Shapley, Allen E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

OCCUPATIONAL  SAFETY AND  HEALTH  AS  A
CASE STUDY:  A REACTION
Allen E. Shapley
Michigan State University
The  basic  intent  of OSHA  Act  was  to  preserve  human  life  by
reducing  accident  rates  and  eliminating  serious  health  hazards  in
the industrial  sector  of our economy.  This  intent  was  stated  in the
purpose  of the  act  and was  alluded  to  time  and  time  again  during
the congressional  debates.
Cited  as  justification  for  the  legislation,  were  14,000  work-
related  deaths  and  2,000,000  industrial  injuries  per  year.  New
discoveries  relative  to  the  high  rate  of cancer  connected  to  working
around  vinyl  chloride  and  asbestos  came  in  for  considerable
discussion.  One  senator  referred  to it  as  "industrial  carnage."
Arguments  to  make  safety  and  health  standards  mandatory
were  supported  by  the  evidence.  Employers  who  were  members  of
the  National  Safety  Council  averaged  4.6  disabling  injuries  per
million  hours  of  work.  Employers  who  were  not  members  of  the
National  Safety  Council  averaged  15.6  disabling  injuries.
Arguments  supporting  the position  that this should  be  a  strong
centralized  program  were  primarily  to  make  the  employer  cost  of
safety  and  health  uniform  among  states.  Senator  Williams,  one  of
the  sponsors  of the  bill,  said  "small  employers  cannot  make  the
necessary  investment  in  health  and  safety  and  survive  competitively
unless  all  are  compelled  to  do  so."
Mr.  Hodges  feels  that  there  was  a  hidden  intent  in  the  act  to
give  federally  mandated  power  to  labor  unions.  I  have  found  no
evidence  that would  strongly  support  or  refute  his  claim,  but  I  do
know  that  the  congress  was  very  strong  in  its  support  of this  act.
The senate  passed it 83  to 3. The modified  bill from  the  conference
committee  was  signed  by  18  of  the  20  members.  The  final  bill
passed  in  the  house  308  to  65.  This  would  indicate,  to  me,  that
many  congressmen  who  would  not  be  in  favor  of granting  unions
additional  power  still supported  the  bill.
Mr.  Hodges  pointed  out,  and  rightly  so,  that  the  OSHA  Act
requires  that the  administration  carry  on  education  and  training in
the  area  of  occupational  safety  and  health.  He  argued  that  the
administration  has  not  fulfilled  its  obligations  in  this  area  but
instead  has  spent  all  its  time  developing  standards  and  inspecting
firms.
64To an extent,  his claim is correct.  OSHA has  not done nearly as
much  in education  and training as many of us  feel  they  should.  On
the  other  hand,  they  have  done  some,  much  of which  is  aimed  at
the  industrial  sector  rather  than  the  agricultural  sector.  Also,  a
review  of the  legislative  history  of the  bill  reveals  that  its  sponsors
expected  industry  to  do  most  of  its  own  education  and  training
work.
However,  the  amount  of education  and  training  conducted  by
OSHA  may  change  in  the  near  future.  A  new  director,  Dr.  Corn,
was  appointed  to  the  office  late  last  year.  In  January  he  reported
that,  after  reviewing the  progress  of OSHA,  the  needs  that  should
have special  and  immediate  attention  are  in the  areas  of education
and  consultation.
But  there  may  be  some  problems  in  the  response  to  OSHA's
efforts  in this  area.  Some  of their  educational  materials  have  been
of questionable  quality  (for example,  the new  beef bulletin  aimed  at
a  low  literacy  audience).  Also,  there  were  some  earlier  bad
experiences  by  those  asking  for  consultation  and  instead  received
inspections  and  were  given  fines.
An  interesting  situation  exists  with  Michigan  OSHA  relative  to
education  and  training.  Three  quarters  of 1%  of  every  employer's
workman's compensation  premium  goes  to the safety division  of the
Michigan  Department  of Labor  for  education  and  training  efforts.
For  a  number  of  years  Michigan  farmers  have  been  treated  the
same  as  all  other  employers  relative  to  workers  compensation
insurance.  Therefore,  they  too  have been  contributing to  this fund.
However,  to  date,  the  Michigan  Department  of  Labor  has  not
published  a  single  piece  of educational  literature  or  held  a  single
meeting  for  agricultural  employers  and  workers.  Thus,  agriculture
has  been  subsidizing  education  and  training  in  other  industries  in
Michigan.
INTERPRETATION
There  is  some  evidence  that  the  OSHA  administration  has
interpreted  the  law  differently  than  the  intent  as  seen  by  the
sponsors  of the  original  act.  In  reviewing  the  congressional  debate
over  the bill,  its  sponsors  were  clearly  concerned  with the  accidents
in  the  very  large  firms  of the  industrial  sector.  The  administrative
interpretation,  on the  other  hand,  has  been  one  of providing  safety
and  health  standards  to  all  businesses,  large  and  small,  and  to
those with  histories  of high  and  low  accident  rates.
Some  actions  of the OSHA  administration  may not have been as
much  due to  its  interpretation  as  to its  response  to  the  pressure  of
65special  interest  groups.  For  example,  the  administration  passed  a
temporary  pesticide  reentry  standard  as  a  result  of  pressure  from
migrant  representative  groups.  The  evidence  indicated  no  need  for
such  a  standard.
Much  of the pressure  for  other  agricultural  standards  has  come
from migrant  representative  groups  even  though  they  relate  to jobs
not  held  by  migrant  workers.  For  example,  the  rollover  protection
and  machinery  guarding  standards  for  agriculture  were  strongly
encouraged  by migrant representative  groups.  Yet  75  percent  of the
farm  accidents  which  relate  to these  standards  happen  on  livestock
farms  where  migrants  seldom,  if ever,  work.
It  is  quite  evident  that  the  intent  of  the  bill  was  to  use  the
"worst  first" priority  of setting  standards  instead  of the  response  to
pressure  as  has  been  indicated  in  such  instances  as  I  have  cited.
An  issue  that  has  just  arisen  in  Michigan  presents  clear
evidence  that  the  Michigan  OSHA  administration  is  interpreting
the  law  considerably  different  than  the  intent  of  the  sponsors.
Instead  of adopting the federal  standards  on  rollover  protection  and
machinery  guarding  verbatim,  Michigan  is  attempting  to  write  its
own  standards  which  will  be  considerably  more  comprehensive.
For  example,  the  federal  machinery  guarding  standard  applies
only  to  new  equipment  manufactured  and  built  after  October  25,
1976,  but Michigan  wants  to include  a  "retrofit"  clause  which  will
require  all  old  machinery  also  to  be  adequately  guarded.  This
action  goes  completely  against  the  intent  of the  bill.  It  proves  the
point  I  made  earlier  about  the  need  for  uniform  safety  measures
among  states,  in  part,  so  that  small  employers  could  be
competitive.
CONCLUSIONS
OSHA  has  had  a  stormy  beginning.  Due  to  its  emphasis  on
standards,  inspections,  and  "gestapo"  techniques,  it  has  created
many  enemies.  Last  year  there  were  some  80  bills  in  congress  to
strongly  modify  or  eliminate  the  OSHA  law.  Because  of this  clear
evidence  of  discontent  and,  also  because  of  a  normal  maturation
process,  we  will  see  some  changes  in the  OSHA  administration.
More  emphasis  will  be  placed  on  education  and  training.
Greater  efforts  will  be  made  to  cooperate  with  employers  in
consultation  and  special  design.  Greater  concern  will  be  made
evident over the  economic  impact  of a standard  before  it  is  applied.
66This  is  not  to  say  that  there  will  be  no  more  standards  or  a
sharp  decrease  in the  rate  at which  standards  will  be  imposed.  To
the  contrary,  we  will  see  more  standards.  However,  I  think  these
standards  will  be  more  palatable  and  more  effective  as  a  result  of
more  and better  research  ahead  of time.
I  personally  believe  that  the  legislative  intent  of  OSHA  was
sincere,  proper,  and that now  the  interpretation  is  beginning to  fall
more closely  in line  with  that intent.  Right  now  my fear  is that the
individual  states  will  make  their  own  interpretations  which  will  be
in  conflict  with  some  of  the  original  intent  of  the  Occupational
Safety  and Health  Act.
67

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH AS A CASE STUDY: A REACTION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics