in perspective let's look at it this way if the prevention of accidents and the preservation of human lives is of such concern to the Congress of the United States (and certainly it should be) then lets ban all automobiles from the highways. This will save more accidents and save more human lives in one year than the most rigorous enforcement of the Williams-Steiger Act will save in five years. So let's repeal the law and save the taxpayers the many millions of dollars to be used in its enforcement. There are other laws already on the books that deal with hazardous occupations. Sincerely yours, CARROLL A. RIGGS. TOWN OF LOVELL, Lovell, Wyo., February 17, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, U.S. Congressman, House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN RONCALIO: Recently I listened to a presentation of the Williams-Steiger Act along with a description of the rules, regulations, and enforcement procedures used by the Department of Labor. If the description of the Wyoming Retail Merchants Ass'n. (Gaylord Hansen), which pointed out vast and detailed safety rules and regulations, and high fines and cost of compliance, is true, I feel immediate investigation is called for. I certainly am not against reasonable rules, regulations, and enforcement procedure to protect employees health and safety. However, if the description was presented accurately. I feel this is a type of harassment and economic burden totally unfair, to inflict on our nation's commercial and agricultural interests. Would your office investigate this problem and determine, if, in fact this situation exists. If it does, please take whatever action you can to bring about a reasonable solution. Sincerely, JOHN T. NICKLE, Manager. J. R. AND HELEN MITCHELL, Clearmont, Wyo., February 19, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, DEAR TENO: About a week ago I attended a meeting on the Williams-Steiger act (Health and Safety). It is an extremely rough law. It will mean that a lot of people that employ 2 or 3 men will just get rid of them instead of trying to comply with the act. This is at a time when there is quite a little unemployment. We have a more reasonable Health and Safety Act in Wyoming. I think that the Williams-Steiger act should only apply to employers of say 25 or more employees and in interstate commerce and where there is no state law covering health and safety. I know if it is expanded to where agriculture has some of the same things to comply with as business has to comply with I will just have to fire my two employees and cut my operation to where me and my family can do it. Yours truly, J. R. MITCHELL. TRI-COUNTY GRAIN Co., Chugwater, Wyo., April 7, 1972. Re: O.S.H.A. Representative TENO RONCALIO, Longworth Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE RONCALIO: I feel the O.S.H.A. (Occupation-SafetyHealth-Act) is not a workable piece of legislation. I realize the need for safety laws and regulations but I don't feel these laws have to be imposed and enforced by the Federal Government. The people in the Wyoming Department of Health and Safety know our needs in relation to Health and Safety and are doing and have done a good job in this area. As you know I have the largest grain elevator in Wyoming and I honestly try to maintain my place of business in a safe and healthful manner as I know all conscientious business people do. I continually watch for safety hazards and correct them if I find something that needs attention. I urge you to work for the REPEAL, not amending, of the O.S.H.A. TED MUNN, Manager and Vice President. J. T. LANGDON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Worland, Wyo., April 14, 1972. Hon. TENO RONCALIO, U.S. Congressman, House of Representatives, DEAR TENO: I am still picking away at the O.S.H.A. I note that the Casper Tribune of Friday, April 7, 1972, had statements by Vernon Strahm, Area Director of the O.S.H.A. to the effect that the O.S.H.A. would be administered by common sense, pointing out that the split toilet seat and the "one-half woman employee" for restroom purposes would be not enforced or would be waived in an attempt to placate. |