Patrick, Kenneth L.

Western Dry Kiln Clubs

Western Dry Kiln Clubs. Meeting (23rd : 1972)

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

LIVING AND WORKING WITH OSHAKenneth L. PatrickWestern Wood Products Asociat onPortland, OregonI am here today to talk to you about the Occupational Safety andHealth Law and to tell you how to best live with that law. First, let'srecap how we arrived at such a law and some of the problems we arehaving because of it.The mounting injury rate registered by all industries since 1958was the primary motivating factor that led the Congress to the passageof the Williams-Steiger Act in December of 1970. The lack of companysafety programs, the lack of state controlled programs and apathy onthe part of some managements and employees were contributors to therising tide. The day of a free ride in a giveaway society has also causedinjury rates to rise. A well documented alleged injury in many placespays as well as going to work.Labor was, of course, vitally interested in Federal legislation.Therefore, the persistent and strongest thrust came from that quarterto pass the Act into law. Several versions of the bill were proposed inCongress beginning with the Eisenhower Administration.The Williams-Steiger Bill that finally passed was preceded bymany House and Senate Committee meetings and hearings on the subject.The bill that passed does not represent 100% of the views of labor, man-agement, the Nixon Administration or Senator Williams or CongressmanBill Steiger; but rather is a compromise bill. At the time of the law'spassage it did, however, have the support of all organizations, associa-tions and individuals who were active in its development. Since , thesigning of the Act into law, needless to say there have been some prob-lems with its administration.Lack of management's full participation in the formulation of thelaw during its development played a large part in the lack of understand-ing and some of the problems that we are having today. Many of thosewho were actively involved during the formative stages chose to opposerather than offer constructive criticism in what was eventually to be-come a reality. In this age of protectivity without active participationfrom all concerned, you cannot expect total satisfaction.Labor in its eagerness to have the law put into effect created pres-sures in the development of procedures required to implement the lawthat have caused problems that face us today. Standards were throwntogether with resulting duplication, ambiguity and a bit of blue skythrown in for good measure that had no relationship to the safety andhealth problem at all. There are even cases where standards requirethings where there is no engineered solution for.We in management would have been much happier and we all wouldhave been better off if the standards package had been studied a littlemore in depth prior to its promulgation. I think the Department ofLabor feels the same way especially with the extensive revision programthat they have had to undertake to bring the standards into line with re-ality.Also contributing to the difficulty we have today is the fact thatthe Occupational Safety and Health Administration, who is charged withimplementing the law, was new and faced a tremendous task. TheSafety and Health Administration was born coincident with the passingof the law. There is no organization that can take over a program as42large and complex as the one that they have without, problems and criti-cism. Aside from the problem of promulgating standards and buildingan enforcement arm, OSHA has been faced with severe criticism fromits biggest critic, organized labor. They have been critical of what theyfeel is a shortage of compliance officers and funds for enforcement andthe educational elements of the occupational Safety and Health Program.Labor also seeks more penalties for violators and a greater labor rolein the OSHA administration. I personally praise the Safety and HealthAdministration for doing as good a job as they have done with the pres-sures they have been faced with and the short time they have had to reactto a new law. I dare say, we would all find it extremely more difficultto deal with this new law and those, administering it if the top executivesguiding the program had not had kgreat deal of experience in manage-ment in the private sector.Shortly after the first of the year George Guenther, who heads theOccupational Safety and Health Administration, brought about organiza-tional changes within the administration. The changes that resulted arealready causing the inspection and standards scene to take on a new look.Citations that formerly were considered nitpicking by some are beingruled as lesser important and the emphasis is being placed on deficiencieswhere the most good can be realized. There is more continuity and uni-formity in what is being done at all levels today as opposed to six monthsago. There are some exceptions, of course.The administration is doing all possible to assist states in develop-ing their plans that will, when approved, surplant OSHA as we know andsee it today. Planning grants of over six million dollars have been pro-vided the states. These grants are being made into broadside fire fromlabor that the administration is undertaking an all out effort to give uptheir responsibilities which labor says will dilute the effect of the law.Labor wants more federalization, more inspectors, more inspections,more penalties, all of which would weigh heavily in the direction of one-sided administration of the law.On the other hand, some managements are bringing their feelingsto the floor of the Congress through such proposals as those made bySenator Curtis of Nebraska on the 29th of February.His proposed amendment to the law, if accepted, would exemptemployers with 25 or fewer employees. Employers in this category inmany experts' opinion are some of the larger contributors to the very -reason we have such a law.He also proposes that there be an amendment to delay the effec-tiveness of the law for one year as sort of a grace period, so that busi-nesses can become acquainted with and voluntarily comply with thestandards. This, of course, was provided for initially in the setting upof the program by providing eight months get ready time prior to thefirst inspection last September to say nothing of the many months andyears that these very same standards were being touted by companysafety people, insurance companies and state safety activities. Thesevery same standards were available to anyone who wished to refer tothem from the American National Standards Institute and the NationalFire Protection Association. I doubt seriously that any extensions of afamiliarization period would yield any greater understanding or level ofvoluntary compliance.The Senator also proposed that the Secretary of Labor be requiredto evaluate all the regulations, distinguish the various facets of a given..,general form of business and determine if the rules should or should notapply to each facet. This particular point I can't at all take exception to.43Had this procedure been followed prior to the promulgation of the stan-dards, we would not be suffering from the problems that the lack ofsuch a procedure has caused.He also proposes that the Department of Labor make availabletechnical assistance to smaller places of employment, which is indeeda valid requirement, particularly where there is no source for a com-pany to turn to for technical assistance. But, on the other hand, whyjust help for one and not the other?Time will not permit going through each and everyone of theSenator's proposed amendments but I would like to mention the thirteenthof his package in summary. His last proposal would allow for an em-ployer entering into an agreement with the Secretary of Labor wherebyan alleged violation might give the employer an option of complying in.lieu of using the present provisions of the law and imposing a penaltyfor having failed to comply. On the surface this looks good but, ifadopted, it would take some of the very necessary teeth out of the pro-gram. Let's face it, most of the conditions that have already been cor-rected in industry under OSHA would never have been corrected withouta visit from a compliance officer or the threat of a penalty. Openingthe door to such a contractual arrangement would in no way encouragevoluntary compliance today any more than existed prior to OSHA.At last count there were about 450 compliance officers in the fieldto visit over four million work places. This is nothing more than atoken force. I figure that it would take approximately 20,000 inspec-tors just to visit 20% of our nation's workplaces per year. However,take this token threat away and the slackers would keep right on slack-ing and the problems in the work place would never be corrected.I don't wish to in any way imply that some changes to the Safetyand Health Law wouldn't be appropriate. Any law as far reaching andas important as this one can't possibly be perfect. After a year ofoperation the law should certainly be subject to a very critical reviewand appropriate changes should be made where required. Everybody whohas the least concern in the matter should play an active part in makingany changes. Collectively we failed in this respect during the formativestages of the Safety and Health Law. Management did not participate tothe degree they should have. Any changes today, whether it be in thelaw, an existing standard or the drafting of a new standard, managementshould be involved.While I am dealing out criticism, I would like to point out thatthere is a feeling by many that they have been poorly informed on manymatters dealing with the Safety and Health Law. Recently a Congres-sional Representativefromthe State of Wyoming said on the floor of theHouse that many of his constituents are upset by the fact that they arebeing fined by the Department of Labor, even before the Department hasgotten around to seeing that each and every individual affected by thelaw had received a copy of the regulations. I really don't think that theDepartment of Labor alone should have to shoulder this criticism.There were many others who dropped the ball as well. I refer to themany trade associations that should have bridged the communicationsgap but didn't get involved.As George Guenther and many of us who are active in the programhave said many times, "this is a team effort and not only the govern-ment but the private sector, both labor and management, must play anequal role in shouldering the responsibilities of implementation of thenew law." Attacking the Department of Labor or any one element that isresponsible for carrying out the dictates of this program totally misses44the target. I think it is very unfair to say that any one element shouldbear the full blame of what has happened. Rather than to look over ourshoulders at what has happened, why not put this not so well placedenergy into a positive direction in the future.For those who understand the three basic elements of a good acci-dent prevention program, know that enforcement is essential and com-plements the education and engineering elements. What our countrylacked prior to the safety and Health Law was a good enforcement pro-gram. For all practical purposes there was none. As for educationthere wasn't too much consistency or continuity because of a lack ofvoluntary participation in available programs that would have servedthese purposes. OSHA can help tie these loose ends together, eventhough we may not agree with some of the methods that have been usedas motivating forces.The penalty aspects of the Safety and Health Law will serve amotivating purpose as penalty threats do in other areas. A few willget bitten in the pocketbook but for the most part those who will, de-serve being bitten.In summary, as I have said to other groups there are ways thatwe can and should live with the Occupational Safety and Health Law.To help guide you, I suggest that -A) Your group might consider the establishment of a workingSafety and Health Committee.B) If you have not already done so, I urge you as a group to study,understand and communicate within your group the full meaning of thelaw.C) If you have ideas of how the Law can be amended to be moreeffective, communicate your feelings to your legislators.D) If you do not understand, agree with or feel that a standard isas it should be, there are rules and procedures for taking action indi-vidually or through your group or Association to make changes. Usethem.E) If there is no standard that covers your operation, take theinitiative through your group or Association and start the wheels intomotion to develop one. If you don't, George Guenther and his staff willdo it for you.F) Encourage voluntary compliance programs within your individualoperations.G) If your company is inspected and subsequently cited and you donot agree with the citation for any reason at all, or you do not under-stand the citation, write to as well as call the Area Office of the Occu-pational Safety and Health Administration. You can't resolve theseproblems by sitting on them. Do it immediately, but certainly withinthe first 15 days after receiving your citation. After that time, thecitation and proposed penalty become the automatic ruling of the Re-view Commission.H) The seven points that I have just made can be summarized inone sentence -Gentlemen, get involved and make this program one that will payoff to you in dollars and the satisfaction that you have provided a saferplace to work.

Living and working with OSHA

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/9g54xj85m

Living and working with OSHA

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU