[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROTECTING AMERICA'S WORKERS: AN
ENFORCEMENT UPDATE FROM THE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 7, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-821 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
Duncan Hunter, California Frederica S. Wilson, Florida,
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
Todd Rokita, Indiana Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Dave Brat, Virginia Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 7, 2015.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections................................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections...................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Statement of Witnesses:
Michaels, Hon. David, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional Submissions:
Assistant Secretary Michael:.................................
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 97
Chairman Walberg:............................................
Prepared statement of the American Petroleum Institute... 42
Questions submitted for the record....................... 94
Letter dated October 8, 2015, from State of Michigan,
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development........ 51
Letter dated October 7, 2014, from the National Roofing
Contractors Association................................ 53
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from the Fertilizer
Institute.............................................. 56
Report ``Workplace Injuries and Illnesses Safety (WIIS)
Report'' American Petroleum Institute.................. 59
Ms. Wilson:..................................................
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from Canada, Michelle,
United Support Memorial for Workplace Fatalities
(USMWF)--Family Members................................ 90
Letter dated October 5, 2015, from Fergen, Debi, Outreach
Director USMWF--United Support Memorial for Workplace
Fatalities............................................. 83
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from Mattern, Amy, United
Support Memorial for Workplace Fatalities (USMWF)--
Family Members and Daughter of Deceased Worker......... 81
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from McCardle, Linda,
United Support Memorial for Workplace Fatalities
(USMWF)--Family Members................................ 88
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from Rodriguez, Katherine,
CPA, United Support Memorial for Workplace Fatalities
(USMWF)--Board Members................................. 85
Letter dated October 7, 2015, from Honomichi, Trina,
United Support Memorial for Workplace Fatalities
(USMWF)--Family Members................................ 91
PROTECTING AMERICA'S WORKERS: AN ENFORCEMENT UPDATE FROM THE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
----------
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
Washington, D.C.
---------- --
--------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in
Room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Tim Walberg
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walberg, Stefanik, Wilson, and
Pocan.
Also Present: Representatives Kline, Hartzler, and Rogers
of Alabama.
Staff Present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, Director of Workforce Policy;
Jessica Goodman, Legislative Assistant; Callie Harman,
Legislative Assistant; Tyler Hernandez, Press Secretary; Nancy
Locke, Chief Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member;
Geoffrey MacLeay, Professional Staff Member; Brian Newell,
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel;
Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press Secretary; Molly McLaughlin
Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa Strawcutter,
Deputy Clerk; Loren Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Olivia
Voslow, Staff Assistant; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff
Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
Coordinator; Christine Godinez, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian
Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; John Mantz, Minority Labor
Detailee; and Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy
Advisor.
Chairman Walberg. How is that for a gavel? I was mentioning
to Loren that from my old Taekwondo days I did not want to bust
the table in half here, but fortunately, I was not very good.
A quorum being present, the subcommittee will come to
order.
Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to extend a special
welcome to you, Dr. Michaels. We were just trying to decide how
long it has been since we were in the same room together. It is
right about four years, or a little less than four years, so it
is good to have you back in front of us. We thank you for being
with us to discuss an issue that is incredibly important to
every one of us, ensuring the health and safety of American
workers. And also, the security of their jobs.
We all agree that men and women working hard to make a
living deserve workplaces that are safe and working conditions
that protect their health and well-being. In the twenty-first
century workplace, employees should be able to put in a day's
work without having to fear being injured on the job or having
to worry whether they will be able to return home to their
families at the end of the shift. That is why we continue to
demand every American have strong and effective health and
safety protections.
We are here today to take a closer look at these rules and
the enforcement process to make sure they are working well for
both employees and employers. Providing for the health and
safety of American workers is an important responsibility, but
it is important to be responsible in carrying it out.
Otherwise, we will end up with inadequate protections and
unnecessary regulatory burdens that stifle productivity and job
creation, while doing little to keep workers safe.
That is why this Committee has long urged Dr. Michaels, his
colleagues at the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and others to engage in responsible safety
enforcement. By identifying gaps in safety and working with
employers and other key stakeholders to develop positive
solutions, we can ensure that federal policies are effective
and workers are safe, and these are both goals that I believe
stretch across party lines.
President Obama promised, and I quote, ``an unprecedented
level of openness in government,'' and vowed to establish a
system of transparency, public participation, and
collaboration. That has not always been the case, and changing
enforcement policies in one area in which we have seen a lack
of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. In
fact, on several occasions, the administration has used what it
calls ``enforcement guidance'' to alter significant rules
without public input. This one-sided approach is not the kind
of responsible rulemaking and enforcement American workers
deserve.
When actions of the administration or other policymakers
are in conflict with the best interest of the American people,
it is our responsibility to speak out. So that is what we did
with OSHA. We spoke out when they altered longstanding policies
outside the public rulemaking process. We spoke out when they
failed to conduct proper oversight of their own enforcement
activities. We spoke out when they spent significant time and
responses pursuing unsound and unnecessary regulatory schemes.
OSHA, on several occasions, has listened to some of our
concerns and we appreciate that. Not all of our concerns, but
enough to say that we have made progress in a number of areas.
As a result of our oversight, OSHA is pursuing a
responsible approach to protecting the men and women employed
on family farms. More small businesses are able to participate
in an important safety and health program, and employees in the
telecommunications industry have more clarity and certainty.
Workers are safer because we spoke up, the agency listened, and
steps were taken to promote smart, responsible, regulatory
policies.
However, while we have made gains, there is still work to
be done. This brings us back to the reason we are here today.
