Several proposals pending before this committee would improve the act. I am a cosponsor of Senator Curtis' bill, S. 3262, which would, like the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, exempt firms with fewer than 25 employees, as well as small farms, and would give the Secretary more flexibility in enforcing the act. The Secretary would be required to review the so-called national consensus standards now in effect, and determine how they can be made responsive to varying conditions in different industries. It would also specifically require the Labor Department to provide technical advice to employers of 100 or fewer employees in order to assist them in complying with the act.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 3630, introduced by Senator Tower. It would require that OSHA safety standards for the construction industry take into account the different working conditions in the light and heavy construction industries. I share his view that enforcement of uniform standards designed to protect employees in hazardous heavy construction industries would work against federally assisted housing programs by unnecessarily driving up costs in the relatively unhazardous light construction industry.

After these oversight hearings, I feel confident the committee will conclude that improvements in the law are needed. At that time I hope these two bills will be carefully considered. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to be here this morning.

Senator HUGHES. Senator Packwood, I understand the next witness is a constituent of yours, so I will let you call him to testify and introduce him.

રી

Senator PACKWOOD. I would like to take this occasion to introduce to the committee and to the audience Don Johnson, who is a native Oregonian, who perhaps is as well versed in the operation of a small lumber mill as any man in the State, who started working in his father's sawmill at the age of 12, started himself a small logging operation in 1946 at the age of 19, and added a sawmill in 1951, and has operated continuously ever since.

He has fewer than 100 employees and normally would fit into the classification of what most in the wood products industry would regard as a small operation. I would be quick to emphasize, however, that the bulk of all the lumber produced in the United States is produced by small operators. The largest lumber company in the world has less than 5 percent of the market in the world, or in the United States.

The type of operation that Mr. Johnson has is repeated throughout Oregon, Washington, and certainly throughout northern California: and the problems that he has to relate today I can testify to from personal experience, having heard from dozens of others like Mr. Johnson who operate similar mills.

It is a pleasure for me to have Don Johnson before the subcommittee today.

Senator HUGHES. I welcome Mr. Johnson to the Labor Subcommittee.

You can proceed.

STATEMENT OF DON JOHNSON, OWNER AND GENERAL MANAGER OF D. R. JOHNSON LUMBER CO., RIDDLE, OREG

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Packwood, and Mr. Chairman. My name is Don Johnson. I am the owner and general manager of D. R. Johnson Lumber Co., at Riddle, a small town in southwest Oregon. Our company consists of logging, sawmilling, planing, and a glue-lam beam plant, employing about 85 people.

I grew up in a sawmill as my father owned one for many years. At age 19, I started with my own logging company. As most small lumbermen, we have grown in a kind of topsy-turvy fashion.

First, the logging, then sawmill and planing mill, and recently, the addition of a glue-lam beam plant for exposed beams, continually adding and changing to try to hang on, as our industry becomes more and more competitive, never really designing and building the plants to an adequate conclusion, mostly because of the lack of resources, and the uncertainty of our future.

I can only tell you these things because the situation is certainly not unique in our industry. A large volume of the lumber and plywood manufactured in the United States are by these kinds of operations. Almost all small lumbermen in the Western United States are entirely dependent upon the Federal Government for its raw timber supply. We must actually bid against the larger lumber and plywood companies for our livelihood.

I'm sure you can see the larger companies' diversification, both geographically and productwise; at times it is very difficult for us to compete. As an example since 1950, the number of sawmills has dropped from about 120 to about 25 in Douglas County alone.

Now, as to the reason I am here.

On March 29, 1972, we were visited by a Mr. Russell Beals, a retired Army captain, who represented the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.

He informed us he would inspect our plant according to the abovementioned law. This inspection followed a safety inspection by our own Oregon State Industrial Accident Safety inspector.

After complying with their request, they found us to be well within Oregon's safety requirements. I must say that the Oregon State Industrial Accident Inspection agency is one of the toughest, if not the toughest, in the United States.

