Mr. SAMUELS. Data from the Labor Department, taking a single week in April, shows that there were 819 inspections, and 221 were in work places with 25 or fewer employees. This is twice the usual number of small employers investigated, by the way. So that is a fair week to take. Of these 221, 33 were in response to complaints; 20 were investigations of fatalities (11) or for catastrophes (9); 85 were target industries; and 83 were scheduled by random selection.

Mr. HUNGATE. You are talking about employing 25 or less?
Mr. SAMUELS. That is right.

Mr. HUNGATE. That was the question I was thinking about.

Mr. CLAYMAN. I think, from our point of view, since you have accepted our testimony, this sums up our case. I know that the action of the House and Senate will be greeted with a sense of great frustration by ordinary workers. I am confident that we will have encouraged the Department of Labor to loosen up generally. You have spoken. We have been trying to jack them up. But I am confident that the Labor Department will not abate the loss of life or health in the smaller establishments, and that will be a signal to them to forget about the whole work, because Congress has spoken. However, I trust in your future deliberations that you will send out a message that it isn't so.

That completes my testimony.

(Prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JACOB CLAYMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR,
INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, my name is Jacob Clayman and I speak on behalf of the more than six million men and women in the Industrial Union Department of the AFLCIO.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Philip Daugherty, Legislative Representative, and Mr. Sheldon Samuels, Director of our department of Occupational Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs.

We were pleased with the suggestion of Mr. Conte that we appear before you. He is well aware of our deep distress with the mismanaged implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Our presence this morning is an opportunity to augment the record on some critical issues.

Much of the apprehension and anger being expressed on the manner in which small business is being treated under the Act is justified. Much is based on misinformation. Some relates to willful scofflaws, for whom we have little sympathy. None of the legitimate complaints would be remedied by a change in the Act. The ire of the Congress is misplaced.

The reaction of the House, the Findley amendment, solves no problems. It punishes the employees of small business by regarding their lives and health as less sacred and important than those who work in larger establishments. It does nothing to assist small businessmen reduce death and suffering in their shops. It forces no real changes in administration policies that must be changed if the Act is to work.

The amendment eliminates from coverage about 30 percent of the nonfarm workers in this country. As a point of fact, it eliminates all of the employees of the approximately 250 manufacturing estbalishments in Mr. Findley's congressional district who employ less than 25 workers.

It has been observed that most of the complaints about the Act and its administration seem to be concentrated in the Far and Midwest. Perhaps this is because both small business and hazardous industries (who have higher proportions of small businesses) tend to be concentrated in those states.

An occupational health survey of the Chicago metropolitan area completed by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1970 demonstrates what can be found in small plants: the highest concentration of health hazards, the fewest safeguards, and the least awareness, on the part of management, of the threat to life that exists in these workplaces.

The problem of physical hazards are equally horrifying. Greater than 96 percent of the more than 16,000 logging camps in this country have 20 or fewer employees. Their disabling injury rate in 1970 was about three times the rate among all manufacturing employees: nine injured employees for each 100. In Wyoming, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it was 24 injured workers per hundred in this industry.

What has been the response of the Secretary of Labor to this situation? The Act empowers him to set standards. To educate. To consult. To enforce. The budget proposal generated by the Secretary of Labor not only specifies how much money the Congress is asked to appropriate, but how it is to be spent. It is a plan of action, or inaction. The Labor Department proposed a continuation of their prior, unsatisfactory program pattern. There were no adjustments to the needs of workers or the managers of small businesses.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the workers, by means of the Industrial Union Department, not the government, have sought

-easier rules for loans to small businesses who need funds to comply with the act?

-special programs of technical information and assistance for small business? -standards that can be read without reference to the so-called consensus standard-setting organizations?

We recognized the problems of small business, in which millions of our members work, very early. We pleaded for action on the part of the Labor Department and got none. We have brought the problems to the attention of the Congress, sometimes with success.

For example, on April 19 of this year, Mr. Daniels of New Jersey pointed to the incomprehensibility and unavailability of standards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Aspin of Wisconsin has placed a summary of our in-depth analysis of the OSHA budget in the Record. Mr. Flood listened with understanding to our plea before his committee. Let me quote from the first page of our statement to the House Appropriations Committee on May 3:

"Some of the small employers whose businesses are affected know little or nothing about the Act or standards that apply to them. While OSHA clearly collaborates with the National Association of Manufacturers, Chamber of Commerce and other large associations of businessmen, there is no special effort to coach the small employer. Nor is there any serious effort to inform unorgaized workers-who make up the majority of the workers covered-of their rights under the Act.

At least one million dollars ought to be appropriated for an educational effort among small businessmen and an equal amount for unorganized workers. It is clear that the budget of OSHA does not contemplate expenditures in these critical areas."

Small businessmen indeed have something to complain about.

The standards that are creating the greatest problems for small business were developed by the representatives of the major industries who dominate the consensus standard-setting organizations. They did a great job in requiring ice for drinking water. They do little to reduce the exposure of workers-and management-to carcinogenic agents.

Only one original standard, for asbestos, has been promulgated by the Labor Department. This was initiated at the request of the Industrial Union Department. But they followed few of our recommendations.

We passed for a new asbestos standard that would not be difficult to understand, that would be self-enforcing, that would provide for the major share of recordkeeping to be borne by the government, not by the employer.

The standard issued requires access to an industrial hygienist; it is not textually complete (it refers to standards issued by ANSI); it requires medical recordkeeping that pleases neither labor (because of problems of confidentiality and continuity) nor small businessmen (because of the problems of record maintenance and storage).

The standard was written by big business for big business.

In part because of our perceptions of the problem of employers who cannot afford a staff of safety specialists, we pressed for $5 million to be added to the training program of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in HEW, with emphasis on expenditures in the audio-visual field. HEW has the authority, the will and the ability to provide training and technical assistance programs for management and labor.

HEW needs money to do the job. We asked for this money. The request was— in effect-turned down by the House. This is partially because of erroneous information being disseminated by the Labor Department.

Didn't you think it strange that the Labor Department, in its testimony last week, obscured these responsibilities of HEW? These responsibilities can be carried out under the Act by government personnel in the workplace who are not required to issue a citation on finding a violation. In fact they are prohibited by law from doing so. Thus, in seeking their assistance, the employer does not trigger a citation. If by chance (and this is very unlikely) he is inspected by the Department of Labor, his efforts are taken into account.

What you heard in this regard from the Department of Labor was a blatant attempt at empire building on one hand, and, on the other hand, an attempt to evade enforcement responsibilities. Rather than point to the flexibility and wisdom of the existing legislation, they asked for changes in the Act that will permit them to pick and choose their targets.

Don't yo think it strange that the labor Department spends government time and money on closed-circuit television for the NAM, but won't provide in its budget the means of breaking out technical information on the basis of which a farm equipment dealer could comply with the law? Anyone familiar with information systems knows that this kind of need is met every day by other government programs. Yet at your hearing last week the response of the Secretary of Labor was that this is too expensive. To be charitable, this may be a result of the fact that the question referred to pamphlets. But these are not the preferred media. We asked for funds for an information system that can do the job.

The Department of Labor is not wrong all the time. But it could make a better case for its own employees. Green though they may be, the field force in the Department of Labor has been doing a good job. They have made themselves unwelcome in many places of business. But we forget that they are policemen. They are doing a difficult task that has never been done before. They are few in number, without even adequate equipment.

In a single week in April, OSHA compliance officers made 819 inspections. Two hundred and twenty-one were in workplaces with 25 or fewer employees. (This is twice the usual number of small employers investigated.) Of these 221, 33 were in response to complaints, 20 were investigations of fatalities (11) or catastrophes (9), 85 were of target industries, and 83 were scheduled by random selection. As good as this record appears to be, it should be noted that the rate of inspection is roughly one-third that of the Labor Department's effort under the WalshHealey Act. Currently, the compliance officers are making one inspection every four days or 78 per year per inspector. The rate under Walsh-Healey was 200 per year per inspector. This is hardly the record of an "eager beaver" effort as characterized by some members of Congress.

Is the Congress saying that complaints should not be answered? Very few complaints are ever made. They are usually the last hope for the correction of extremely serious situations. For example, in the whole State of Virginia, in the last six months of 1971, OSHA received only 17 complaints.

Should the Labor Department be prohibited from investigating and acting upon deaths and catastrophes?

Should the Labor Department ignore the most hazardous workplaces, in the most hazardous industries?

This is what the Findley amendment really says.

Let me summarize. The assistance and information services required by small business are authorized and mandated under the Act. Standards can be written which are textually complete, understandable and met without continuous engineering and medical services. Recordkeeping is not burdensome if it is understood and if the government provides adequate services.

Then why the uproar? The Congress is being overwhelmed by a campaign that aims not at the relief of small employers but at denying us work without fear. Organized business simply does not want to spend the monies and make the efforts necessary to a safe workplace. They are aided by administrative ineptness They are cheered by the assault from state programs that wish to weaken the federal program, against which they will be measured.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bergland.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clayman, I was most favorably impressed with your testimony. Mr. CLAYMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. And I agree with most everything you have said. I think the administration of this very worthwhile program has been a disaster. And enormous problems have been brought to the small business community. And the business people that I represent have been on me anxious to repeal the whole thing.

Mr. CLAYMAN. Of course.

Mr. BERGLAND. I refused to vote for the Findley amendment for reasons that the record will cite. But the point is that the small businessman is completely without the necessary information that he really wants to comply with the act.

I represent a rural community. And we have an instance where a garage in town which is doing spot repair, painting on automobile fenders, just minor things, has a violation. There are no body shops in that town. The major work is taken to the city, but the minor kind of things are done in the shop. And some employers have been cited.

But the point is that the people are frightened by this thing. They have been persuaded that the enormous powers of the Federal Government are going to drive them out of business. And I am looking for some way to preserve the intent of law, and at the same time find some rule of reason that can instruct these employers who really want to maintain safe working conditions who have not been able to get the information they need.

We have had examples of persons here before this committee who have written to three different people within the Department of Labor in response to a specific question, and got three different answers. What do they do?

And I would like to ask the question of you, as I have asked of other witnesses, and that is, whether or not you think section 21(c)(2) of the act gives the Secretary of Labor the power he needs to inform the employers as to what they must do, so that they know that they are in compliance with the objectives of the act and the provisions of OSHA.

Mr. CLAYMAN. Let me first make an observation, and then I want to ask Mr. Samuels to respond.

In my judgment, the small businessmen have been sold a propaganda package, an emotional package that does them little service, and the associations which represent them do less service. And I venture the guess, without having checked-it would be interesting to check-that we in the labor movement, interestingly enough, have asked for the kind of information, and the kind of services to be granted to the small businesmen which has not been requested by the associations that represent them. And they in my judgment have ill served either the workers or the people they represent, or Congress, by stirring up this propaganda storm, which obviously carried the House on an emotional binge-I can't understand it otherwise-no hearings, and 5 minutes of debate.

But now I want to get somebody more rational than myself to answer your specific question.

Mr. SAMUELS. Mr. Bergland, the answer is in two parts: One, the Secretary of Labor can create consultative services. The budget, as an

instrument of program, indicates that he has no desire to do so. There are no field educators in the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The second part of my answer refers to the Department of HEW. HEW has a clear mandate, it has the ability, and should have the wherewithal to do this kind of job. They can provide technical services. Dr. Key made that quite clear before your committee. And I was rather astonished that Mr. Guenther sought to obscure that point.

There is absolutely no reason why a small businessman cannot contact any of the 10 regional offices of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to receive the kind of consultation that he needs short of blueprints.

Mr. BERGLAND. That is interesting. Thank you very much.

Mr. SAMUELS. It is also interesting, sir, that three of these regional offices are unmanned.

Mr. HUNGATE. Of the HEW offices?

Mr. SAMUELS. That is right. There are no regional officers in three of the regional offices

Mr. HUNGATE. Where are those offices?

Mr. SAMUELS. The offices are in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago

Mr. HUNGATE. I mean where are the three that are unmanned, do you know that?

Mr. SAMUELS. No, I don't know.

Mr. HUNGATE. Could you obtain that information for us and file it on or before the 17th of July?

Mr. SAMUELS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAYMAN. If I might add a little footnote, essentially they are unmanned because the administration has never asked for enough money to run the operation. And we in the main have not succeeded in getting more, although the Senate did add some more money to some programs.

Mr. HUNGATE. Did you testify on behalf of more money for the HEW program?

Mr. CLAYMAN. We certainly did.

Mr. HUNGATE. And what did you suggest as a figure, Mr. Clayman? Mr. CLAYMAN. For HEW?

Mr. HUNGATE. Yes.

Mr. CLAYMAN. You mean the total?

Mr. HUNGATE. I am talking about this particular area. Could you break it down?

Mr. CLAYMAN. We suggested to OSHA $1 million, and we suggested to HEW $5 million for training. So it was $1 million plus $5 million, a total of $6 million.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you.

Mr. Samuels, that is very revealing and exciting information to the committee.

Mr. SAMUELS. May I make one other point. Mr. Hungate?

Earlier in your hearings, which I had the pleasure of listening to, the point was made, if a government man comes into the job site, does he have to issue a citation? If he is an inspector of the Department of