Standing up for workers and ensuring safe workplaces remain
leading priorities for this Committee. We have seen what we can
accomplish when we work together to improve the health and
safety of American workers, and this hearing is an important
part of these efforts.
I look forward to hearing from Dr. Michaels on his agency's
regulatory enforcement actions, and I welcome the opportunity
to discuss ways in which we can better protect hardworking men
and women and provide greater clarity to job creators.
[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. With that, I will now--I would recognize
the Ranking Member Wilson for opening remarks but I believe we
have altered that. When she arrives, we will have the
opportunity for her to make those then. But we appreciate you
sitting in for the seat here.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7, all subcommittee members will
be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow the statements,
questions for the record, and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
hearing record.
At this point, let me also recognize our colleague,
Representative Hartzler, who does not sit on this subcommittee.
She wishes she did, but has a great interest in this issue
relative to OSHA and the regulatory standards. And so without
objection, I would ask my colleagues to allow her to be seated
and participate with the members of the Committee.
Hearing none, welcome.
It is now my pleasure to introduce today's witness. Dr.
David Michaels is the assistant secretary of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration at the U.S. Department of
Labor here in Washington, D.C. Before coming to OSHA in
December 2009--that is an extensive record as we talked about,
of still being here for this long. That is impressive. Dr.
Michaels was professor of Environmental and Occupational Health
at the George Washington University, School of Public Health
and Health Services, directing the department's project on
Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy.
Dr. Michaels, since you last appeared before us, we have
now a policy where we swear in our witnesses, so I will ask you
at this time to stand and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Walberg. Let the record reflect Dr. Michaels
answered in the affirmative as we expected. We thank you for
that. You may take your seat.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly remind you of our lighting system. You know, the
lighting system. And while we have five minutes allotted as my
Chairman of the full Committee says so often, I am averse to
holding you to that. We are glad to have you here. Now, if you
start to get to 15 minutes or so then we might gavel you down
then, but we want to hear what you have to say and appreciate
you being here. I recognize you for your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID MICHAELS, PHD, MPH, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Michaels. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Chairman
Walberg, Representative Pocan, Representative Hartzler. Thank
you for inviting me here today. I am honored to testify about
the work we at OSHA are doing to improve the safety and health
of American workers.
Over the past 44 years since OSHA was created, we have made
dramatic strides in reducing work-related injuries, illnesses,
and deaths, but there is still much work to be done. In the
almost four years since I last appeared before this
subcommittee, we have accomplished a great deal. Today, I would
like to highlight some of the progress we have made and the
challenges that still remain.
First, after extensive outreach, public comment, and
review, OSHA has finalized important and lifesaving standards.
These include measures to protect those working in shipyards,
construction, and around electrical hazards. We also finalized
a rule expanding injury and illness reporting requirements, and
we have made significant progress towards updating our decades-
old silica standard.
Last year, at a DuPont Chemical plant in Texas, four
workers were killed by a highly toxic chemical release. This
came in the wake of the tragic explosion at the West Fertilizer
Company that killed 15 people. Unfortunately, disasters like
this are far too common. Since 2009, at least 28 significant
chemical plant incidents have occurred resulting in over 79
worker deaths.
To help prevent more tragedies, President Obama issued
Executive Order 13650, instructing OSHA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and
other agencies to work together closely to improve chemical
facility safety and security. Together, we undertook a
comprehensive review of these programs, engaging in extensive
stakeholder outreach to solicit feedback and identify best
practices.
As a result of these and other efforts, OSHA has taken
steps to better protect workers at these facilities. First and
foremost, we are working to modernize our process safety
management standard that sets requirements for the management
of highly hazardous substances. Towards this, OSHA issued a
request for information on possible improvements. In addition,
we issued memoranda explaining how we will apply the standard
to certain chemicals, and clarifying the definition of retail
facilities. We also memorialized our interpretation of the
term, ``Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering
Practices,'' or RAGAGEP.
At OSHA, we recognize that most employers want to do the
right thing, and we are committed to ensuring they have the
tools and the information they need. This is why we have made
compliance assistance a priority, and we work diligently to
provide training, educational materials, and consultation
services to employers and workers.
The cornerstone of this effort is our onsite consultation
program for small and medium-sized businesses. Last year, over
26,000 employers took advantage of this free service, and
through our VPP and SHARP programs, we recognize employers who
have developed outstanding injury and illness prevention
programs.
Our enforcement programs specifically target the most
dangerous workplaces and the most recalcitrant employers. Last
year, Sarah Jones, a 27-year-old camera assistant was killed by
an oncoming train during the filming of the movie, Midnight
Rider. The filmmakers had been denied authorization to film on
live railroad tracks but decided to do so anyway. Sarah Jones
paid the ultimate price for that decision. We issued a fine of
almost $75,000, sending a message to all employers that willful
disregard for workers' safety is unacceptable.
OSHA is also charged with enforcing the whistleblower
provisions in 22 statutes that protect the safety, health, and
well-being of the American public. If a worker who is covered
by these laws is punished for raising a concern about toxic
chemicals fouling our drinking water, the safety of passengers
on railroads, accounting fraud, or a food manufacturer's
contaminated products, OSHA is charged with protecting that
worker.
Over the last few years, OSHA has significantly
strengthened this program. To begin with, we established the
whistleblower protection program as a separate directorate and
increased staffing. We developed an online complaint form,
enhanced training, and streamlined procedures. We have reduced
our backlog, improved enforcement, and enhanced the consistency
of our investigations.
As the structure of employment relationships in this
country undergoes dramatic change, workers are put at increased
risk. OSHA has long addressed situations where more than one
employer has a role in preventing injury and illness. When
these employers fail to fulfill their responsibilities, the
results can be tragic.
Take the case of Day Davis, a 21-year-old recent Job Corps
graduate. He was hired by a staffing agency and sent to work at
a Bacardi Bottling plant in Jacksonville, Florida. It was his
first day at a paid job ever. And Day Davis's first day at work
was his last day on earth. He was crushed to death just hours
after he arrived because neither the temp agency nor the host
employer provided him adequate training. Day Davis's death and
the shared responsibility of host and temporary employer for
workers' safety demonstrates why we must continue working to
address the realities of the twenty-first century workplace.
But we cannot fully address these challenges alone; we need
your help. The OSH Act has not been updated in more than 44
years. There are areas where legislative improvements could
help prevent needless injuries and deaths. These include
increasing civil and criminal penalties to provide a real
disincentive for employers, protecting the 10 million public
sector employees who currently do not have the right to a safe
workplace, and updating the whistleblower provisions of the OSH
Act to more closely align with modern statutes that protect
whistleblowers.
So thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
would be very pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Dr. Michaels follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Dr. Michaels, for your
testimony, and I think as I listened, and I am sure my
colleagues as well, we appreciate the fact of the task that you
have. And when we hear the illustrations as well, that is where
I think we link arms, join hands together in saying let us
enforce, let us make sure we enforce and come alongside and
make sure that our employers are following the regulations and
the laws that are in place. I guess it is a question today in a
big way is what we have relative to the plans moving forward.
So I recognize myself for five minutes of questioning.
In a recent Senate hearing, a Department of Labor official
suggested the guidance documents did not change the underlying
PSM standard, insisting these are simply clarifications.
Fundamentally, these documents had changed the type of entities
and drastically expanded, at least as I read them, the number
of entities that are covered by the regulation. Let me ask you
how OSHA can justify this as just simply a clarification?
Dr. Michaels. Thank you for that question, Chairman
Walberg. We are actually talking about I suspect three
documents, and they are all quite different, so it is a little
complex to answer that question about all three. But the basis
of this is understanding that after the explosion at the West
Fertilizer Plant, President Obama issued a directive, the
executive order, telling us to look at these issues and make
sure workers are protected. And we have done a number of
things, and part of that are three memoranda that all follow
the law very carefully but essentially tell either OSHA or tell
employers how they should make sure workers are protected.
The first of these, and probably the one that there is the
most discussion about is around the retail exemption.
Chairman Walberg. Correct.
Dr. Michaels. And that is probably the one that is most----
Chairman Walberg. That was the largest. That was a drastic
change.
Dr. Michaels. Well, when you go back and look at the
process safety measurement standard, it is clear to us the
standard was being misinterpreted. Essentially, what the
standard said was that retailers who are really identified as,
for example, gas stations, entities that sell small amounts and
keep small amounts of a material onsite should be exempt, but
when we went back and looked at how that was being interpreted
in one of our policies, we thought the way we were doing this
was clearly wrong. West, for example, had 50,000 pounds of
anhydrous ammonia onsite and they sold large quantities of it.
Other facilities with 10,000 pounds onsite are not exempted
from process safety management. In fact, there have been
terrible events that have occurred at far lower quantities than
those onsite at West.
So we went back following the law very carefully and
getting tremendous public input. You know, President Obama
talked about this two years ago. We have held countless public
meetings and meetings with stakeholders talking about what the
meaning of that ``retail'' exemption is and how to fix it. And
so it was no surprise when we put out this memorandum changing
this interpretation.
Chairman Walberg. To 3,800 businesses that were exempt
beforehand, it was no small change for them. So I would suggest
that that is the challenge that I see, that that small change
in how we defined retail and the exemption that came with that
had a fairly significant impact. Financially, it can have a
tremendously negative impact up to costing the business the
opportunity to move and grow. I think that is the concern about
the clarification process that goes on. And I think that is
where best practices, bringing the stakeholders in for an
extended period of time to look at this if this is going to be
treated basically as a rule is important.
How many lawsuits are pending related to the PSM guidance
documents?
Dr. Michaels. I cannot tell you how many lawsuits. I know
there are several lawsuits. I do not know the number. But I
believe that there are three documents, and there have been
lawsuits associated with each one. I do not know if they are
separate lawsuits or the same lawsuits, but there are several
lawsuits.
Chairman Walberg. How many comments did you receive
regarding December 2013 request for information regarding the
retail exemption?
Dr. Michaels. Well, you know, we raised the issues of the
retail exemption in numerous public meetings. We held a dozen
public meetings around the country and then two more, and so we
had a huge number of meetings. I cannot tell you though. I
would be happy to get back to you with how many written
comments we got from the request for information, but we had
countless meetings with our stakeholders. We formed a new
alliance with the Fertilizer Institute, the Agricultural Retail
Association, the firefighters, to discuss these issues, so we
have had a huge amount of input. And I can give you more detail
later on.
Chairman Walberg. I would be interested to know how many
were in favor of these changes, especially looking at the
example of West and the destruction that went on outside of the
loss of life that was tremendous. Still with that, I would be
interested to know the numbers that were in favor of any
changes that went on as well.
Yesterday, OSHA released an update of the Field Operations
Manual. Does it contain any new multi-employer citation policy?
Dr. Michaels. What are you referring to?
Chairman Walberg. Field Operations Manual.
Dr. Michaels. That update simply memorializes many of the
directives that we put out. There was nothing new in that. What
that does is that puts in one place lots of documents and memos
we had sent out to the field that we put on the web.
Chairman Walberg. But you are going to issue a new
instruction manual then subsequent to this?
Dr. Michaels. Well, the Field Operations Manual is actually
a guide for our staff on what to do. You know, how do they
operate in the field? And so there is nothing new in there. It
is their instruction manual.
Chairman Walberg. My time is expired, and so now I
recognize Mr. Pocan for your five minutes.
Mr. Pocan. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Mr. Michaels, for being here.
Let me ask you a general question about budget and then let
us come back to the OSH Act updates, a couple of them that you
mentioned. If I understand it, you have sufficient resources
right now to inspect each jobsite once every 140 years on
average.
Dr. Michaels. That is about right.
Mr. Pocan. And I believe the appropriations bill that was
passed this year by the House cut that by about 15 percent, 32
million, and it is about 7 percent less than last year's
budget's--last year's levels. How is this going to impact you?
Briefly, what is the impact?
Dr. Michaels. Well, the concern I have, of course, is how
that impacts the safety and health of workers across the United
States. We would certainly do significantly less enforcement,
and we know that enforcement has an impact. You know, there is
a study done by business school professors from Harvard and
Berkeley that was published in Science Magazine a couple years
ago that showed that our random inspections, every single one
of them, reduces injuries at the workplace we visit by 24
percent and saves the employer money. And so the fewer
inspections we do, the more injuries are going to occur and the
more costs are going to go up. And so we know that this is
going to have a bad impact on workers.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you.
On the OSH Act updates, one of the things you mentioned
were the civil and criminal penalties. And again, painfully
low. If I understand it right, you are the only agency in the
Department of Labor who is prevented from automatically
adjusting the maximum penalties for inflation. If I remember
right, according to the ``Death on the Job'' report, in 2014,
there was a penalty for a fatality case that was $5,050. Could
you just talk a little bit about the needs to adjust those?
Dr. Michaels. No, that is sadly not uncommon. We do not
issue penalties because there is a fatality, but because we see
a violation. And the maximum penalty for a serious violation is
$7,000, and we always discount it for small employers and for
history and good faith. And so even when there are significant
events where workers are killed and we have multiple
violations, the fine is very low. I mean, an example, a few
years ago we had a terrible incident at an oil refinery half
owned by Shell and half owned by Saudi Aramco. You know, these
are big companies. A worker named Jeff Davis was essentially
virtually dissolved in an acid spill. His body, you could
barely find it, and eight other workers were hurt. The total
penalty against this multinational company was $175,000, which
is pretty low. In comparison, EPA followed us in because crab
and fish were killed by this acid spill. Their penalty was $10
million. The value of human life seemed so low in that case.
Mr. Pocan. Sure. Thank you.
Also, you mentioned public sector employees. Eight to 10
million public sector employees not protected. Can you talk a
little bit about that?
Dr. Michaels. Yes. The way the OSHA law is written is if a
state has federal jurisdiction as Wisconsin has or Missouri has
or Florida has, the state and local workers have no coverage.
Fortunately, public sector workers in Michigan do have coverage
because there is a state OSHA plan, but in the other states,
unless the state decides to have an OSHA plan themselves, those
workers have no coverage. So we are pleased that Maine, for
example, just signed on, and Illinois and New York and New
Jersey and Connecticut have them, but most of the states where
we have jurisdiction, those public sector workers do not have
the right to a safe workplace. When one of them is killed,
there is no investigation. Nothing happens.
Mr. Pocan. And some large employers, if they have
operations in multiple states at some of the facilities in one
of those 29 federal OSHA states and at some of the 21 state
OSHA state plans, when considering whether a violation is
repeated, does OSHA have the authority to consider the history
of an employer's violations from a state plan?
Dr. Michaels. We cannot. And that is a big issue for
companies which are in multiple places. We think it is very
important to look at the history, and if an employer violates
the law in one part of the country, they should not be allowed
to violate without major penalty somewhere else, but that is
unfortunately the way the law is written.
Mr. Pocan. I see the yellow light but the time is--oh, I
see I have a minute left. Okay. So let me go to really quickly
on OSHA updating new safety and health standards. I know this
says 10 to 20 years in order to do that. Can you just address
that issue?
Dr. Michaels. The requirements for OSHA to issue a new
standard are very complicated. We put a tremendous amount of
work into our standards. We have extensive public input. In
fact, for our silica standard, we took public input for a year.
But because of the requirements for a complicated standard, it
easily could take 10 years. The GAO estimated eight years and
that is an underestimate. So it takes us a long time to make
those changes. So most of our standards are really dramatically
out of date and workers are paying the price.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you. And I yield back because I have 10
seconds.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. And now I
recognize the Chairman of the Full Education and the Workforce
Committee, Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr.
Michaels, for being here and for your testimony. I know that
Chairman Walberg has a working list of issues he would like to
address, so I yield my time to him.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept that
yield. I do have a number of questions, and I know right now we
are on borrowed time, and I appreciate the borrowed time we are
on.
Dr. Michaels. I will speak quickly.
Chairman Walberg. Representative Pocan, in your response to
his question, brought up a question that I would like to
address with you. OSHA is looking at the California, Oregon,
and Washington State plans with respect to roofing and
residential construction projects. BLS data suggests states
governed by the federal OSHA plan with similar sizes have a
higher incident rate than these three states--California,
Oregon, and Washington. Why does OSHA think the federal
standard requirement is more protective than these three
states?
Dr. Michaels. That is a great question. There are lots of
reasons for a fatality rate or even a fall rate. Compliance
with a standard is really in some ways the key thing, and there
are lots of areas where California, Washington, and Oregon have
lower injury rates and lower fatality rates than the rest of
the country. The standard is just a piece of that. When we look
though at fatalities that have occurred that have been in
violation of a standard, we see lots of them and we know they
could have been prevented if our standard had been stronger.
And that is why we actually changed the enforcement policy for
residential construction a few years ago because people were
dying because they were not following the new standard because
we were not enforcing it. So we can see that our standard will
have an effect in those places where it is applied. And I have
no doubt that any state that strengthens their standard, they
will actually reduce fatalities and falls as well.
Chairman Walberg. What criteria are you using to determine
if the state plans are at least as effective as the federal
rules?
Dr. Michaels. That is certainly something that we have been
working on. In fact, we are probably the first administration
ever to develop metrics to say this is how to measure a state
plan in comparison with the federal government. The law has
been around for 44 years, but for the first 40, OSHA never
said, ``Do we have a rigorous way to actually measure the
concept at least as effective?'' So we have implemented that a
year ago. We now are collecting data from the state plans, and
I think we are doing very well.
Chairman Walberg. So it is still in progress?
Dr. Michaels. Yes.
Chairman Walberg. Blacklisting. Last year the
administration issued the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces
Executive Order, otherwise known as the Blacklisting Executive
Order--I think that is an industry term--in an attempt to
ensure labor law compliance by federal contractors. Earlier
this year, OSHA issued a memorandum directing compliance safety
and health officers to collect additional data during
inspections regarding employers' federal contractor status. The
question I would like to ask you, do you think knowledge of an
employer's contract work is relevant to an OSHA inspection?
Dr. Michaels. Well, you know, we have learned a lot in the
last year since that has come out and I think we have had a
very successful experience. Our interest is not
``blacklisting'' or barring an employer from federal contracts;
we want to use any leverage we can to make sure workers are
protected. And I have heard from some of our area offices in
states where they do a lot of defense contracting, defense
contractors have said, ``Well, you know, we are a little
concerned about this. Tell us what we need to do to make sure
we do not get on this list.'' And we are happy to work with
them. Our aim is not to bar any employer from being a federal
contractor but to work with them saying, ``Look, we would like
you to continue to be a federal contractor. Let us make sure
you are in compliance with our law.''
Chairman Walberg. Well, it is one thing for the contractor
or the contractor wanna-be but I think the concern is it is so
easy for them to get caught up without even knowing the
question to ask and all of a sudden being on a list that could
impact contract negotiations or even getting the contract.
Dr. Michaels. My understanding is that comments have been
received and they are still working out what the procedures
are, but we are very much committed to setting up a system
where we can work with employers to make sure that they are in
compliance rather than being debarred. And that is our
commitment. That is what we want to do.
Chairman Walberg. Let me ask you. Do the three guidance
documents carry the force of law? This probably gets to the nub
of our concern.
Dr. Michaels. Yeah. Standards carry the force of law, but
the way we interpret them and enforce them comes from those
documents and other sorts of documents. So we will use those
documents in issuing citations, for example, because it tells
our inspectors what to do.
Chairman Walberg. But does it tell our employers fully what
to do and what is expected, especially since they are guidance
documents as opposed to rules or laws themselves?
Dr. Michaels. Rules always need interpretation. We issue,
we get requests from employers on a weekly basis to interpret
our rules. In fact, we issue probably 100 letters of
interpretation a year when an employer says, ``Well, what does
this really mean? Or what is the definition of this?''
Essentially, this tells employers, ``Yes, this is the
definition.'' So it tells, for example, that employers who
thought that they were exempt under the retail exemption now
are not exempt and therefore, you know, they always should have
been following the law; we just would not enforce it. Now,
actually, they know we could make an inspection.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Well, my time is expired for the
second time. And now I recognize the new member of our
Committee, the gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
letting me sit in here today and participate in this very
important hearing. And I certainly appreciate Dr. Michaels'
leadership you provide to keeping our workers safe across the
country.
But as you do the enforcement, I think it needs to be
coupled with common sense. And I was just wondering your
opinion about some citations that I have heard about. So do you
think that a company should be fined thousands of dollars
because the emergency eyewash station, the water was too cold?
Dr. Michaels. You know, I would have to look at the
specifics. Obviously, that does seem questionable, but there
are lots of issues in any one inspection, and the facts drive
that decision. And so we would have to--I would be happy to
look at that.
Mrs. Hartzler. How about being fined thousands of dollars
because you did not have a yellow line painted 10 feet from the
edge of a flat roof?
Dr. Michaels. Again, the same thing. But, you know, we have
rules about protecting workers up on roofs, and we have too
many fatalities, so we expect employers to follow that. If that
were the only reason they got fined, we would have to look at
it very carefully.
Mrs. Hartzler. Or how about an extension cord that is in
the wrong place?
Dr. Michaels. Well, if the extension cord is frayed and
someone could be tripping over it, we would have to--again, it
is fact specific but I understand your concerns.
Mrs. Hartzler. Yeah, my concerns are, I was wondering, you
said you had a field manual. So how much discretion is given to
OSHA employees when enforcing the regulations. If they find
something are they able to say, ``Hey, why do you not unplug it
and move it?'' Do they have that authority? Are they supposed
to just slap them with a fine of 6,000 bucks right there?
Dr. Michaels. No. The discretion actually is with the area
director. The inspector is supposed to report what they see,
and then the employer is supposed to meet with the area
director and talk about what are the implications of this? Have
they in good faith tried to eliminate the problems? Things like
that. And the area director has a great deal of discretion
around the fines.
Mrs. Hartzler. So they have the discretion to totally
eliminate it?
Dr. Michaels. No. Here is the reason. If we had a policy
where we said the first time we see a problem there is no fine,
then everybody would say, ``Okay, we will not do anything until
after we are caught once.'' We cannot allow that. But we think
we have a tremendous amount of discretion.
