[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNSAFE AND UNTENABLE: EXAMINING
WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR
WAREHOUSE WORKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE
PROTECTIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 17, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-497 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Marina Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
LUCY McBATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan, Vice Chairman BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA McCLAIN, Michigan
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY MILLER, Illinios
MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARY PELTOLA, Alaska CHRIS JACOBS, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JOSEPH SEMPOLINSKI, New York
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS
ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman
MARK TAKANO, California FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania,
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey Ranking Member
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan BURGESS OWENS, Utah
MONDAIRE JONES, New York BOB GOOD, Virginia
MARY PELTOLA, Alaska MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MICHELLE STEEL, California
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Ex
Officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 17, 2022................................ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Adams, Hon. Alma, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections:............................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Keller, Hon. Fred, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections:............................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Kaoosji, Sheheryar, Executive Director, Warehouse Worker
Resource Center............................................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Frumin, Eric, Director of Health and Safety, Strategic
Organizing Center.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Rath, Manesh, Partner, Keller and Heckman.................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Caicedo, Janeth, Sister, Sister of Edilberto Caicedo......... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington:
Article dated December 1, 2022, from The Intercept....... 60
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Ms. Janeth Caicedo....................................... 88
Mr. Eric Frumin.......................................... 91
Mr. Sheheryar Kaoosji.................................... 141
UNSAFE AND UNTENABLE: EXAMINING
WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS FOR
WAREHOUSE WORKERS
----------
Thursday, November 17, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m.,
2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Alma
Adams (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Norcross, Jayapal,
Omar, Scott (Ex Officio), Keller, Stefanik, Miller-Meeks,
Owens, Steel, and Foxx (Ex Officio).
Staff present: Brittany Alston, Operations Assistant; Ilana
Brunner, General Counsel; Rasheedah Hasan, Chief Clerk; Sheila
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Eli Hovland,
Policy Associate; Yameen Ibrahim, Staff Assistant; Stephanie
Lalle, Communications Director; Kevin McDermott, Director of
Labor Policy; Kota Mizutani, Deputy Communication Director;
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Dhrtvan Sherman, Staff
Assistant; Robert Shull, Labor Policy; Michele Simensky; Banyon
Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology; Sam Varie,
Press Secretary; ArRone Washington, Clerk/Special Assistant to
the Staff Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director;
Caitlin Burke, Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael
Davis, Minority Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Minority
Director of Operations; Trey Kovacs, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Member
Services and Coalitions; Audra McGeorge, Minority
Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Minority Legislative
Assistant; Ethan Pann, Minority Press Assistant; Gabriella
Pistone, Minority Staff Assistant; Krystina Skurk, Minority
Speechwriter; Katy Roberts, Minority Staff Assistant; Kelly
Tyroler, Minority Professional Staff Member; Joe Wheeler,
Minority Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman Adams. Good morning. We are ready to begin. I
will countdown from five and then we will start. Five, four,
three, two, one. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will
come to order. I want to welcome everyone, and I do note that a
quorum is present.
Before we move into the hearing, I want to thank Mrs.
Cherfilus-McCormick for serving on this subcommittee during her
tenure with the Committee on Education and Labor. We wish her
well, as she leaves us to go to Foreign Affairs. I would like
to also welcome today Mrs. Peltola to the Committee and the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.
The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony in a
hearing entitled Unsafe and Untenable: Examining Workplace
Protections for Warehouse Workers. This is a hybrid hearing
pursuant to House Resolution 8 and the regulations hereto.
All microphones, both in the room and on the platform will
be kept muted as a general rule, to avoid unnecessary
background noise. Members and witnesses will be responsible for
unmuting themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when
they wish to seek recognition.
When members wish to speak or seek recognition they should
unmute themselves and allow a pause of 2 seconds to ensure that
the microphone picks up their speech. I also ask that members
please identify themselves before they speak. Members who are
participating in person should not be logged onto the remote
platform in order to avoid feedback, echoes and distortion.
Members participating remotely shall be considered present
in the proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they
shall be considered not present when they are not visible on
camera. The only exception to this is if they are experiencing
technical difficulty and inform committee staff of such
difficulty.
If any member experiences technical difficulty during the
hearing, you should stay connected on the platform, make sure
you are muted, excuse me, and use your phone to immediately
call the committee's IT director, whose number was provided in
advance. Should the Chair need to step away for any reason,
another majority member is hereby authorized to assume the
gavel in the Chair's absence.
In order to ensure that the committee's 5-minute rule is
adhered to, staff will be keeping track of time using the
committee's digital timer on the remote platform. For members
participating in person, the timer will be broadcast in the
committee room on the television monitor, as part of the
platform gallery view, and visible in its own thumbnail window.
The committee room timer will not be in use. For members
participating remotely, this will be visible in gallery view in
its own thumbnail window on the remote platform. Members are
asked to wrap up promptly when their time has expired.
Finally, while the recent guidance from the Office of the
Attending Physician has made mask-wearing optional at this
time, please know that we have in our midst at both the member
and staff levels, individuals who are immune compromised, and
who will have immediate family members maybe, who are immune
compromised as well, and who are not vaccinated, either due to
medical reasons or because the vaccine is not yet available to
children under 6 months of age.
Therefore, the committee strongly recommends that masks
continue to be worn out of concern for the safety of
unvaccinated and immune compromised committee members and staff
and their families. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening
statements are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member.
This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and it
provides all members with adequate time to ask questions.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement. Today we are meeting to examine the workplace safety
crisis in warehouses, and our responsibility to protect the
health and safety of all workers. The demand for warehouse work
is rapidly increasing. Between 2000 and 2017, warehouse jobs
increased by 90 percent, and the rise of Amazon and the COVID-
19 pandemic have only accelerated this growth.
Since January 2020 alone, the number of warehouse workers
in the United States grew by more than a third, to 1.8 million
workers. To meet the growing demand for warehouse work,
unscrupulous warehouse employers have pushed workers to their
limits, and prioritized productivity and speed over safety.
As a result, warehouse workers today face greater danger in
workplaces that were already precarious. For example, after
Walmart failed to meet OSHA standards, a 40-foot shelf fell on
top of a warehouse worker and caused her severe neck and back
injuries.
Workers in a Rite-Aid distributor center along the Mohave
Desert worked without air-conditioning, leading to several
cases of heart-related illness. Warehouse workers across the
country lacked adequate protections from COVID-19, despite the
essential role they played during the pandemic.
These tragedies are not isolated incidents. In 2020, the
warehouse and storage industry in the U.S. suffered an injury
rate nearly double the rate among all private industries.
Industry rates at Amazon warehouses are especially alarming.
According to a recent report from the Strategic Organizing
Center in 2021, the series injury rate for workers at Amazon
warehouses was more than double the rate at non-Amazon
warehouses.
This injury rate has a direct impact on workers. At the
Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, workers face back-breaking
work, 60-hour plus work weeks, 10-hour shifts with mandatory
overtime, and dehumanizing working conditions. During a 3-week
period in the summer of 2022, four Amazon workers died at four
separate warehouses.
Nearly a year ago, six employees were threatened with
termination if they stopped working to seek safety during the
tornado. Clearly, something is wrong. Worse still, these
incidents represent only a fraction of a larger, under reported
problem. Companies across the country contract, and subcontract
with staffing agencies that place temporary workers in
warehouses.
The workers are usually placed in more dangerous conditions
than permanent workers. Safety training is insufficient or
nonexistent. Host employers typically treat temporary employees
as expendable. This was the case where Edilberto Caicedo, a
temporary worker who died after his skull was crushed on the
job. His sister is with us today to tell his story.
We should all agree that warehouse workers like Edilberto
should not have to risk their lives to provide for themselves
and their families, and we must ensure that employers are held
accountable when tragedies do occur. To that end, the
Department of Labor must continue oversight of unsafe working
conditions and warehouses.
Congress must continue working to protect the health and
safety of all workers. I want to thank Congressman Norcross for
his continued advocacy on behalf of warehouse workers in New
Jersey, and across the country. His leadership and his
subcommittee's work are particularly important as our economy
rapidly modernizes and demand for warehouse work continues to
increase.
While the 117th Congress is coming to a close, I look
forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to
ensure every worker comes home safely at the end of their
shift. I now recognized the distinguished Ranking Member for
the purpose of an opening statement. You are recognized sir.
[The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
thank our witnesses for being here today. The risks of working
in a warehouse are real, and you know, one witness here today
has lost a loved one due to an accident. We offer our sincere
condolences and assure you that we are committed to the laws
mandating safe working conditions, not just in warehouses, but
all across our great nation.
You know over the past decade employment in the warehousing
and storage sector has grown rapidly, as warehousing and
delivery companies are expanding business operations to meet
increased demand for online merchandise, the millions of
Americans, you know, rely on that for delivery of goods and
service for whatever reason.
This was certainly highlighted during the pandemic. The
efforts of the warehouse workers are invaluable. Under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, all workers have the right
to a safe and healthy workplace. Through my experience in the
private sector, I have seen first-hand that the vast majority
of America's job creators, our constituents, the people we
represent, are committed to ensuring that the people that work
on their teams, that come to their business every day, go home
to their families each night safe and healthy.
Private sector businesses are embracing new technologies,
and best in class safety innovations to protect their workers
from occupational hazards in warehouses. The Federal Government
should be supportive of these efforts. The Democrats refuse to
recognize that the vast majority of job creators, the people we
represent, are dedicated to improving health and safety for
warehouse workers.
Attacking the industry after it stepped up to the plate
during the pandemic is dangerous and grossly unfair. Sending
OSHA, with its aggressive playbook, after business owners will
not make warehouses safer, but it will harm our economy and
workforce. Democrats, the so-called solution to warehouse
safety are misguided, more punishment, more unions, and more
Federal control is not the answer.
In fact, you know, talk about Federal control, I walked
through the capitol, I see numerous OSHA violations right here
in this building where fire extinguishers are covered with
things sitting in front of them. We as Congress, ought to make
sure that we are leading by example.
Whether it is a warehouse, whether it is a factory, no
matter where it is, people deserve to have a safe working
environment, and most of our job creators are committed to that
endeavor because the people that come to work as part of their
team are family. They are friends, they are members of the
community. They need to be safe and healthy for everyone to
succeed.
Democrats continued use of OSHA to export more top-down
Federal control over the workplace is authoritarian, and if we
are going into a recession, as some experts predict, then this
is the worst time for the Federal Government to tighten its
grip on any industry.
Furthermore, demonizing job creators, again the people for
which we work, as well as their employees, is no way to keep
workplaces safe. If Democrats were serious about improving
workplace safety and warehouses, they would adopt policies to
collaborate with employers to prevent accidents before they
happen.
Vilifying employers who share the common goal of keeping
their workers safe is counterproductive. The best way to
increase safety in warehouses is through increased compliance
assistance, partnership programs, and education. Why are
democrats not focused on this? Workers' safety is not the
democrats true focus or end goal.
Democrats' real priority in going after warehouses is mass
unionization. Democrats are intent in driving all workers into
unions regardless of their preference. By mischaracterizing
employees' safety records, and cherry-picking data, democrats
hope to get away with exerting more Federal control, and more
union control over business owners.
While we support common sense safety precautions in the
warehouse industry, and in the workplace overall, Democrats are
taking this a bridge too far. As Republicans we believe in
private enterprise should dictate productivity and the pace of
warehouse work, not Washington bureaucrats.
The bottom line, ensuring safe workplaces is a priority for
job creators and this committee. More punishment, more unions,
and more Federal control will not achieve our shared goal of
worker safety. They will, however, hurt opportunities for job
creators to grow their businesses and hire new workers.
Again, I would say that if we are truly concerned about
workplace safety, we would lead by example right here in the
United States Capitol and make sure that the employees who work
here are not exposed to hazards. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Without objection, all
other members who wish to insert written statements into the
record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on December
1. I would now like to introduce the witnesses.
Mr. Sheheryar Kaoosji is the Executive Director of the
Warehouse Workers Resource Center. Mr. Eric Frumin is the
Director of Health and Safety Center of the Strategic
Organizing Center. Mr. Manesh Rath is a partner at Keller and
Heckman. Mr. Rath represents clients in matters related to
occupational safety and health law, litigation, wage and hour
and class action litigation.
Janeth Caicedo is the sister of Edilberto Zamora Caicedo, a
forklift operator who died due to a workplace accident in a New
Jersey warehouse in 2019. Since his death, Ms. Caicedo has
engaged in advocacy to raise awareness of the hazards and
minimal protections that temporary workers face in the
warehousing industry.
We appreciate the witnesses for participating today. We
look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
that we have read your written statements, and they will appear
in full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and the committee practice,
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to unmute
your microphone. During your testimony staff will be keeping
track of time, and the timer is visible to you at the witness
table, or on screen in gallery view. Please be attentive to the
timer, wrap up when your time is over, and remute your
microphone.
We will let all of the witnesses make their presentations
before we move into member questions. When answering a question
please remember to unmute your microphone. The witnesses are
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
to the subcommittee, and therefore we will proceed with their
testimony.
I would like to first recognize Mr. Kaoosji. Mr. Kaoosji we
will hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF MR. SHEHERYAR KAOOSJI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WAREHOUSE WORKER RESOURCE CENTER
Mr. Kaoosji. Thank you. Chair Adams, Ranking Member Keller,
thank you for having me today for this important hearing. My
name is Sheheryar Kaoosji, and I am the Executive Director of
the Warehouse Worker Resource Center. For over a decade, I have
worked supporting warehouse workers in southern California, as
an organizer, researcher, and policy analyst.
The Warehouse Worker Resource Center is a non-profit
organization based in San Bernardino County, California. We
support non-union workers who face dangerous and exploitive
conditions in the warehouses of the most powerful companies in
the world.
Over 40 percent of freight that enters the United States
comes in through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. A
large percentage of these goods are transported to our region
with their stored package then shipped out to the Nation. Over
300,000 people in southern California, and over 1.7 million
people nationwide work in these warehouses.
This sector has grown rapidly in just the past 10 years. In
January 2012, there were just over 500,000 people employed by
warehousing nationwide. Now it is well over 1 and one-half
million. Much of this increase has been in the last couple of
years and has been just by the growth of Amazon's employment.
This industry includes a significant number of workers who
are employed through staffing agencies at low wages. This issue
leads to significant problems across our communities. Insecure
economic conditions for workers, insecure economies for our
region.
Workers who are employed through staffing agencies are more
desperate for work, and know they can lose their job any day,
if the warehouse operator, or the temp agency says they just do
not need them anymore. These millions of temporary and
contingent workers tend to be disproportionately people of
color, immigrants and women.
According to research by the National Employment Law
Project that came out this year, wage theft, workplace
injuries, and retaliation are endemic in temp jobs, including
warehouse jobs. We have good joint employment laws here in
California, and believe they have been critical of holding
employers accountable to the law.
We know that the NLRB is currently reviewing joint
employment standard. U.S. Department of Labor reinstated joint
employment standards last year. These rules create strong
disincentives to excessive use of subcontracting and staffing
agencies and pushes accountability closer to the decisionmakers
and the parties that really have the power.
As the warehouse sector has changed over the past decade, a
key influence on this sector has been Amazon. Amazon opened
their first warehouse in California in San Bernardino in 2011,
just as that city was entering bankruptcy. The community was
excited about a big named employer moving into one of the
poorest cities in the Nation.
The community soon saw that when Amazon hired a lot of
people, those jobs turned over quickly, due to dangerous
conditions, insecure hours, and most of all, a high pace of
work. In Amazon facilities and other warehouses, workers are
pushed to move as quickly as possible in order to keep up with
the rapid pace of one-or 2-day delivery.
Amazon has accelerated these forces, moving workers rapidly
through their facilities in order to keep up with the rapid
pace of their operations. Amazon's intention is not to store
products, but rather to keep them moving and flowing through
their system. This is now the state-of-the-art, and the rest of
the industry is working to match it.
When you order a product to arrive in 24 or 48 hours, there
is no magic robot or process that makes that happen. The
product moves fast because people are running. People move
quickly and get injured. Completely avoidable and tragic
injuries happen every day to workers due to the high pace of
work.
In response to these facts, in 2021 last year, California
Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez introduced and passed Assembly
Bill 701, the bill that restricts the warehouse employer's
ability to discipline workers for not keeping up with quotas
and requires employers to provide basic information about
quotas to the workers and to the State.
We believe such policies are beneficial to workers across
the Nation. Another common issue in warehousing as the industry
is growing as climate change is accelerated is heat. In
Southern California, this past summer temperatures reached up
to 121 degrees outside. This results in hazards for workers
across the State, both indoors and out.
The combination of heat and high production quotas make
warehousing an especially dangerous job, and one that calls out
for attention from regulators. In response, in 2016 we worked
with California State Senator Connie Leyva to pass AB 1167, a
bill that established indoor heat protections, like extra
breaks, water, and training.
We believe these kinds of policy protections, especially
when aligned with workers organizing to protect themselves, can
save lives and make warehouses more productive by keeping their
workers healthy. Amazon is now the largest warehousing company
in the country, one that practices high turnover and high pace
of work, making that the industry standard.
