Page images
PDF
EPUB

South Dokota is one of the States that is not a highly industrialized society. Consequently, there is a laggard compliance with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

In the more industrialized societies, where there has been for several years a system of organized labor, where there has been bargaining and negotiating, many of the objectives of the law have been achieved. In the upper Midwestern States there has been a low response to the requirements of the law.

Special consideration ought to be provided the employers in the nonindustrial States. I have joined several of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to amend the existing statute to provide for an exemption of employers that employ 25 or less employees.

In addition to that, the enforcement procedures should provide for "reasonable notice." Most of us who have had any experience with the law realize that the courts have always given people a reasonable time to comply with procedural provisions of regulatory law.

This idea of providing all employers one year of education is nonsense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The fact is the employers understand the law and that is why they object to it. I doubt that every time Congress enacts a statute, that we should have a year or two years of special education on that particular statute.

We must enact laws. That is the purpose of a legislative entity. The executive branch of Government as opposed to the legislative branch of Government must execute the law and it should be enforced with a certain amount of reasonableness.

There is an amendment to the existing OSHA before the Congress at the present time. The provisions of that amendment are not before this committee and I shall not offer evidence in support of that amendment at this time.

The commendable thing that you are doing today is needed. The oversight hearings of the committee may result in a public message to the people in the executive branch of Government. That is what the people are asking-reasonable notice and time for compliance with the provisions of the act.

I have had complaints from constituents indicating an employer went to the representatives of the Department of Labor and talked about the law. I understand that he may have abused the representative of the Department of Labor to such an extent that he received an inspection the next day and that he was assured a penalty.

In another case an employer reportedly was fined because his employee drove a caterpiller tractor into the town of Huron, in the winter months, without wearing the required "hard hat." The driver of the caterpillar was wearing a hunting cap with earmuffs over his ears for personal comfort. The employer was arrested and fined and penalized because the employee didn't have a steel helmet on.

In South Dakota on a cold day in January-a helmet wouldn't be very comfortable for the employee while driving a caterpillar tractor any distance.

These are examples worthy of the consideration of reasonable men. Those persons responsible for enforcement of the law should use discretion in imposing the provisions of the law upon employers that experience peculiar circumstances. I have probably as many letters as the

gentleman from Wyoming has and I presume we have all received much mail on this matter. I think the real question for the Members of the Congress is to ask ourselves-how do we err? Who made the law? It was enacted before I was a Member of Congress. But the Congress enacted the law and Congress can amend the law.

I don't know how this law ever came about. I don't know how many members of this committee voted for it.

I refer your attention to action of the Congress last week. Five minutes before we decided we wouldn't use any money to enforce this law for the next year we increased the appropriations $20 million to hire 150 more investigators.

Mr. HUNGATE. You recognize that the Congress is a representative body.

Mr. DENHOLM. I am not sure the Congress was representing the small businessman when the OSHA was enacted. We should decide as a representative body whether we are going to pursue policies in the future that provide for more control by the Government or more control of the Government by the people.

I think we must decide whether we are to pursue policies that result in more Government in our businesses or if in fact we are to have more business in Government.

These are the hard issues of our time. In a more and more complex society, where all such problems exist, and the health and safety of all of the people is of growing concern-how do we legislate, as legislators, in such a way as to protect the rights of the people and still preserve that all-important "right of privacy" of our own people. How do we protect the people against government?

Mr. Chairman, the president of the South Dakota Retailers Association has prepared statements in opposition to the law and I respectfully request they be filed.

When I asked for time to testify, Mr. Balgeman, the president of the South Dakota Retailers Association, had planned to be present today. I regret that he is unable to be present.

I ask that his prepared testimony be filed in the record. Mr. HUNGATE. Is this a statement or a group of examples? Mr. DENHOLM. They are all similar and there are copies for each of you. There are examples from different employers in the State. Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, that will be made one of the exhibits.

(The documents to be furnished follow :)

SOUTH DAKOTA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, Pierre, 8. Dak., June 16, 1972. Enclosed is a copy of testimony received from a half dozen typical South Dakota, small town, main street, independent retailers regarding the implementation of OSHA.

This testimony has been received by mail, phone, and direct contact with the independent businessmen involved. The two most important points all of these men made were that they were not sure as to just what had to be done to comply with OSHA and what it would cost to comply.

On June 20 this testimony will be presented to the House Select Committee on Small Business in Washington, D.C. by the South Dakota Retailers Association. Sincerely,

Enclosure.

KEN BALGEMAN, President.

SOUTH DAKOTA WAREHOUSEMEN AND MOVERS' ASSOCIATION, Pierre, S. Dak., June 16, 1972. Enclosed is a copy of testimony received from five licensed and bonded South Dakota Warehousemen and Movers regarding the implementation of OSHA at their business location.

This testimony has been received by mail, phone and direct contact with the businessmen involved.

The following points were made:

1. Time and money spent on record keeping might well be spent elsewhere. 2. All like businesses have not been treated alike.

3. Considerable work is NOT done on the businessman's premise.

4. Employees should assume more responsibility toward compliance.

On June 20 this testimony will be presented to the House Select Committee on Small Business in Washington, D. C. by the South Dakota Warehousemen and Mover: Association.

Sincerely,

Enclosure.

KEN BALGEMAN,
Executive Manager.

By way of introduction, I am Ken Balgeman from Pierre, South Dakota, acting in my dual capacity as President of the South Dakota Retailers Association and Executive Manager of the South Dakota Warehousemen and Movers Association. As Retailer President, I represent slightly more than 500 small town, independent retailers from all parts of the state. In addition we feel that this organization speaks for all South Dakota retailers. As Warehousemen and Movers Executive Manager, I represent 34 independent businessmen who handle 90% of the warehousing and moving in the state. There are no organizations in South Dakota better equipped to speak for these two industries.

OSHA, as presently written and administered, has caused a big uproar in South Dakota. Everyone is upset and pretty well misinformed about the Act. It is obvious by now, however, that the Act is unduly stringent for the small employer. Frankly, exempting employers who employ less than thirty employees would solve 90% of the problems in our specific two industries and in the entire state. The overall effectiveness of the Act would not be curtailed.

In brief form I would like to list some specific problems:

Retailer in Rapid City (General Merchandise) 12 employees.-The uncertainty of knowing what to do in order to comply with the regulations. The Federal Register is difficult to understand. The need is felt for condensed rules which would relate to the particular type of business.

Note: The American Retail Federation (at considerable expense to the Federation and to individual retailers has published such a set of rules.

Retailer in Pierre (Greenhouse & Flower Shop) 9 employees.-It is felt that a business should be able to ask for an inspection in order that compliance might be met. Fear of a fine keeps businesses from asking for an inspection.

Retailer in Madison (General Merchandise) 14 employees (2 men).-Concerned about the amount of time (time is money) spent in maintaining records. No accidents in 50 years at present location. Question need for two bathrooms. The old, really old, building must now be rewired. Why fines without an opportunity to make corrections?

Retailer in Cresbard (Feed and Seed) 1 employee.-Simpler and cheaper to release the employee, leaving one more family head without a source of income. Retailer in Milbank (Service Station) 2 employees.-Rather than trying to comply the operation has cut out two individuals and is now being run by the family. In effect, in our trying to make jobs safer, we are eliminating jobs for people who need them.

Retailer in Salem (General Merchandise & Cafe) 25 employees.-Don Anderson, owner and operator of the Farmer's Trading Post in Salem, has furnished a statement which I have reproduced and will provide for you.

FARMERS TRADING POST.
Salem, S. Dak., June 8, 1972.

Subject: OSHA.

To whom it may concern:

We concur with the precept of greater safety for all employees. Our business was started back in 1931 with just 'ma & pa'. We now employee 25 people and are honestly interested in their safety at all times.

We have had 41 years of almost free from any accident of any consequence. We are proud of this record. We find some areas of the William-Steiger Act impossible for us to adequately implement.

First of all we do not have the finances to do it. We would practically have to rewire our entire corner here and the economic status of a small town just doesn't make this feasible.

Secondly we do not have personnel able to understand and study all the material we are supposed to comply with. In addition we would like to see the manner and compliance of the inspection altered. The feeling we are being badgered by fines and threats rather than assistance is demoralizing.

We think there needs to be a redefining of justice. We (most small town operators) are proud of this great land and have worked hard out here in small communities. In this present economy (out farmer migration) we have our backs against the wall. THEN we are faced with another debacle.

It seems strange that SOME who threaten the existence of our Great Lands by GUNS & GIMMICS are set FREE. Free to go on with their plans of further revolution and subversive acts.