The other thing we tell small employers is, ``Look, we have
a free consultation service. Once you get into that service,
you are exempt from inspections while you are using that
service,'' and that is what we want employers to do.
Mrs. Hartzler. And I do commend you for that service, but I
think it does not make sense to go ahead and fine--in my case,
I mean, the stories that I have heard, it is almost like
extortion. Small businesses are told, ``Okay, you are going to
be fined for a nonserious violation.'' That is what we are
talking about, $6,000. ``But if you agree not to appeal it, if
you pay today, it is only $2,000.'' How is that different from
extortion?
Dr. Michaels. Well, you cannot be fined $6,000 for a
nonserious violation. We have a very clear step system of
penalties and the maximum penalty for a nonserious violation
for the first time is quite a bit lower than that.
Mrs. Hartzler. Well, still, thousands of dollars. If you
are a family-owned business, that can have huge implications.
I guess another question, you talked about your
whistleblowers. How many inspections are a result of the
employee who has been fired? Do you keep track of that?
Dr. Michaels. I do not think we do. We keep track of health
and safety inspections that come from complaints, and then we
have a separate database when a worker has alleged that they
have been retaliated against. And we have to match the two, you
know, if we get both sets of complaints. But I do not know the
answer to that.
Mrs. Hartzler. I would encourage you to keep track of that
because while there may be certainly legitimate cases, and we
want to protect the worker in those cases, but then other
times, would you concede that sometimes maybe retaliation does
occur? Somebody got fired because of incompetence and something
else and then they are going to get back at them. We will call
OSHA and boy, they will come in and get them.
Dr. Michaels. When we investigate allegations of
retaliation, we often find that the retaliation that is being
alleged did not occur and the retaliation or the firing
occurred for other reasons. We do an independent investigation
of those, and that is a common finding. On the other hand, we
also find that workers have complained about safety and health
reasons and then they are fired. And so we have to take the
allegation very seriously, but I think we do a good job parsing
that out.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. Well, I just disagree with you, I
guess, saying that you think that just doing away with a fine
for something that is nonserious, that the company would not,
you know, respond. I think you would have served your purpose
in raising an awareness of a danger, but if it is something
that could be fixed easily, the government should work with
businesses, especially family-owned businesses instead of
treating them like criminals and coming in with a clipboard and
``we gotcha'' type mentality. So I think OSHA and all
government, we work for the people, and OSHA should have that
attitude when they confront the businesses.
Dr. Michaels. And we do. You know, we have a category of de
minimis violations, ones where we issue no fine. But if someone
could be hurt, we feel that there is some penalty that should
be associated. It could be less than $100, but there has to be
something associated with that. But again, we stress for these
family-owned firms, we can help you for free. Let us do that
before we send an inspector and before a worker gets hurt.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. And I yield my time to Mr.
Walberg.
Chairman Walberg. I love this chairmanship. Great members.
Thank you.
The injury and illness hospitalization regulation went into
effect as I understand it January 1, 2015. When does the agency
expect the online reporting component of the injury and illness
regulation to be available to employers?
Dr. Michaels. I wish I could say. We are having some IT
issues and it will not be available in the next few weeks I do
not believe, but we are working hard on getting up there.
Chairman Walberg. As long as the IT issues are not emails.
Dr. Michaels. That is correct. They are not.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Well, we hope they come out as soon
as possible. I know industry is waiting.
Where in the final rule does OSHA explain how the agency
would respond to the increased reports submitted under the
injury and illness regulations?
Dr. Michaels. Well, we do not explain in the final rule but
I have explained it publicly many times and I would be happy to
tell you what my approach to this is, which I think is one
which most employers will welcome. What I tell our staff, our
inspectors, is that if you get a report of a worker being
injured, of a hospitalization or an amputation, you do not have
to inspect. Obviously, fatalities, we absolutely have to
inspect, and certain really serious injuries we do as well. But
there is an opportunity cost. If we inspect this one workplace,
then we cannot inspect the other workplace because we can only
do the same number of inspections. So what we would like to do
is use these notifications as teachable moments where if we can
work with the employer on the telephone and get them into the
consultation system and get them to respond to us and do an
incident investigation where they understand the root causes of
the injury and solve the problem themselves. We do not have to
go out there, and therefore, there is no inspection and there
is no fine. Right now, we are inspecting less than 40 percent
of the reports, and I would like to drive that down even
further because we think this can have an impact on workplaces
without us actually ever going out to visit them. And that is
particularly important in those places where our inspectors
have to travel great distances to get to the workplaces. So I
think we are making some progress. We have gotten reports where
we have not inspected, but employers have reported to us that
they have set up whole new systems as a result of this and we
are pleased.
Chairman Walberg. Did the August 2014 Injury and Illness
Regulatory Proposal undergo OMB review?
Dr. Michaels. It will.
Chairman Walberg. It has not yet?
Dr. Michaels. Which one is this called?
Chairman Walberg. This is the Injury and Illness Regulatory
Proposal, August 2014.
Dr. Michaels. I think the one you are referring to----
Chairman Walberg. For under 250 employees.
Dr. Michaels. Yeah. That one will undergo OMB review.
Chairman Walberg. But it has not yet?
Dr. Michaels. It has just been sent to OMB. We expect it
will undergo it in the near future.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Let me move over to online
training. Coming off of this desire to have workplaces with you
on that and reduce the need for inspection if they submit to
doing the right thing. OSHA's online outreach training program
is the most broadly utilized online workplace safety training
in the country. Since 2001, these courses have been provided by
OSHA authorized entities. In 2008, OSHA established rigorous
guidelines for the ongoing approval and regulation of these
programs. The question is how is it that continued use of the
2008 guidelines is not the most practical way forward?
Dr. Michaels. I think what you are referring to is our move
towards a new system where we select the providers. The reason
for that is we had some significant quality issues with some of
the providers, and under our old system----
Chairman Walberg. You said quality issues?
Dr. Michaels. Yes. We would get complaints from people who
had signed up. The systems were not working. The quality of the
online teaching really was not very good. And overseeing that
quality was important because people would get a card that said
they were an OSHA certified 10-hour or 30-hour participant. And
so we have moved toward a system where we really can have
better quality control, and we have gone through some real
bumps on the road, and so we have to----
Chairman Walberg. Talk to us a little bit more about that.
With these failed procurements that you have had--I think we
would call it that.
Dr. Michaels. Yes.
Chairman Walberg. How are you going to address that?
Dr. Michaels. Well, I believe, and I am not as up on this
as others in the agency are, you know, essentially, most
recently there has been a court decision that said that our
description of what we wanted was fine except we had said that
we would have access, essentially free access, copyright access
to the materials developed by these contractors, by the people
providing this online service. Everything else we asked for was
fine. That, though, requires us to re-offer, to send out the
offering again to get bids again. The rest does not have to
change, but in the next procurement here, because it was a
failed procurement, the next one has to say that we would not
have the ability to essentially have free access and use to the
educational materials developed by the contractor.
So we will re-offer it, and then we will then go through
the same process where applicants have to submit applications,
and we will choose the applicants to fit each category and move
forward.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Well, I wish you well on that
because, again, it is a popular approach when it works.
My time is expired.
While we await the Ranking Member--I am glad she has
arrived and everything is okay. I would like to recognize
Representative Mike Rogers, who is not a subcommittee member
but has some great interest in OSHA.
Mr. Rogers, do you have any questions you would like--or
comments you would like to make?
Mr. Rogers. I would be happy to if I got a chance.
Chairman Walberg. We recognize you.
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you.
One of my concerns has been when OSHA comes in and does a
plant inspection, just a regular annual or semi-annual plant
inspection, there have been no accidents or injuries, and
during an inspection they find that some machine or part of the
plant is out of compliance with your rules or regulations for
safety. They are told to bring it back into compliance and you
will come back in to inspect it and confirm that has happened.
But then, my experience, the company is not told exactly what
they have to do to come back into compliance. My plants have
told me that they are told, ``Get a consultant. That is not my
job to tell you how to fix it. I can just tell you, you are out
of compliance.'' They then hire a consultant, bring them in,
fix the problem, call OSHA to come back in to verify that it
has been corrected. OSHA says, ``It has been corrected. Here is
your $50,000 fine.'' Why in the world would you not tell
somebody what they have to do to come back into compliance? And
then if nobody has been injured, they fix it within a
reasonable amount of time, why would you fine them? And that
has happened in two different companies in my district.
Dr. Michaels. This in some ways is the same question that
Representative Hartzler asked. There are a couple different
issues. First, one thing I discussed earlier, what we really
would like small employers to do is to bring in a free
consultant, which we will help them get. We fund the free
consultants, but they are separate from OSHA and they are
independent. When an employer asks for a free consultant, we do
not inspect during that period, and they will make sure that
they are in compliance. We tend not to tell, or we do not tell
employers exactly what they must do to fix it because we
actually hear from employers all the time, ``Just, you know, do
not be prescriptive. Your standards are there. Let us figure
out how to get there.'' And, you know, there are some standards
which are very clear what they have to--if a lockout tag, they
have to have the lock. It has to be tagged out. It is all
pretty straightforward. But there are other ones that say you
have to have a system to address the problem, and they could
come up with that system in ways that will address the problem.
We have guidance that will say, ``If you do these things it
will be effective.'' But we like to give employers a lot of
leeway.
What we do not do though is give them back the money or say
there is no fine because if we say the first time there is a
problem and you only fix it after we found it, what is the
incentive for employers to abate hazards before we get there?
And that is really the issue. If every employer thought,
``Well, I am not going to get fined until OSHA gets here the
second time,'' who is going to fix things?
Mr. Rogers. How are they going to know they are out of
compliance? There is one particular plant that just stands out
as egregious. The machine that OSHA came in and found to be out
of compliance they had had for 30 years. Nobody had ever been
injured on it. They did not know it was out of compliance. They
had to paint a stripe on the floor and that brought them back
into compliance. A yellow stripe that came out three feet, and
they got a $50,000 fine. A $50,000 fine is obscene.
Dr. Michaels. A $50,000 fine for no yellow line?
Mr. Rogers. Correct.
Dr. Michaels. Again, I would be surprised. I mean,
usually----
Mr. Rogers. I was surprised, too. That is why I am here.
Dr. Michaels. I would love to see--if you do not mind
sharing that with me, we will take a look at it.
Mr. Rogers. I would be happy to. I just find that obscene.
And it is different if somebody had been injured and you would
be right with that logic, but if somebody is not injured and
you just find it during an inspection, give them a reasonable
amount of time to fix it. If they fix it, free pass. I just do
not understand why you feel like you have got to penalize
somebody for trying to do right.
Dr. Michaels. Well, you know, it is interesting. We
actually do not penalize employers because a worker has been
hurt or killed or injured. We only penalize them for the
violation. In fact, we have had fatalities where there is no
citation issued because no violation occurred. On the other
hand, if the violation could have led to a worker being
injured, whether or not they were injured, we feel we should
issue the citation because it is a warning to that employer and
to other employers that they cannot let those violations occur
because maybe a worker has not been hurt by that machine, but
another machine like it probably has hurt many workers, and we
know that.