This is unacceptable. Workers are standing up. In San
Bernardino where workers are organizing as Amazon Workers
United, and other facilities across the country. The Department
of Labor has a key role in making this sector accountable, and
we thank you and the State and the government for making this
industry accountable. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheheryar Kaoosji follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I would like to recognize
now Mr. Frumin. You are recognized sir for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC FRUMIN, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND SAFETY,
STRATEGIC ORGANIZING CENTER
Mr. Frumin. Chair Adams, Ranking Member Keller, the SOC
greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify today. We cannot
have a serious conversation about workers' safety in the
warehouse industry without focusing on the enormous toll of
serious injury and disability that threatens hundreds of
thousands of Amazon workers every single day.
This threat has long since reached crisis proportions, in
fact as of last year Amazon caused more serious injuries to
warehouse workers than all the rest of America's warehouses
combined. In 2021, Jeff Bezos and his managers allowed the
serious injury rate to jump by 20 percent. The typical Amazon
warehouse worker with a serious injury is away from their
regular job for almost 9 weeks.
These horrendous results were a predictable outcome of the
company's business model, which prioritizes speed, production,
and profit over workers' safety. Amazon optimizes its
production system to put worker's bodies under extreme levels
of stress, while constantly reminding them that Amazon will
fire them if they do not keep up with the inhumane pace of
work.
Amazon knows how to stop this. In 2020 as the COVID crisis
became full-blown, the Amazon temporarily eased its work speed
pressures by suspending disciplinary action based on production
metrics, and the company's injury rate in 2020 dropped
significantly.
However, as soon as Prime Day approached in October 2020,
Amazon reimplemented its work rate requirement and sure enough
the injury rate in 2021 jumped up again. This brutal system is
not only harmful to workers, it violates Federal law. Earlier
this year Washington State OSHA inspectors found ``a direct
connection between Amazon's employee monitoring and discipline
system,'' and workplace injuries.
They found that Amazon's ``very high pace of work,'' is a
so-called willful violation of the OSHA law. Willful violations
are very rare. They require that a company either
``intentionally disregard, or be plainly indifferent,'' to the
requirements of the OSHA law.
If any employer deserves that description today, it is
Amazon. Sadly, this business model is also becoming the norm
for the warehouse industry in general. Amazon's system must be
stopped before it destroys even more workers' bodies and their
livelihoods.
Throughout this crisis, Amazon's executives have repeatedly
blamed the severity of the injury crisis at the company, and
tried to--excuse me, they denied it, and tried to blame others,
including their own workers. They have severely misrepresented
their own injury records to investors, journalists, and the
public, claiming that these outrageously high injury rates are
``about average'' within the relevant industries.
The SOC has called on the Securities and Exchange
Commission to investigate Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy's public
statements. In response to this copious evidence of both
rampant injuries at Amazon, and management's utter failure to
address the problem, OSHA offices around the country are
launching investigations.
The State OSHA agency in Amazon's home State of Washington,
and more recently Federal OSHA have undertaken detailed
investigations of these abusive practices, the most
comprehensive national workplace inspections in OSHA's 52-year
history. What has been Amazon's response? More denial and
deflection.
Following the violations in Washington State, Amazon has
dragged its feet and failed to fix the violations as required
by OSHA. The warehouse near Albany, New York, is currently
under investigation by Federal OSHA where Amazon reported the
highest injury rate of any primary Amazon warehouse in the
Nation, 20 serious injuries per 100 workers per year.
For the members of this Committee, that rate of injury
would mean that eight of you would have been injured badly
enough over the last 2 years to be unable to do your own jobs.
On behalf of Amazon workers throughout the Nation, we demand
that Amazon stop denying the dangers, stop opposing OSHA's
interventions, and comply with the orders to fix these hazards.
Andy Jassy could issue a directive this afternoon to stop
firing workers whose bodies just require a break from the
pressure, nothing is preventing him from doing so. We urgently
request that the committee continue to focus its own attention
on this crisis, including urging Secretary Walsh to continue
the administration's full support for OSHA's interventions to
improve safety conditions in the warehouse industry, including
these investigations.
Alerting the leadership of the Nation's warehousing
companies to the dangers of the Amazon business model and
demanding that Amazon fulfill its legal mandate to protect
workers. Thank you very much again for the opportunity to
testify today, and happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frumin follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I now recognize Mr. Rath.
STATEMENT OF MR. MANESH RATH, PARTNER, KELLER AND HECKMAN
Mr. Rath. Good morning, Chair Adams, Ranking Member Keller,
members of this subcommittee. I am grateful for the opportunity
to appear and participate in this hearing. I am Manesh Rath. I
am a partner at the law firm Keller and Heckman, here in
Washington, DC.
For the past 27 years, I have dedicated myself to working
with employers to improve the workplace, including the field of
workplace safety and health. In my testimony today, I am
expressing only my own understanding of the fields of
occupational safety and health law and administrative law, and
I am not here as a representative of my firm, of its clients,
or of any other interest.
The employers with whom I have worked, some of them are
among the largest operations in the world, are all sincerely
dedicated to the goal of reducing, and hopefully eliminating
workplace injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Warehouse and
distribution is a complex operation. Products are coming in,
being sorted, stored, picked, and moved out constantly.
It is a 24-hour operation in some cases. Employers in the
warehouse and distribution sector, with whom I have worked,
have been dedicated to trying to understand the incidences of
injuries and illnesses in their workplace, trying to identify
potential hazards, and to developing improvements in the
workplace to make it a better place for the field of workplace
safety and health.
These employers have successfully driven injury and illness
rates down through careful examination of their operations, and
forceful, creative interventions to reduce injuries and
illnesses. I say successfully, because that is the unmistakable
conclusion drawn by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that warehousing
had a rate of 9.5 non-fatal occupational injuries per 100 full-
time employees in the year 2003. By 2017, employers have driven
that rate down to 5.0 of non-fatal occupational injuries for
100 full-time equivalent employees.
There is still more work that can be done, and the
employers with whom I have worked are dedicated to that work of
driving additional safety and health improvements. How have
warehouses and distribution employers achieved this impressive
improvement in workplace safety? In my observations, some of
the safety and interventions the warehouse industry employers
have introduced in their workplaces include acclimatization
programs to address musculoskeletal disorders.
Increased and improved education programs, so that
employees can share in the common goal of being responsible
through their own conduct for everyone's safety. Implementing a
buddy system, pairing experienced employees with less tenured
workers to teach, oversee, and reinforce sound safety
practices.
Intensive adaptations to the physical work plants and
equipment, designed to improve the ergonomic interface between
workers and their tasks, such as weight-bearing hoist arms,
hydraulic lifts, hydraulic work tables, hydraulic and powered
forklifts and scissor lifts, and the introduction of robotics,
and other forms of automation.
As I mentioned, these interventions have led to a
statistical improvement in injury and illness rates in
warehouses, and the distribution centers. While I recognize the
misapprehension that increased work speed can lead to increased
injuries, this is not an unavoidable, or inescapable causal
relationship.
Increases in product speed should not, and need, not come
at the expense of safety. Increased production speeds may be
accommodated by additional safety adjustments to for example,
machine guarding, personal protective equipment, and forms of
automation that may allow increased production speed while
actually reducing injuries and illnesses at the same time.
Certainly, this appears to have been the case, and the
conclusion drawn in a study in the poultry industry involving
over 20 plants--20 plants, I apologize. While improvements in
safety in warehouses has been driven by dedicated employers,
OSHA can play a valued role as well. The agency can revitalize
its consultation program, which has been long underutilized.
The agency can publish guidance documents as well.
When the pandemic struck OSHA issued over 20 guidance
documents in a matter of months. By contrast, rulemaking can
take a couple of years or longer. OSHA can develop an alliance
program with warehousing and distribution industry groups as it
has with other industry groups in order to share successful
interventions.
This Subcommittee can rightly applaud the significant
safety successes of employers in warehousing distribution, and
can encourage OSHA to participate in that process
collaborative, rather than as an adversary in order to improve
the safety in warehouses. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you. I look forward to addressing any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rath follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. We will now hear form Ms.
Calcedo. You are recognized now for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. JANETH CAICEDO, SISTER, SISTER OF EDILBERTO
CAICEDO
Ms. Caicedo. Good morning members of the Workplace
Protection Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and
Labor. I would like to thank Chair Adams and Ranking Member
Keller for the invitation to share my story today of the
importance of health and safety protections to warehouse
workers.
I am here to testify about the importance of workplace
safety standards for warehouse workers. I cannot explain why it
seems that our society sees it as normal that the workers who
get paid the least to do the most physically demanding jobs,
and they are expected to risk their health and safety at work.
We need to change this expectation. Warehouse and logistics
workers are truly essential to our economy, and the health and
safety risks they are subject to must be exposed. This summer,
three New Jersey Amazon workers died on the job within 3 weeks
of each other. It hard to believe that it is just a coincidence
that these workers passed away during one of the busiest times
of the year, Prime Day.
Perhaps not everyone can understand what it's like for
families like these to suffer a loss due to health and safety
risks at their job being ignored. Unfortunately, I can.
On August 19, 2019, my brother came to my bedroom door, and
he yelled to me, ``Hey, Monster, it's time to go to work. I'll
see you at five.'' He headed out to his assignment at TI
Logistics in Kearny, New Jersey, a company that managed
warehousing and distribution of products for companies like CVS
and American Eagle.
The reason I said this assignment, rather than his job, is
because my brother was a temp worker, employed via a licensed
staffing agency. Warehouse workers employees via staffing
agencies in New Jersey and elsewhere are much more likely to
risk serious injury than even the already dangerous jobs
performed by direct hire warehouse workers.
At nine, I received a call that my brother Edilberto was at
the hospital with a very, very dangerous injury in his brain.
He died 4 days later. It was a drastic change in my life, in my
family's life, and nothing, nothing has been the same again.
My mom, who is 93 years old, still feels that he will come
1 day to tell her what happened. I think the accident was the
company's fault. The company did not follow OSHA regulations.
There was no interest in keeping a safe workplace at all. The
company was accepting contract after contract, and piling
people inside the warehouse without maintaining any type of
safety protocols.
The equipment was also unsafe. The company did not keep up
the machines, and did not provide adequate training. These
conditions would end up killing my brother. The conditions in
my brother Edilberto's workplace were not safe at all. The
managers focused only on adding customer after customer, and
though they continued piling people inside the warehouse, they
never paused to make sure that there were reasonable safe
working conditions that would allow workers to go home at the
end of the day to their families.
Equipment was not maintained and continued to be used when
it was not working properly. Temporary warehouse workers like
my brother could not speak up about safety risks and expect to
keep their jobs.
Whether from the staffing agencies themselves, or the
companies that contract with them, when temporary workers speak
up, they are retaliated against. They are removed from their
assignment, taken off the schedule, or fired. As the other
witnesses have explained, the warehousing and logistics
industry is rife with safety risks.
Imagine what this means for workers employed in warehouses
via staffing agencies, which by design shield companies from
responsibility for the working conditions of the workers they
employ. Temporary warehouse workers like my brother, do not
worry that they will face retaliation for raising safety
issues, they know they will.
To even call my brother a temp worker is not entirely
accurate. After my brother's death, I began to look more
closely at the industry he worked in, and particularly into
staffing agencies' role in health and safety at warehouses in
New Jersey. I learned about a study from 2015 that showed that
nearly half of all New Jersey warehouse workers are ``temporary
workers''.
The majority of these temporary workers, work at the same
assignment for more than 2 years. Temporary workers, in
addition to the outsized risk to their safety, generally do not
qualify for health benefits, often have their wages stolen, are
subject to predatory fees, and are threatened when they try to
take legally allowed time off. That is certainly the case in
New Jersey.
Chairwoman Adams. Would you please wrap up your comments.
We are over time.
Ms. Caicedo. Sure. After checking a lot of cases that I
noticed about the safety of the security of the job place, I am
sure that there are--that you, the Representatives, will make
the difference. I think that all the workers deserve respect
and dignified treatment and a safe workplace. Please be fair
to----
[The prepared statement of Ms. Calcedo follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am, we
have got to move on. Thank you. Under Rule 9(a), we will now
question witnesses under the 5-minute rule, and I will be
recognizing the subcommittee members in seniority order. Again,
to ensure that the member's 5-minute rule is adhered to, staff
will be keeping track of time. Please be attentive to the time,
wrap up when your time is over, and remute your microphone.
I am going to recognize myself as Chair for 5 minutes. Mr.
Frumin, the Strategic Organizing Center's report spoke about
the pace of work being a contributor to workplace safety
concerns in warehouses. Can you please speak to how businesses
can create a healthy balance between fulfilling orders for
customers and ensuring that the pace does not endanger workers?
Mr. Frumin. Thank you very much, Chair Adams. The pace of
work is a fact of life for many jobs, including certainly
warehouse workers, and there is nothing to say that in and of
itself a particular job is going to be dangerous or not based
on simply the pace of work. We want to be realistic about this.
However, what is apparent is that if you do not pay attention
to how fast you, as an employer, are pushing people, you could
easily push them far too fast.
At a certain point, and that can be very quickly in the way
managers treat people, you can be pushing them far beyond the
ability of their bodies to handle it. How do you judge what is
appropriate? Well, first of all you listen to workers and their
complaints, and Amazon workers have been complaining about this
for years publicly, to OSHA ,to their managers with no success.
However, also, you can apply simple basic principles of
ergonomics to say well, we know from prior experience that in
this type of job you can predict that at this pace of work the
job is going to be far too dangerous and needs to be slowed
down until we can figure out a different way to do it that
makes it safer to work quickly, so there are different ways to
manage it, thank you.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Thank you. My next
question is to Ms. Caicedo. Before I begin, I wanted to tell
you how first of all deeply sorry I am for your loss. Thank you
for joining us to share your story. Is there anything you would
like to tell us about the kind of person your brother was, and
how we can make sure his memory is honored appropriately?
Ms. Caicedo. I could define my brother as a generous
person. He was always generous with the time, with the service.
He was so generous that when he died he was an organ donor.
Always, 15 days before he died, he said it is important to give
life to others, and I think that this is the way to honor him.
To work to give life to others.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, ma'am. My final question, Mr.
Frumin and Mr. Kaoosji. The reports that we have heard about
excessive heat in warehouses is quite disturbing. Can you
discuss briefly what is being done, or what could be done
better to ensure proper temperature control in these
warehouses, Mr. Frumin?
Mr. Frumin. Sorry. Well, certainly, one thing to do is to,
you know, give, take accurate real time temperature
measurements, and make sure workers know about it. Make sure
workers are trained to understand when those conditions
approach danger and what the warning signs are so that they can
make sure that they are reporting any symptoms, and that
managers know how to respond to it.
It is a combination of controlling the temperature and the
conditions but making sure that workers have actionable rights
to be protected from those conditions if they are having any
symptoms, and beyond that you know, to pay attention to the
law. Unfortunately, what we have seen, and Mr. Kaoosji can
comment on this in more detail, is companies repeatedly
ignoring, even where it is a legal requirement, to protect
workers from excessive, dangerous heat exposures.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kaoosji, would you
like to comment please?
Mr. Kaoosji. Yes, thank you. Here in California, we have an
interesting situation where we have an outdoor heat standard
that has existed since 2006 and applies to a lot of workers who
work out in docks and stores and warehouses and ancillary
places.
We see how that works, and it works when you know the
employer proactively is required to (inaudible). Sorry,
effectively give workers extra breaks and rest when the
temperatures are above a certain temperature. We are hoping
that that is something that can establish in the indoor heat
standard situation as well. That is the kind of situation that
we, you know, are working toward with the establishment of the
indoor heat standard here in California.
Chairwoman Adams. [Inaudible.]
Mrs. Foxx. I ask for a point of personal privilege to begin
my comments. I want to thank Congressman Fred Keller for the
tremendous service he has done for our country, for his
constituents and for this committee. One thing I have learned
about Fred while serving with him in Congress is that he is
someone who always shows up, who has always prepared to work on
behalf of job creators and workers.
Who is as committed to upholding the Constitution as one
can be. Saying Fred will be missed is an understatement. He is
the embodiment of a public servant, and of a statesman, someone
who always puts the work first. He did not come to Congress for
the spotlight. He came to Congress to make a difference.
I can definitely say he has accomplished that goal. Well
done Congressman Keller. We wish you the best in your future
endeavors, knowing that whatever you do next, will be in
further service to your community and to this country. Thank
you, Madam Chairman. Now I am prepared to ask my questions.
Chairwoman Adams. Yes ma'am, you are recognized for 5
minutes, thank you.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman. While the topic of
today's hearing is theoretically occupational safety in
warehouses, it appears the Democrats real goal is to bash job
creators and promote policies that drive all workers into
unions, regardless of their preference.
Democrats so-called solutions to warehouse safety are
misguided. In fact, nothing in the written testimony shows that
unionized warehouses are safer than non-unionized facilities.
Mr. Rath, returning to the topic of today's hearing, what are
some of the key factors to ensure workers' safety in
warehouses?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. The first process,
which employers have to engage in, is to understand where
injuries and illnesses are occurring, and then to try to
intervene with the appropriate remedial devices, and this could
involve changes to equipment, automation, it could involve
mechanization of tasks that are more likely to cause injuries
or have historically caused those injuries.
Then a testing and evaluation of those inventions to find
out what works, and how those can be refined and improved upon.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Another question Mr. Rath,
on October 31, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel
Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memo urging the Board to adopt a new
framework requiring an employer to prove its employee
monitoring, or management practices are narrowly tailored to
address a legitimate business need, and outweigh employees'
rights to organize under the National Labor Relations Act.
How would such a policy chill the use of innovative,
wearable technology that improves safety in the workplace?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. The first response
that I think that employers should make is that safety and
health in the workplace is a legitimate business necessity.
Nobody should question that. Second of all, the problem with
the National Labor Relations Board's opinion is that safety and
health and the employer's ability to pursue improvements to
safety and health, should be unfettered by the challenge
presented to the employee's National Labor Relations Act
rights.
The safety has to come first. The idea of wearables is
employed for safety. One example would be in geofencing to keep
employees out of unsafe areas. Another would be proximity
sensors that manage safely the distance and space between
workers and for example, motor vehicles, or powered industrial
trucks, forklifts, et cetera.
This has nothing to do with privacy--an employee's privacy,
and that is not a consideration that should be taken into
account when safety and health is involved.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Rath. The private sector has been
rapidly innovating to improve workplace safety in warehouses.
What could the government do to encourage these efforts?
Conversely, what current or proposed government actions could
impede these innovations?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. The question of
government involvement necessarily requires that we understand
that all improvements in workplace safety and health must be
implemented by the employer, therefore it is important for
government to play a collaborative role with employers, and for
employees, to play a collaborative role with employers, rather
than an adversarial one.
Some of the collaborative approaches that the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has taken in the past include
the issuance of guidance documents. During the pandemic the
last administration's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration issued 20 guidance documents in a matter of
months, much more rapidly than it could have developed or
promulgated a rule under traditional rulemaking.
The same goes for alliance programs. Programs that
associate with industry groups in order to understand what best
practices have been working. Finally, their consultation
program has been long underutilized and could be revitalized
for the purpose of improving safety and health for example, in
warehouses and distribution centers.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you so much, Mr. Rath. I just want to add
to what Mr. Rath is saying. I know of no employer in this
country who will knowingly put workers at risk anywhere,
leastwise in warehouses. Employers care about their employees,
personally, furthermore, they have much invested in them, and
want to keep them safe.
It is a shame to not have more collaboration and to look
toward helping keep individual employees safe, instead of just
trying to unionize them. I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, thank you. I want to yield now
to California, Mr. Takano, you are recognized sir for 5
minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kaoosji, if
possible, I would like to show you a chart, the group Warehouse
Workers for Justice provided. If the staff could put that chart
up please. The Warehouse Workers for Justice provided a chart
of Walmart's import distribution center in Elwood, Illinois.
This chart shows a network of relations between a lead
retailer, and a third-party logistics company, and various
chains of subcontracted staffing companies.
Mr. Kaoosji, you should have this chart in your possession
for your review. Is this structure of employment common in the
industry?
Mr. Kaoosji. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Yes, it absolutely is.
This is a similar structure that Walmart had here in Riverside
County as well, close to your district near the Mira Loma area.
About 10 years ago, we dealt with Walmart and Schneider
Logistics, specifically around staff development safety issues,
and they have with Walmart, Schneider, and Rogers Premier were
a part of that.
We continue to see a lot of big retailers like Walmart use
subcontracting of the warehouse operation, but especially the
subcontracting of staffing operations for a few reasons. Often,
reduce their own liability directly, around health and safety
or wage theft issues that occur, but also to be able to turn on
and off the labor spigot very quickly, to say we do not want
workers tomorrow and quickly be able to you know cutoff the
labor.
That is kind of the structure, but it is very common here
in California, across the country.
Mr. Takano. Well, the significance of this sort of
structure is that these subcontractors, who actually contract
with the labor, insulate the main beneficiary, which is
Walmart, or whoever is the big retailer from liability. You
know, if the wage theft is happening at the subcontractor
level, this sort of structure insulates Walmart legally, to
some extent.
Mr. Kaoosji. To some extent. It depends on where the law is
at, and this has been a constant fight and dispute at different
levels. Here in California, we have established over the last
10 years some pretty good joint employment laws around both
health and safety and wage theft. When we are engaged with the
similar structure with Walmart and Schneiders in Riverside, the
lawyers were able to show that Walmart actually was, you know,
aware of what was going on in that facility and attempted to
add them to the lawsuit.
On a national level we have seen the U.S. DOL under, you
know, the current administration has taken a more appropriate
approach toward joint employment, and taking you know not just
the direct employer of record, which would be the staffing
agency, but also the operator into account, and keeping this
viewed constantly.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. The point is that we have had
a lot of discussion in committee and hearings about joint
employer and the necessity to have good joint employer
regulations, and in law, so that companies like the top
companies, the top retailers are not able to escape liability
for health and safety violations, and for wage theft that are
committed by the subcontractors.
Now over the last 2 years several states across the
country, such as California, New York, and Minnesota, have
either enacted, or advanced legislation which would require
employers in the warehouse industry to provide advance and
detailed notices of new productivity or output requirements to
their workers.
In many states, legislation also prohibits management from
enforcing quotas that conflict with a worker's earned rest,
meal breaks, or ability to use the restroom. Can you explain
why these pieces of legislation are needed to protect warehouse
workers?
Mr. Kaoosji. Yes. When workers are working on a rate, when
workers are not represented by a union, they often work, and
they have to work every day to show that they are productive
and valuable to the company, whether they are directly
employed, or sometimes through a staffing agency you have to
show that you're productive in order to make sure that the
company keeps you.
Workers will push through a break, will push through lunch
in order to show that they are keeping up with their rate
because they know if they do not keep up they will not have
work the next day. Those protections proactively coming down
from the State is really important because otherwise workers
are incentivized essentially by those quotas to work through
those mandated breaks and lunches, those sorts of things.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you sir, my time has run out. Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank sir. I want to recognize Mr.
Keller, 5 minutes sir.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Rath, time and time
again we have heard the Democrats in this committee demonize
employers and their commitment to keeping their workers safe.
In my experience, this cannot be farther from the truth. I
would like to ask you, do employers in the warehousing industry
care about the health and safety of their workers?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. With respect to the
employers that I have worked with, every single one of them,
they have not only been fully dedicated to improving workplace
safety, but they have experienced actual improvements in
workplace safety through their own innovations, through their
own devices, and through their own investments.
I will add one more thing. When consulted as to the
requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or any
other safety law, employers have consistently that I have
worked with, gone above and beyond those requirements
voluntarily in order to optimize safety, well beyond what the
laws would have expected of them.
Mr. Keller. OK. You say they have improved safety. Do they
record like their incident rates?
Mr. Rath. Yes. The question of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act's recordkeeping rule yes, an injury or an illness
that's work related would be recorded.
Mr. Keller. You would not happen to know what any of those
are would you? The people you have worked with that have
improved their safety?
Mr. Rath. I do not typically have an access to their injury
and illness rates unless it becomes a specific question of law
that I am asked to opine on.
Mr. Keller. OK, OK, because my experience having worked in
private industry in a factory, in a lumber warehouse sometimes,
I know that employers care about the team of people that come
to help make them successful. This has turned into wage theft,
and joint employer, when we are supposed to be concerned about
people's safety.
We talk about Walmart and Amazon, but the Federal
Government runs the United States Postal Service, which
performs the same services that warehouses do, delivering
packages and moving goods as Amazon and Walmart. My point is,
if we were truly concerned with making sure people were safe,
rather than cherry-picking statistics, and certain employers,
we would take a look at the whole industry, everyone that
handles goods and provides services in warehousing and
delivery, would we not, in your opinion?
Mr. Rath. Yes. The example of the post office exemplifies
the complexities associated with these kinds of operations.
Mr. Keller. Yes. It is sad when anybody gets injured at
work. I am going to say that right now. I will tell you what,
there probably is not anybody that feels worse, than the
employer. You do not want to see somebody get hurt. People want
their team that makes them successful to be safe.
You know we talk about wage theft. That even came into this
hearing. Quite frankly, we call it wage theft and every other
thing except when we raise taxes. We raise taxes on people, and
we do not call that wage theft. We probably should. This is a
hearing on safety.
I am committed to making sure that the people I represent
are treated fairly, and we have true measurables that improve
that safety for everyone. One other thing I did want to
question because Mr. Rath, during the Obama administration,
OSHA tried to discourage post-accident drug testing in the
workplace by amending its injury and illness reporting rule.
The Trump OSHA later issued a memo clarifying that the
agency's regulations do not prohibit the post-action drug
testing. Is drug testing a critical tool to keep warehouses
safe?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for this question. The largest body of
data to support an answer to your question comes from the
insurance industry that receives all workers comp claims, and
the insurance industry has weighed in unequivocally that they
support the use of drug and alcohol testing in the workplace as
a mechanism for driving down injuries and illnesses.
It was unfortunate, therefore, that any fraction of the
government, including the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, would have been opposed in any degree to the
use of alcohol and drug testing in the workplace knowing what
the insurance companies have reported that it has a positive
effect on driving down injuries and illnesses.
Mr. Keller. You know I would say that the Federal
Government recognizes the importance of making sure people
operating machinery are not intoxicated, or under the influence
of drugs because CDL drivers, you know, take in some cases, you
can do pre-employment drug screening and random, whereas states
require random drug screening for that.
I think it is a matter of safety. If we really want to get
to the issues let us stop talking about all of these other
things, and let us talk about everyone's safety. Thank you and
I yield back.
[Ranking Member Fred Keller (R-PA) will enter in the record
a letter from the National Retail Federation.]
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Let me recognize Mr.
Norcross, you have 5 minutes sir.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Chairman
Scott for putting together this hearing, incredibly important.
Three times in my career as an electrician I was on a site
where a colleague was killed.
Nothing prepared you for something like that. I remember
hearing, I remember seeing one of those times. The shock that
came over me. To watch somebody, die in front of you on the
job. I think we all are concerned about workers safety no
matter where you work, that is a given.
An employer and an employee work together, and they all
want to be safe, but the numbers do not lie. This is not about
Amazon. This is not about Walmart. This is not about anything
but workers' safety. We have to look into it a little bit.
This year New Jersey, within a 3-week span on the job,
three employees died. Three different warehouses, one common
element was they happened to be in Amazon warehouses. That
caught my attention. I started looking into it. Safety is
critical, I worked onsites, safety is job one.
When problems start, it is generally speaking when it is
not job one, and when people are lax about safety. That is when
people get hurt, that is when people die. OSHA encourages
working together voluntarily putting these things together, but
we need to do better when you hear some of the statistics. We
are not cherry-picking anything.
Amazon claims to be earth's safest place to work. It might
be true for some of the white-collar jobs, but the numbers are
not lying to us. We are not looking to unionize, we are not
trying to beat up Amazon, we are trying to keep people from
being hurt and dying. They are humans here. Their families care
when they do not come home.
That is a big deal. It is not about the profit, it is about
keeping people alive. Mr. Frumin, the strategic organizers have
released this report this April showing that despite employing
only 33 percent of the Nation's warehouse workers, they
represented 50 percent of the injuries. This is the largest
employer of warehouse workers. We are not cherry-picking, they
are No. 1.
Happen to be the biggest injury rate. These are recorded
injuries by OSHA standards, which are reported by Amazon. Not a
third party. Amazon actually reports it. It also concluded that
the serious injury rate of lost time at work, serious injury, I
am not talking about breaking a fingernail here.
In Amazon warehouses is 88 percent higher than the serious
injury rates at non-Amazon warehouses, apples to apples. Amazon
generally had new, advanced facilities, somewhere around 5
years old as an average. High tech company. I have had ongoing
conversations trying to dig into this to find out what is going
on that people are being injured at Amazon much higher than any
other warehouse.
That is what I am asking. When we look at the statistics,
it is not lying. It is a straight-out number of people being
hurt, and these are serious injuries. What conclusions have you
found, or led to believe why this is happening? Why in only
their warehouses and not others, you could answer that.
Mr. Frumin. Mr. Norcross, thank you very much for that
question. I will try to be brief. The two things that Amazon
does to distinguish itself is push people harder through you
know algorithms, computerized monitoring, that no other company
does to that extent.
Second, they use robots to make the jobs even worse. The
injury rates in their robotic facilities are much higher than
they are in their regular warehouses. They distinguish
themselves by using advanced technology that they are such
experts at, to injure their own workers, thank you.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Let us make it the safest place to
work. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. I want to yield now to
Ms. Miller-Meeks, you have 5 minutes ma'am.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Rath,
just watching your body language during the last question, do
you have any comment on the previous question that was posed
about the Amazon warehouse?
Mr. Rath. Well, I think that any given employer, and I am
not here to represent Amazon or any other specific interest,
but any given employer that has experienced an above-average
injury or illness really than their sector, has an opportunity
to understand why that is happening, and to develop solutions,
and intervene, and then test and evaluate those proposed
solutions and refine them.
I would also add that when you look at a company that has
been rapidly developing, or has been introducing new
facilities, or new automation, that an increase in injuries or
illnesses may not be happening in spite of that newness, but it
may be happening specifically because of those disruptions, and
that that needs to be examined and refined.
That we have to understand that growth sometimes disrupts
the ongoing progress that an employer can make in the field of
safety and health.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. My understanding is that while the
warehousing and storage sector has rapidly grown over the last
decade, the total number of fatal injuries in warehouses has
remained relatively the same over time, so does this data
indicate that the fatality rate has been decreasing over time
in the warehousing and distribution sector?
Mr. Rath. For the sector generally it does seem to indicate
that. In the past decade, or about the past decade that sector
has doubled in its workforce population, while the fatalities
have remained very low, about 30. That is an increase from 21,
it is about a 33 percent increase, but as a rate it certainly
would reflect a decline in fatality rate, even though the
population of workers in that sector seems to have doubled.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. My colleagues have certainly mentioned
that you know has there been cherry-picking of data from 2020
and 2021 in an attempt to show dramatic increases in workplace
injury and illness rates. How are the data from these years
potentially skewed, and therefore less relevant when examining
warehouse safety?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. Your question was
with respect to the years 2020 and 2021, and I would observe
that certainly the COVID pandemic would have a disruptive
effect in the management of injury and illness rate and
fatalities because OSHA specifically had asked that COVID
cases, positive cases be presumptively treated as work-related
in the absence of any clear and convincing evidence that the
case was not work-related, or induced from societal exposures.
That would for years to come we will now look back at data
from those years and have to accommodate for OSHA's request
that it be overinclusive.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I can tell you as a physician, and as a
former director of the Department of Public Health, and having
done vaccine clinics at jobsites throughout my district, I am
talking about all of our public health. You know, a majority of
the cases were acquired in non-workplace settings.
The fact that that data is skewed in that direction does
make it questionable going forward. Mr. Rath, in 2001 Congress
repealed OSHA's ergonomics standard through a congressional
Review Act resolution of disapproval. Why did this standard
receive such strong opposition from Congress and the regulated
community?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. I began my time with
Keller and Heckman 20 years ago during the ergonomics
rulemaking, and I can share that the proposal that OSHA had
promulgated was that any single incident of musculoskeletal
disorders would have required vast and expensive engineering
controls to the work facility, even at the expense of
rechanneling those resources where they could have achieved
greater reductions, more meaningful reductions in other areas
of workplace injuries and illnesses--slips, trips, falls,
struck by injuries, et cetera.
That that was outside of the scope of OSHA's authority
being an authority to promulgate rules where there are
significant health concerns, not a single musculoskeletal
disorder. That was problematic to Congress at the time.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much. I yield back my
time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Ms. Jayapal, you
have 5 minutes ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am the very proud
Representative for Washington's 7th congressional District.
That is the headquarters of Amazon, and I am very proud that
Amazon started in my district. It went from being a garage
project, to being one of the largest economic engines in the
country, very, very powerful.
I am very proud that my constituents, many of whom, a big
majority of whom actually work for Amazon, have voted me in in
the most recent election, with the largest margin, with the
most votes of any Member of Congress in the country. That is
because they care that their employer is an employer who is
going to really protect all workers.
Many of the workers in my district are not working in the
warehouses. I do have a warehouse south of Seattle, which I'm
going to talk about, but what I want to say is that if you are
a large driving economic engine, which Amazon is, then you have
even more responsibility to protect and chart the most optimum
course for the workers who are giving you that success.
I am proud of a lot of the Amazon workers in Seattle who
have stepped up, whether it is on climate change, or protecting
warehouse workers despite many of them fearing losing their
jobs and losing their jobs. It is important for them to know
that they are working for an employer who has the power to
chart a different course for one of the largest employers in
the country.
I wanted to direct a couple of questions to Mr. Frumin. In
2020, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries began
an investigation into two Amazon warehouses located in Dupont,
which is just south of Seattle. Mr. Frumin, you have spoken
about this in your testimony, and I wanted to give you an
opportunity to speak more about this intentional disregard, and
what the investigation found in terms of the results.
Mr. Frumin. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. Yes, in 2020 the
Washington Department of Labor and Industries went into the
Amazon warehouse in Dupont, south of Seattle, which for that
year was having the highest rate of injuries of any Amazon
warehouse in the entire country, about 20 percent, over 20
percent, extraordinarily high.
After a few months and talking to workers and observing the
conditions with their own experts, yes, they found you know
some very serious violations. They issued that citation, and it
covered the most, some of the most common jobs in the warehouse
like loading trucks and unloading trucks. I am sure they hoped
that Amazon would respect their findings, and accept them
because the problems were obvious, and that the company would
then go about the business of fixing them.
Sadly they did not. A few months later in response to a
worker complaint, they went to the other big warehouse near
Seattle in Kent, found the same kinds of violations, the same
kinds of problems, also very high injury rates, and then issued
a second set of citations with the violations that they then
had to call willful because the company was, as I have said
before, denying the severity of the problem.
Denying that the problem even existed. We have seen this
unfortunate pattern of the company failing to accept you know
the facts, their own facts, their own evidence, and making it
difficult for OSHA to force them to clean up their act.
Ms. Jayapal. According to Amazon's website, it has a health
and safety workforce of 8,000 people worldwide. At what point
did Amazon deploy these personnel to address the crisis in the
Dupont warehouse?
Mr. Frumin. Well you would have thought that they would
have done it years before when the injury rates were already
very high. It turned out from what the inspectors noted, that
the very first day someone from the corporate ergonomics team
came to the Dupont warehouse was when after the inspector
showed up, not before. Not the year before, not 2 years before,
so this is very unfortunate.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Frumin, you know, what I find very
disappointing is that instead of paying the fine, instead of
working with the Washington State Department of Labor and
Industries, which has a very fine record, and making the
necessary changes to protect workers safety, Amazon is instead
suing the State Department of Labor and Industries, and is
claiming it is basically just on due process violations.
Rather than protecting the workers, they are suing the
Department of Labor and Industries. I just have to say that it
is disappointing to me because I know we have a new generation
of leadership in Andy Jassy, I hope. He is a constituent of
mine, I am very proud to represent him.
I hope that he would use his leadership in a different way,
to chart a different course for Amazon where this incredible
economic engine that I am so proud of having in my district,
can actually work for workers safety, can work to make Amazon,
not a company that we lift up here in this committee for
violating----
Chairwoman Adams. The gentlelady's out of time.
Ms. Jayapal [continuing]. Health and safety considerations,
but one that actually is moving that forward. I thank you for
your indulgence Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Mr. Owens, you are now
recognized sir for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say
that this last year and a half I have had a chance to go
through all my district and around the country. The biggest
concern across the board in workforce, it seems like no matter
which industry it is, you need to find good workers, you want
to retain good workers.
That is exactly, I would think that every industry out
there, particularly warehouse industry, they are looking for
people that they can actually hold on to, they could retain,
pay well. It seems that it is kind of counter intuitive to me
to want to pay more.
By the way, the per-hour wages, the highest we have ever
had in this country, so it is counterintuitive to see that we
are paying people more, and appearing, according to the
Democrats on the other side, would care less. Some kind of way
we do not mind employees getting hurt, being disrespected. At
the same time, we all need to have good workers.
The solution that I am seeing as I am hearing through all
this Committee meeting, is that the answer to all this is more
unions. That is not what I think we should be heading to in
that direction. Mr. Rath, in your written testimony you noted
that some warehouses have implemented a buddy system program to
address workforce safety.
Can you elaborate on this further? Do you believe this
practice has been effective in keeping warehouse workers safe?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. In my experience
working with the employers that have employed the buddy system,
the system works because what it hopes to achieve is take
tenured employees, and partner them with less tenured workers
to try and share not only safe practices, but to observe and
monitor and correct unsafe practices, and to reinforce
education on safety and health practices.
Then finally, the value of the buddy system is the
imparting of a corporate culture, which should be a top-down
culture that prioritizes workers safety. One worker's
vulnerability to injuries and illnesses is often dependent upon
the compliance of the workers adjacent to them, and who
intersect with them in multiple, sometimes concordant, or at
other times conflicting tasks.
The buddy system is a method by which safety and health
priorities or the culture that values safety and health first
can be imparted by senior employees who have embraced that
culture to junior most employees who are new to that culture.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. You also mentioned in your testimony
the use of robotics. I am happy to see, visiting warehouses, it
seems to be very safe, very potential way of making things
happen. I have heard a little earlier testimony that it seems
to be of some danger.
In discussing the use of robotics and other forms of
automation for certain high-risk tasks, can you speak to the
effectiveness of this, and experience of your clients in terms
of the costs of some of these costly, yet effective measures
can be implemented?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. Robotics, and other
forms of automation are extremely expensive, but employers
embrace them as a method of achieving improved workplace safety
and health because injuries, in particular, occur in the space
where employees intersect with their task.
Automation, oftentimes, improves--increases that space, or
distances employees from dangerous tasks. In addition, if you
eliminate motor vehicle accidents from just the warehouse and
distribution sector, and you are looking just inside the
warehouse, inside the plants, musculoskeletal disorders account
for the largest fraction of injuries.
The second and third are struck by and slips and falls.
Automation has an effect of reducing the muscular-skeletal load
on workers, and transferring it to machination.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir. Let me yield to the Chair
of the full Committee on Education and Labor Mr. Scott, 5
minutes sir.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kaoosji, we
understand that temporary workers are much more likely to get
injured than others. Can you say what can be done to reduce the
injury rate of temporary workers?
Mr. Kaoosji. Thank you. We believe that you know temporary
work is being expanded and exploited in significant ways by the
warehousing industry and other sectors. We believe that there
should be you know, these jobs should really be temporary if
they are temporary.
We should not have people working at staffing agencies for
long periods, but rather employers should convert workers to
direct employment as soon as they can. It is important also to
make sure that there is good training and education for workers
initially, their first 10 days is the most dangerous to workers
that are new to a site should be given clear education about
the way the place operates, given support by the employer.
Often workers are temps, they show up in the workplace.
They are just thrown in, just figure it out, and that is good.
The most dangerous situation for a worker, especially a worker
who is incentivized, like I said earlier, to work as fast as
possible, to be able to get that permanent employment, to be
able to even get the assignment the next day.
We believe that a combination of things. Reduction of pace
of work, the workers do not feel like they have to rush as
much. Clearer protections for workers in education for workers
in the workplace, and education when there is something about
safety procedures. Again, the intent toward employment,
permanent, full-time employment that workers, both the space to
know they will be at work tomorrow.
The ability to understand they can slow down on things.
Mr. Scott. OK, thank you. Mr. Frumin, we are talking about
technology, robotic technology. Exactly how does robotic
technology affect the injury rate and why?
Mr. Frumin. Well, what we ave observed in our analyses of
the injury trends at Amazon is instructive. Amazon is by far
the biggest use of robotics in the warehouse industry. They
spent almost a billion dollars a few years ago to buy the
biggest supplier of robotics, and maybe there was hope that it
would eliminate the more stressful jobs, the kind of jobs that
Mr. Rath was talking about.
What we saw was the opposite. What we saw was robots being
used to structure an assembly line type operation that forced
the workers to work in a very fast pace with no flexibility in
their jobs. They basically became extensions of a machine, of
the injury machine at Amazon.
This is basically turning the clock back 100 years, and
industrial engineering, it is making workers just a total
function of the machine pace, not relieving them of the
dangerous jobs.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Now several states have passed laws
to try to reduce injuries in warehouses. Have any studies been
done to show which laws are effective in actually reducing
injuries? I would ask Mr. Kaoosji or Mr. Frumin.
Mr. Frumin. Well, I do not believe we have seen that study
in New York, and I will let Mr. Kaoosji speak about California.
Mr. Kaoosji. In California, the bill that passed last year
is still just barely getting implemented, and no I do not have
big data on injuries.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Rath, you saw the chart of the
contractor, the employer, and the subcontractors. If that were
the structure, who would actually be liable for an OSHA
violation?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question, Mr. Scott. The
Occupational Safety and Health Law as a field has adopted a
concept called the multi-employer worksite doctrine, and so it
could theoretically be any number of employers, including the
employer who has control over the premises, or of the
operations, the employer who actually directly engages workers,
and the employer who might be associated and co-located on the
same premises and performing other tasks.
