Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is estimated that we have some 4.1 million businesses in the United States which are directly affected by the Williams-Steiger Act which is commonly referred to as OSHA.

The American people are not unaccustomed to regulations. We have learned to live with many which have been both reasonable and unreasonable. However, the flood of complaints received by Members of Congress, the Departments of Agriculture and Labor, as well as State agencies, and the action taken by the House on June 15 with reference to Representative Finley's amendment, can only be interpreted as a signal that something is wrong somewhere.

We contend that something is wrong in several areas and I would beg the indulgence of the committee members while I outline some specific areas.

Much of the strong feeling we encountered relative to the administration of the Safety and Health Act stems from erroneous information about its provisions. Yet, this erroneous information is often based on erroneous information, verbal and sometimes written, of overzealous personnel of OSHA. Here is an example:

An OSHA publication issued for popular use says that "Farmers must also maintain accurate records of employee exposures to potential toxic materials."

OSHA is, of course, authorized by section 6(b) (5) of the act to promulgate "standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. ***" But no such standards have yet been promulgated for farmers.

The OSHA publication 2009 entitled "Safety and Health Standards for Agriculture" published the four standards currently applicable to farmers, and specifically provides that other published standards "do not apply to agricultural operations." The four applicable standards thus do not require farmers to maintain exposure records.

The applicable standards are confusing enough. But when the confusion is confounded by OSHA personnel and publications referring to some standard that may be issued in the future, it is not surprising that farmers and other small businesses are concerned and confused. Another example: One of the four standards which has been published as applicable to farmers relates to temporary labor camps. But the standard published does not meet the requirements of the act with respect to a consensus standard for farmers, because no agricultural interests were consulted or even informed relative to its development.

On the other hand, another farm labor housing standard issued by the Manpower Administration of the Department of Labor in 1966, does meet the act's definition of a consensus standard.

When these facts were pointed out to OSHA, they in effect agreed that this was so by announcing that compliance with either standard would be acceptable for the time being, and by setting up farm labor housing as a standard to be developed pursuant to the more deliberative procedures of the act.

But many, perhaps most, of the compliance officers do not appear to understand this and keep on talking about the published standard as though it were the applicable standard with which farmers must comply. It is little wonder that farmers have been confused by the enforcement operations.

Relative to the feelings of an individual rancher who has spent most of his life as an employer, I would like to quote from a letter from South Dakota Rancher Baxter Berry.

He said:

Those who wrote this legislation and the regulations, just don't comprehend the situation which exists in ranching or the small business community.

There is very little real difference between the employer and the employee. We sometimes have disagreements among ourselves, but when the government or anyone else tries to take away our rights, we are going to stick together. I don't blieve OSHA was passed for the good of employees or employers in a situation which exists out here. A lot of people don't understand the loyalty between the boss and his hired help in this part of the country. I have never had anyone work for me who was not completely loyal. They were loyal because I always watched out for their welfare.

If they were sick or injured we all had a big problem getting the work done. We all have to work together and that includes being alert to ways to avert accidents.

He concluded by saying:

I guess every unpopular law has a villain and a hero. In this case they are trying to make the employer the villain and the government is trying to protect the so-called oppressed employee. I don't usually say too much about how our government operates but in this case they have gotten a little out of hand.

I could read testimony and letters of this type for much of the time we have allotted for these hearings, but I think you have an idea of how unique some segments of our economy are.

There is little doubt in the minds of those who testified before our hearings in South Dakota that small businesses would suffer great financial loss and many would go out of business if they were forced to comply with standards now set out in the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Many would cut back to a mom-and-pop operation wherein no employees would be involved. This certainly would create hardships in the communities because of the unemployment situation and because it would curtail or diminish many of the services once offered to the community by these affected small businesses.

Farmers and ranchers are extremely apprehensive about the future of their business, for if the present trend continues, they are certainly going to have strict regulations enforced upon them.

We have some brief but pertinent recommendations for the members of this committee and for all Members of Congress to consider.

First: Because of the obvious hardships, far exceeding the potential safety or health hazards which might exist, small businesses or agricultural opeartions employing fewer than, say, 10 or 20 persons-I did not name a specific figure because we felt we were not in a position to suggest a specific figure-should be exempted from inclusion under such Federal regulations as set out in OSHA.

Second: For those businesses covered, provisions should be included in the law which places at least some degree of responsibility for worker safety on the employee.

If an employer has done all that is reasonable to provide safety equipment, healthful surroundings, and an environment which lends itself to meet normal standards of safety, and the employee still disregards reasonable precautions, he or she should then be subject to

fine or suspension provisions, or at least this situation should be considered in mitigation of the fines levied against an employer.

Third: Separate standards should be developed to cover smaller businesses as opposed to large businesses or manufacturing firms. There, again, we did not designate specific numbers.

Smaller firms do not have the same working conditions as do large firms, and therefore separate standards are needed in these areas. Fourth: Should new standards be developed, advisory committees for each segment of the economy involved should be appointed to study the regulations applicable to their area of interest.

At least 120 days should be allowed before such standards are published in the Federal Register so that recommendations may be made. Public hearings should also be conducted in areas which would be convenient for those affected to appear.

Fifth: An extensive educational program involving the safety and health standards should be instigated by the agency or agencies involved in enforcement and regulation. Cooperation of State and local segments of the economy should be involved in order to assure adequate distribution of information.

Sixth: In instances where corrections must be made in buildings or equipment, reasonable time should be allotted for such corrections before penalties can be imposed. We believe the Congress did not intend to fine businesses out of existence when it passed the WilliamsSteiger Act; therefore, it should take the responsibility of regulating the enforcement activity.