Mr. Rogers. And if you had any information that the
employer had knowledge they were out of compliance, you should
fine them. But if you have no knowledge that they had any
reason to believe they were out of compliance, you should not
fine them. And while I am not on this Committee, I intend to do
everything in my power to fix it that way before I leave
Congress.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman.
And now I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for her
opening statement and questions. It is your floor.
Ms. Wilson. One question. I think I will have time.
Thank you so much, Chairman Walberg, for allowing me to
make this opening statement, and I would like to welcome Dr.
Michaels and thank him for testifying this morning. It has been
four years since you last appeared before this Committee, so I
thank you for coming back again and giving us the progress at
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
It is well known that your agency faces several obstacles
to effectively enforce the rules that protect and promote
worker safety. One of these major obstacles is budget
constraints. OSHA only has enough inspectors to inspect each
workplace in its jurisdiction once every 140 years.
In my home state of Florida, OSHA has only enough
inspectors to inspect each jobsite once every 256 years. I find
it inexcusable that given these current conditions, a House
budget bill would cut $32 million from OSHA's already sparse
enforcement budget. This 14 percent cut would leave OSHA even
less able to enforce standards that keep workers safe. Given
its limited resources, OSHA must be able to use additional
methods to monitor the health and safety conditions of our
workplace.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
we are charged with examining the weaknesses in the OSH Act and
proposing reforms to strengthen OSHA's ability to protect
American workers. Firstly, we must ensure that the eight
million state and local government workers in 24 states with no
OSHA protections gain coverage. These workers, including the
894,000 workers in Florida, deserve OSHA protections,
especially where the states are not stepping up to protect
workers.
The truth is, most employers are deeply committed to worker
safety, but for those few employers who callously disregard the
well-being of their workers, we must ensure that OSHA has the
tools to act. This means raising OSHA's civil monetary policies
which have not been adjusted for inflation since 1990.
Penalties must serve as a strong deterrent, sending a clear
message that if you do not value your workers you will surely
pay.
In preparing for the hearing, I was deeply saddened to hear
Carlos Centeno's story. Carlos was a temporary worker at a
Chicago-area factory. He was asked to clean a 500-gallon
chemical tank with no safety gear other than latex gloves and
rubber boots. An open hatch erupted, showering Carlos with a
185 degree solution of water and citric acid, burning over 80
percent of his body. Even though Carlos's skin was peeling, his
employer refused to call 911. It took more than an hour and 40
minutes for Carlos to arrive at a burn unit. Sadly, he died
three weeks later. As Carlos's son put it, the employer failed
to think of him as a human being.
When we hear egregious stories like this, it is shocking to
know that for employers who willfully violate a health and
safety requirement that causes a worker's death or fail to act
to keep him from dying, the maximum criminal sanction under OSH
Act is only a misdemeanor. Since 1970, there have been 390,000
workplace fatalities but only 88 prosecutions under the OSH
Act.
Mr. Chairman, reforms to address these and other weaknesses
are included in the Protecting America's Workers Act, H.R.
2090. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on a
bipartisan basis to identify the highest priorities and begin
work to strengthen and improve the OSH Act.
I want to thank Dr. Michaels for being here today, and I
look forward to hearing how we, as the Subcommittee on
Workforce Protections, can help OSHA in its efforts to promote
and protect the safe and healthy workplaces all Americans
deserve.
[The statement of Ms. Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wilson. And I want to ask this one little question.
What is the impact of this lack of coverage for this group of
workers? What would you recommend Congress do to address this
problem of incomplete coverage? I spoke about Carlos Centeno's
story and how his employer refused to call 911. Does OSHA
support strengthening criminal sanctions in the OSH Act?
Dr. Michaels. We do. We know that the threat of criminal
sanctions changes behavior, and in so many other areas we see
the effectiveness of this. I mean, right now there is a big
discussion in the food safety area. The owner of a company that
sold contaminated peanuts that resulted in dozens of deaths and
hundreds of people being made sick by the peanuts just has
gotten I think 28 years in jail. And that sends a message out
to other food manufacturers that they cannot get away with
this. But there is no criminal penalty of any importance
associated with the OSH Act. If a worker is killed and it is
associated with a willful violation--in other words, the
employer knew about this hazard and willfully left it there--
the maximum penalty is a misdemeanor, six months, and it is
aimed at the corporation. People do not go to jail for that. I
think it would make a big difference if--and we are talking
about the tiny number of employers who really treat their
workers this way, but we need to send them a message because
these workers--that is where workers are being killed.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you. I yield back. I have to vote.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. We have votes
coming, so we cannot belabor this.
I want to say thank you, Dr. Michaels, for being here.
Thank you for your work. I think this hearing, the value of
this as we move forward and considering some of the things that
are brought up today is to find a mechanism by which there can
be a true partnership between business and industry and the
government, specifically the regulator with OSHA. It is an
important function. We hate hearing stories like that. We also
hate hearing stories that were brought up by my colleague, Mr.
Rogers, where maybe six months in jail would have been better
than the $50,000 fine for painting a yellow strip. It just did
not make sense. I think if we can promote the idea of that
partnership that comes together with best practices from the
industry and a working relationship from OSHA that says we are
willing to listen to those and learn from those, in turn, that
partnership might foster greater growth in our safety in the
workplace. I do not think that any of us here at this dais want
to stand in the way of the safety of the worker. And we do not
want to stand in the way of the regulator that is working to
the best interest, but we also want to be on the team with the
employer who is not like that particular employer and is caring
about their employees as well.
Thanks again, and with no further questions before the
Committee, it is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions by Chairman Walberg follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]