Mr. Scott. Is there any chance that there would not be an
employer?
Mr. Rath. When there is an injury or an illness, it is not
necessarily so that the employer is responsible for that injury
and illness, if that is your question.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to yield to
Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record this article from the
Intercept, How Amazon's Onsite Emergency Care Endangers the
Warehouse Workers it's Supposed to Protect.
Chairwoman Adams. So ordered.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The information of Ms. Jayapal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Adams. I want to now recognize Mrs. Steel, you
have 5 minutes ma'am.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairwoman Adams and Ranking Member
Keller. Companies all across the country are leading the way to
keep their employees safe. Every employer I met wants to keep
their employees safe. We have a labor shortage. Employers need
to keep their employees healthy and at work.
In California, we have seen port backlogs, truck shortages,
and record smash and grabs, crime rate is very high.
California's economy is already being attacked by California
Dems. Continuing to put into place new burdensome regulations
on companies driving up the cost of goods to record Democrat
created inflation.
In California, it is really, really getting bad. I want to
ask a question to Mr. Rath. My home State of California
recently passed and implemented AB 705, this law will create a
new quota system to ensure existing health and safety
standards. Will AB 705, increase manufacturing shortage and
distribution cost? Will AB 705 open the door for more costly
losses?
Does this bill bring essential protection to employees?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. It appears to me
that your question properly belongs in the field of economics,
and not law, and so I have to defer to any colleague who has
more expertise in economics, with the economic effect.
I can say this, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, at
the Federal level was promulgated in 1970. The rates of
reduction in fatalities in the workplace was greater prior to
1970, and continued post-1970, indicating that employers have
been primarily responsible for improvements in safety and
health, and not excessive rulemaking.
Rulemaking has acknowledged after the fact, the best
practices from the great corporate practices that had already
been adopted in any particular sector, and so the statistical
case for reduction and fatalities or in injury and illnesses,
if you extend beyond the 50 years of OSHA, reveals that it has
been employer interventions and not regulatory interventions
that have been the driver of those safety successes.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Mr. Rath. I have a second question.
Unions often fight against robotics and automation. We have
seen this at the Port of Long Beach, and technology makes the
workplace safer, and it provides employees with the high tech
skills that benefit their future employment.
Can you share how employees are trying to improve to their
effective measures, such as robotics and automation, even if it
comes with a high price tag? Do those new technologies improve
safety?
Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question. In the warehouse and
distribution sector the largest cause for injuries and
illnesses inside the plant is musculoskeletal disorders, and
automation has the effect of removing from the worker and
moving to the machine the most repetitive tasks, and the tasks
that are the most load bearing upon the individual worker.
That has an effect of reducing injury and illness rates
inside a warehouse, or a distribution center.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much. Thank you Chairwoman, I
yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to yield to
Ms. Omar. You have 5 minutes ma'am.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. With all the media
attention around recent layoffs in the corporate offices of
Amazon, I want to remind us of the longstanding economic
insecurity that Amazon's warehouse workers and drivers
experience regularly. According to organizers in my district,
Amazon has recently laid--tried to lay off dozens of employees
at a warehouse in Egan, Minnesota, just because they could not
switch from day shifts to night shifts.
These workers, many of whom come from low-income and
immigrant households, are being forced to either leave or
suddenly accept midnight work schedules. We stand in solidarity
with Minnesota's warehouse workers, and all who work to fight
against unfair labor practices.
Between 2019 and 2021, Amazon's profits tripled, reaching
more than 33 billion dollars. In 2020, Jeff Bezos net worth
exploded from 115 billion, to 188 billion dollars. et During
that same time the serious injury rate of Amazon warehouses was
more than double the rate of non-Amazon warehouses.
In Minnesota alone, OSHA found 792 work related injuries at
Amazon warehouses from 2018 to 2020. This means that one in
nine Amazon warehouse workers are injured on the job annually
in Minnesota. This is utterly shameful and unacceptable.
Mr. Frumin, could you tell us why Amazon refuses to make
its workplaces much safer, even with all the resources that it
has at its disposal?
Mr. Frumin. Thank you, Representative Omar. I wish I could
be inside their minds. I am not going to go there, but they
will have to speak for themselves. They have denied that the
problem even exists, so you know why do they need to change?
What is clear is that they have a deep investment in their
business model to push workers as fast as possible, faster than
humanly possible, to get the products out the door, to meet
their fast delivery times, to keep ahead of their competitors.
That is what they are about, and they do not deny it, and they
are proud of it.
Jeff Bezos has said that. We are confronted with a company
which is not going to change on its own. We cannot tell you why
they think that, but they are going to have to be forced to do
that. There are different ways, but you and the Congress know
that the Department of Labor has the authority to do that, and
we want to see those investigations and enforcement efforts
take place.
It would be nice if Amazon were one of the good employers
that have been spoken about here today, that are doing all the
right things. Only putting in robots where they cannot hurt
people, nothing could be farther from the truth, and anyone who
spent 5 minutes in an Amazon warehouse or looked at the facts
that Amazon has reported to OSHA, knows differently.
Ms. Omar. Yes. I have, and I do agree with you. Thank you
for that. It is shameful to continue to put profits over
people. I want to discuss the prevalence of extreme weather
events that are also putting workers in harm's way. Climate
change and natural disasters have only become more devastating,
making already dangerous workplaces even more unsafe for
warehouse workers.
Sir, how could Amazon, and other corporations better
weatherize their warehouses and improve workplace policies to
prevent worker harm from climate change-related dangers?
Mr. Frumin. Well, I will speak initially to the heat issue,
and then ask Mr. Kaoosji to describe it in further detail, but
you know we have seen at Amazon a historic record of them
failing to take every measure possible to protect workers from
heat, that is not necessarily a simple matter in a warehouse,
but certainly giving workers the ability to speak up, and get
answers from supervisors.
What should I do when I am feeling sick, having decent
medical treatment by trained professionals under proper medical
supervision, that is very important in recognizing the early
symptoms, and unfortunately what we have seen at Amazon is low
level emergency medical technicians, operating with no medical
supervision in violation of State medical licensing laws,
giving improper treatment to workers, and that is not going to
solve that problem.
Mr. Kaoosji.
Mr. Kaoosji. Well, we saw when the heatwave in September
when it was over 120 degrees in San Bernardino that only when
workers spoke up, and collectively took action, were they given
extra breaks, water, rest. When the company is put in a place
where they actually are forced to provide those extra breaks,
it is more proactive than workers who are not in a position to
speak up themselves, they will still get those protections,
that is how we see it.
Ms. Omar. Really appreciate you all. Thank you so much. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. I want to remind my colleagues
that pursuant to committee practice, materials for submission
to the hearing record must be submitted to the committee clerk
within 14 days following the last day of the hearing, so by
close of business December 1, preferably in Microsoft Word
format.
The materials submitted must address the subject matter of
the hearing. Only a member of the subcommittee or an invited
witness may submit materials for inclusion in the hearing
record. Documents are limited to 50 pages each. Documents
longer than 50 pages will be incorporated into the record via
an internet link that you must provide to the committee clerk
within the required timeframe.
Please recognize that in the future that link may no longer
work. Pursuant to House Rules and Regulations, items for the
record should be submitted to the clerk electronically by
emailing submission to [email protected].
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their
participation today. Members of the subcommittee may have some
additional questions for you, and we ask the witnesses to
please respond to those questions in writing. The hearing
record will be held open for 14 days in order to receive those
responses.
I remind my colleagues that pursuant to committee practice,
witness questions for the hearing record must be submitted to
the majority committee staff or committee clerk within 7 days.
The questions submitted must address the subject matter of
the hearing. I am going to recognize myself now for the purpose
of making my closing statement.
Thank you to our witnesses for your time and testimony.
Thank you to the committee members for their participation.
Warehouse work can be dangerous work. Unfortunately, as our
witnesses made clear, the modern economy is increasing pressure
on employers to make an already precarious workplace more
dangerous. As I shared earlier, this Subcommittee is
responsible for ensuring that every worker comes home safely at
the end of their shift.
Throughout the 117th Congress, we have made significant
progress toward achieving that goal. We held 13 hearings to
elevate the voices of workersthe voices of workers across the
Nation. The House passed three of our bills that strengthened
the safety network for workers.
We pushed the administration to adopt an enforceable
emergency workplace safety standard, and protect workers from
COVID-19. Thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee,
President Biden signed legislation into law to shore up
financing for the Black Lung Benefits Program, to ensure
disabled miners have improved access to the compensation and
the care that they need.
Thank you again to my colleagues for your commitment to
improving workplace safety. I look forward to continuing our
work in the 118th Congress. If there is no further business,
without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]