We just want to go on operating our business for our own good and all those with us. Kindly consider re-evaluation of the Safety Act that small town merchants can live with and comply.

Urgently yours,

Warehouseman & Mover in Rapid City, 26 employees:

FARMERS TRADING POST.

This is the only public warehouse of about a dozen in the city to have been checked.

Fire doors, which met fire inspection standards for many years, have now been changed to meet OSHA specifications; now the only set of doors in the city to meet OSHA.

Protectors required on belts which are very close to the ceiling.

Required to replace present correct working sprinkler heads with new ones. Not required of other warehousemen.

Question the principle of advising the employees to "tattle on" their employers. Warehouseman & Mover in Sioux Falls, 32 employees :

A very high percentage of a worker's time is spent in private homes and businesses.

Warehouseman & Mover in Aberdeen, 14 employees:

Must all employees wear hard hats?

Must all employees wear hard toe shoes?

Do fork lift trucks need protective cage? If answer is in the affirmative-How is material moved from the rear to the front of the truck?

Must all trucks be equipped with the device that dings or honks when it is put in reverse?

Warehouseman & Mover in Yankton, 18 employees:

We have not been able to digest all of it as yet. I am sure we will find that a lot of this law will be good for the industry and will prod some of us to up date our buildings and equipment as well as some of our procedures. My only regard is the possibility of receiving a heavy fine without having an opportunity to make some corrections that the inspector may find at the time he makes his inspection. I do feel that anyone should have sufficient time to correct any errors if it is visible that he has tried to comply.

Warehouseman & Mover in Huron, 14 employees:

In many cases it is felt that the employee should have some obligation other than as stated in the law. In other words, if an employee does not comply in the same manner, it is the employer, not the employee, who is fined. This has happened even though the employer has advised an employee as to how to comply and has furnished the proper equipment. The employer has been fined when the employee does not wear the equipment furnished. Note: Amish workers.

Mr. DENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to Mr. Enright, who has conducted hearings throughout the State of South Dakota. Mr. HUNGATE. Please proceed.

80-497-72-5

Mr. ENRIGHT. I am Gary Enright, administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation, with headquarters in Huron, S. Dak.

Farm Bureau is a free, independent, nongovernmental, voluntary organization of farm and ranch families united for the purpose of analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity, and social advancement and thereby to promote the national well-being.

Farm Bureau is local, statewide, national, and international in its scope and influence and is nonpartisan, nonsectarian and nonsecret in character.

I represent the more than 5,000 member families of the South Dakota Farm Bureau which is a part of the American Farm Bureau Federation. The American Farm Bureau is the Nation's largest farm organization consisting of over 2,057,000 member families in 2,820 counties in 49 States and Puerto Rico.

To some it may seem unusual that a farm organization would appear before a congressional subcommittee on small business but I assure you that the subject being considered today by this commitee has a direct relationship to agriculture and the small businesses which serve it.

The South Dakota Farm Bureau conducted a series of public informational hearings throughout the State in May of this year with the assistance of representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Labor.

These hearings included testimony from farmers, ranchers, businessmen, manufacturers, contractors as well as from farm organizations and chambers of commerce.

As we mentioned earlier, we do have a printed copy of the testimony which has been made part of your reference material.

The one overriding fact which made itself evident was that farmers and the small businesses in the towns and cities of this Nation are extremely closely related.

I suppose you could technically say that each farm or ranch is a small business. The average investment of a farmer or rancher in South Dakota is just under $100,000 per farm (1969 Census of AgricultureU.S. Department of Commerce).

The only difference between this investment and one of similar size in town is that the farmers investment is spread out on a farm with an average size of 997 acres. (1969 Census of Agriculture-U.S. Department of Commerce.)

The failure or problems of small businesses are felt directly by farm people. Businesses are there to serve a community and farmers are a part of that community. If a business fails or is forced to close because of regulations or for any reason, the people are adversely affected. Farmers are forced to travel greater distances to obtain the services once available in their hometown.

We agree with the concept of the intent of the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, that employees should be provided with a safe and healthful place in which to work.

The problems arise in the implementation of regulations which enforce the intent of the law.

It is our opinion that Congress should take back some of the responsibility which it turned over to agencies of Government, and define where and under what circumstances regulations should or can be applied.

« PreviousContinue »