Seventh: Low interest loans should be made available to those businesses or manufacturers who can prove that financial help is needed to meet the standards set out in the regulations. This would remove the possibility that businesses would have to terminate or cut back in operating size to make necessary corrections.

Eighth: A better system of appeal should be instituted so as to provide quick and efficient hearings in cases which are contested. The present system is already behind in hearing cases, and many months may pass before employers have the opportunity to settle the question.

Also, in some instances, unsafe conditions or practices may continue to exist until a ruling is made by the proper authorities.

My organization's members are not opposed to the concept of safety regulations. We need many of them to maintain order and security in our industry.

What we oppose are stringent regulations which do not have a direct relationship to the smaller businesses or enterprises which make up much of the economy of this Nation.

It is our hope that the Congress will take the responsibility of seeing to it that a large segment of this Nation is not unduly harassed, fined, punished, or regulated unnecessarily by agencies of Government, particularly when they use standards of safety and health as a weapon rather than a helpful tool they were intended to be. Thank

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BERGLAND. First of all. I want to commend our colleague from South Dakota for bringing this problem to our attention.

I would like to direct a question to Mr. Enright.

You have suggested that we exempt employers who may have fewer than 10 or 20 employees. What of the instance where an employer may have only five employees and maintains tragically unsafe working conditions?

What kind of code do you suppose we could adopt to prevent those employees from being exposed to unnecessary hazards?

Mr. ENRIGHT. Mr. Bergland, I was referring to the eight recommendations as a part of the testimony that we received across the State of South Dakota and was reiterating those facts presented to us.

In almost every instance when someone said we should have this law repealed, they generally had no recommendations to make as to what we should do in place of that law.

The one thing that I did notice in all of our testimony-not from each individual but in every city involved, which covered the entire State of South Dakota-was generally the farmers and small businessmen who were fairly reasonable in their approach to this situation said that there are certain standards that we should and can live by; certainly, I would personally put more emphasis on developing some standards which would be applicable to those types of smaller businesses rather than asking for a complete exemption of all small businesses.

In summary, it would be my personal opinion and the opinion, by the way, of our organization, that we develop some separate standards after exempting them from the present standards as indicated under OSHA.

Mr. BERGLAND. I would agree with that position. No. 2, to what extent have these rules had some impact upon agriculture, the farmers and ranchers that you represent?

Mr. ENRIGHT. As far as we can determine, no inspections have been made on farms or ranches in the State of South Dakota. We have information from the Department of Labor that only in two or three instances in the entire United States have farms actually been inspected. Those, we understand, were made when there was a situation of imminent danger, not counting, of course, those in which deaths were involved and where automatic inspections are made, involving the instance of that death.

The biggest concern of the agricultural people that we represent is the fact that while it does not now touch agriculture they would hope that it will not in the future.

This is a preventive measure that they were referring to when they testified. But the thing that concerns them other than something that might happen to them in the future are the facts that the law may involve the businesses in the small towns and cities that serve the farm.

If an implement dealer is forced to go out of business, that creates a hardship among the agricultural people. If a store in a town has to close its doors or cut back on some of its services, if they employ three, four, or five people, and then because of this they decide to go back to a mother-and-dad operation where there are just two involved, certainly they are going to cut back on some of the services they have offered before because of the reduction in manpower.

This is going to have an adverse effect on the agricultural economy of our State and of all States in the Nation.

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, title 6 of the act gives over to the Secretary of Labor the general powers to promulgate regulations. He has now charged the Department of Agriculture with coming up with a set of standards to apply to farmers and ranchers. That committee has just been constituted, and they are now at work. I would sincerely hope that the Farm Bureau would make its opinions known to that task force so that some relief can be granted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. Have you any questions, Mr. McKevitt?
Mr. McKEVITT. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. We thank you very much. We appreciate your help to the committee and we are glad to have had you with us.

Mr. DENHOLM. We are certainly appreciative of your holding these hearings and your interest in the law that affects all of our people. Mr. HUNGATE. Next is our colleague, Congressman Thone, of Nebraska.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES THONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. THONE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I would like to have unanimous consent to have my full statement incorporated in the record. Then I will just paraphrase briefly.

Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THONE. Chairman Hungate and members of the committee, they tell the story about why Congressmen run so hard for reelection. It seems that most of them couldn't make a living back home under the laws they passed when they were back here in Congress. I think OSHA might be exhibit A in that regard.

I think this law is a terrible law for small business. Of course, it goes without saying that all of us want to reduce death, suffering, or anything else due to work-related accidents. There is no question about that.

But it would seem to me that this goal can be reached without laws that take away our civil rights. This goal also can be reached without regulations that are silly, ridiculous, costly, and unrelated to on-thejob safety. I want to make just a couple of brief references and then I will open myself to questions.

An inspector for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can come into a shop unannounced, allege a violation and levy a fine of $1,000 on the spot. Levying a fine without a hearing and without a judge or jury is certainly unconstitutional.

This is being tested in the Federal court in Atlanta, Ga., and I think the courts will view it that way. But, I think Congress should anticipate this and should act before it takes all the time that it will need to go through litigation.

In Lincoln, Nebr., we have a concern that has had one of the highest fines, $36,717. The firm didn't even make that much money last year. I would also urge to this committee that this law needs to be amended so that effective State and local agencies will find it easier to find a productive role in the health and safety field.

One of the things that my businessmen talk to me about is that the OSHA law needs to be amended to give time for compliance. Some

« PreviousContinue »