After 3 days of inspection by Mr. Beals and his helper, an Oregon State trainee, he left. Some 2 weeks later, we received from a Mr. Harrower, the area director, the list of citations and fines along with the abatement time. The citations added up to about 120 in number with a maximum of 30 days abatement time and a fine of $820.

Now, with the exception of maybe two items all the other 118 citations are completely unnecessary and uncalled for; the exposure of these items is so low that I don't feel that an unsafe condition exists. This in our best judgment represents about 1,800 man-hours of millwrights time at a cost of $30 to $40,000.

First, there is not the manpower available to do this, as we are in an area where skilled help is extremely hard to find. So in order for use to abide by the abatement time, we would have to shut the complete plant down and use what qualified men were available to work on this project. Even then, I doubt it would have been possible.

We were also inspected by the OSHA sanitation and noise level inspector. We were cited for not having a toilet facility within 200 feet of our planing mill operation-it was 275 feet. Also, for a dirty ear muff that was hanging on a wall. It was discarded but not thrown away. The real problem, however, is we must submit to them by January 1973, an engineering plan and date of implementation of approved plan for the lowering of all sound levels through the sawmill and planing mill to below 90 decibels.

Now, we saw logs in our business and saws make noise. So this, needless to say, is going to be very difficult to comply with. We currently require all employees to wear either ear muffs or plugs in any work station above the 90 decibels level.

So on advice of counsel, we appealed, hoping we would be able to find someone who would listen to reason and so this is the path we have followed.

Now, gentlemen, we believe in safety as much or more than anyone does. After all, an injured employee costs us money not only in the treatment of the injury, but also in the lost time of the employee.

I might add that in our company a pretty large percent of our employees are personal friends of mine, so that is pretty important to me that they do not get hurt. I doubt that there is any employer today that does not share this feeling.

We have an obligation to make our plants as safe as possible and yet continue the production of materials to supply the needs of our Nation. I feel very strongly that safety is a state of mind, it is a mental attitude. We need to encourage this attitude, not destroy it as the application of OSHA does.

We feel that this act does a grave disservice not only to the businessman but also to his employees in that it tends to relieve the employee of a sense of responsibility for his own safety.

We must recognize that certain industries are by their very nature more hazardous than others. An example might be the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest as compared to a supermarket clerk.

The exposure is vastly different; but by working and encouraging the loggers, we have made and will continue to make the industry a much safer place to work.

I think OSHA is a bad law.

First, because it was apparently written by people not familiar with industry and industry's problems.

Second, because it was written in a very arbitrary and dictatorial way and the big club is used to back it up.

Third, I think it is a kind of an insult to the businessman's intelligence. Because of these things and many other problems that are created by our well-meaning local, State, and Federal agencies, many small businessmen today are near a point of collapse, OSHA being the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

We need this small businessman as well as the large. Without him, we would not have the affluent society we enjoy today. He should be encouraged, not discouraged. He needs help, but not in the form of a subsidy.

What I am saying is, because of competition and government controls, the businessman must put out a better product to the consumer than ever before, do it much more efficiently, and do it with people that are no longer willing to share in the responsibilities.

I interpret the results of the inspection of our plant as nothing but harassement by OSHA. We cannot continue to operate under this kind of situation. I think OSHA is much too restrictive and because of the mass of material too complicated to understand and at this point unworkable.

I recommend it be rescinded and revised to a more workable level and in such a way that it encourages the States to actually have their own competent systems, this being the end product.

By that I mean the States take over safety programs for their particular areas and do as good a job as Oregon has been doing.

I would also recommend that for each and every industry or business affected by OSHA that there be a committee made up of knowledgeable, capable owners or general managers, as well as representatives of labor, to have a direct voice on what goes into the new OSHA program. I feel it is workable only under these recommendations.

The reason I emphasize owner and general manager is that he is the man that works with the problems daily. He understands it much better than association people or anyone from the outside. I think this is one of the reasons that the current program is not working and it will not work until something like this is over.

Now, gentlemen, I have given you a packet that contains alleged citations of two OSHA inspections, which is these white copies of paper here.

Also, a copy on green paper of these alleged citations in a simpler form.

In these packets, you have pictures of most of the alleged citations on pink paper. Now, if you will look on the back of the pictures you will see a number or a letter. These numbers correspond with the number we have given each alleged citation on the green paper. Also, it corresponds with the number we have given our response on the pink paper.

On the face of these pictures you will note a red check mark; this denotes the point of alleged violation. I think they are mostly selfexplanatory.

These pictures accompanying information is as accurate as I can give you. It has not been shaded or warped in any way. I would be happy to sit with you before any of the OSHA staff people can talk about any part of these alleged citations plus other information I have but do not have time to present at this time.

I wish to thank you very much for the opportunity for me to appear before you and make my plea.

If you have any questions, I will be glad to try to answer them. Thank you.

Senator HUGHES. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. I thank you also for the information you furnished and the citations and your responses and the photos.

Senator Packwood, I yield to you, since this is a constituent of yours, if you would like to ask some questions.

Senator PACKWOOD. Mr. Johnson, it is very helpful to me and this committee to have specific charges and specific pictures so we can view for ourselves what the OSHA inspectors are talking about.

I might before I ask Mr. Johnson a couple of questions note that Oregon has recently submitted its plan for State administration and implementation of OSHA, and that the Oregon Industrial Accident Commission and its safety division will be authorized to conduct inspections. As you have indicated, Mr. Johnson, you have dealt with them, as all Oregon employers have, for years.

Your statement indicated they came through your plant and found the plant safe, followed shortly by an OSHA inspector, who inspected the same thing and found things not safe.

I want to ask you, in going through the pictures, you have one labeled 2-A, gasoline pump.

As I understand the OSHA charge was that the belt is not protected on the inside of the gasoline pump.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Senator PACKWOOD. Your response was there had been a metal plate on it and it had fallen off, and their fear was somehow that you could get a hand inside of this and catch it in the pulley going around.

Mr. JOHNSON. The only way a person could get his hand in there is to deliberately stick it in behind and get it in between the belt and the pulley. There is no way a person could accidentally get it in

anyway.

Senator PACKWOOD. The only way to be involved with the pulley is if there is a breakdown and you are working on the machine, in which case you would take the face plate off to get at it, and obviously somebody could injure themselves working on it, but any kind of safety provision that OSHA would make here has nothing to do with how the fellow might be injured if he is working on the machine.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Plus the fact the machine would be shut down if it is being worked on.

Senator PACKWOOD. Otherwise, it operates like a normal gas pump. The guy gets the hose, and then after he is finished he hangs it up. Were you fined?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Senator PACKWOOD. Do you know how much?

Mr. JOHNSON. It is part of the $820. They did not break it down that fine. They make categories for fines.

Senator PACKWOOD. The OSHA inspector gave you no chance; you were just fined, with no chance to correct it, no chance to put the face plate on the pump?

Every one of these pictures you tie very well to the charges; and there were fines for all of these, with no chance-even though you had an inspection by the Oregon State Safety Division a few days earlierthere was no chance to correct these before you were fined?

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct.

Senator PACKWOOD. Mr. Chairman and Senator Dominick, I think it again well illustrates what Senator Dominick said. This program is meant to be educational. That is what it should be. It seems that Mr. Johnson, or any other employer, should not be subject to immediate fines on first inspection with no chance to have a 1-week, or, in the case of your gasoline pump, a 2-day notice would be adequate.

I have no more questions. But I would say again I would wager that every one of us in our States, a thousand employers or more, are in Mr. Johnson's identical situation, facing arbitrary abuse from middle-level inspectors who come through with a book of instructions, and I have seen that book of regulations that they carry around with them, showing how far the rungs on a ladder are to be apart, and how far out from the edge of the side of the wall it must be, and enforcing them with a fine-tooth comb, giving nobody a chance to correct anything. It is unconscionable.

I have no other questions.

Senator HUGHES. Thank you very much.