[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            THE OSHA PLAGUE

                                 ______


                            HON. JOEL HEFLEY

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 30, 1994

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, here is the lead from an article in The 
Chieftain, the leading newspaper in Pueblo, CO:

       Pueblo's construction boom came to a halt this week but not 
     because of the weather, economic, or labor problems. What 
     shut down many of the new home-building projects in the city 
     and county was word that the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration was in town * * *. One stucco contractor said 
     he visited a number of sites in the city and in Pueblo West 
     and found no one working. ``It was like a plague,'' he said, 
     ``really spooky.''

  The OSHA plague. Employers across the country and protesting the 
activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They 
believe OSHA's increased activity is driven by revenues rather than 
safety and they are asking Congress to review the administration.
  Last spring, the House Labor Committee moved in the opposite 
direction and adopted a bill seeking to dramatically expand the 
jurisdiction of OSHA at a price tag to the American economy of $20 to 
$60 billion dollars.
  Fortunately for the economy, the Ford bill is dead. The House is 
unlikely to bring it up before, we adjourn and similar legislation is 
stalled in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Labor Department has elected 
to move forward with the more costly items in the bill.
  Before the President does administratively what couldn't be 
accomplished democratically, I believe it's time Congress had a real 
debate on OSHA. Does OSHA promote worker safety, or does it just raise 
money for Uncle Sam?
  With that in mind, I am introducing legislation which would provide 
the first real reform of OSHA in 24 years. This bill would promote 
worker safety by emphasizing cooperation and education between OSHA and 
employers.
  My bill, No. 1, repeals OSHA's authority to inspect, investigate, and 
issue citations regarding workplace safety, No. 2, require OSHA's 
health and safety standards to consider economic effects; No. 3, 
creates a small business consulting program; and No. 4, clarifies that 
employee participation committees are not labor organizations under the 
National Labor Relations Act or the Railway Labor Act.
  The debate surrounding OSHA has been misdirected. Instead of debating 
how to expand OSHA's mission, we should debate the mission itself. 
After 24 years and billions of dollars invested, it's time to ask OSHA 
for an honest accounting.


                             imperial food

  Let me give you an example of what is wrong. We have all heard about 
the fire at the Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant in 
Hamlet, NC, that killed 25 employees and injured an additional 55.
  The owner of Imperial Food is currently serving a 20-year sentence 
for manslaughter. He's bankrupt and is facing millions in corporate 
lawsuits. Meanwhile, $16 million in worker's compensation has been 
distributed to the victims and their survivors.
  In trying the owner, the prosecutor chose not to use OSHA's criminal 
penalties because they were too ``weak.'' The State manslaughter was 
chosen instead.
  And OSHA itself is being sued by the survivors under North Carolina 
law. Before the fire, OSHA ignored a series of red flags raised by 
previous contacts with the owners of the Imperial Food plant and 
allowed the dangerous conditions at the plant to continue.
  According to the Education and Labor Committee, ``Those who 
administer the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 share the 
blame; they failed utterly to protect the workers at Imperial Food.'' 
The Federal government set itself up as the big ``Safety Sheriff'' in 
town, and now it's being sued for talking too loud.
  On top of this landslide, OSHA has imposed $800,000 in fines which it 
will never collect.
  The Imperial Food tragedy is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of 
OSHA. OSHA failed to take action at a time when it might have dome some 
good, and it piled on when its actions had little impact.
  As an OSHA official from North Carolina pointed out, the whole 
purpose of OSHA is to prevent this type of tragedy from happening. But 
somewhere along the way, OSHA's mission of prevention took a backseat 
to its enforcement activities. In the process, safety has suffered.


                          osha's safety record

  The first thing I noticed regarding OSHA's safety record is that 
nobody defends it. There's lots of lip-service to the concept of OSHA, 
to the good intentions of its authors and the number of inspections and 
fines it imposes on employers. But I have yet to hear anyone say ``OSHA 
works.''
  To the contrary, trashing OSHA's record is not just the sport of the 
construction industry of my district. Even OSHA supporters recognize 
the prudence of distancing themselves from the agency's record.
  During markup of his very pro-OSHA reform legislation, William Ford, 
chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, scoffed that the 
average business could expect a visit from OSHA ``once every 87 
years.''
  Earlier in the meeting, he listed the growth of workplace injuries 
and continued presence of workplace deaths and stated, ``More than 20 
years after OSHA, these figures are totally unacceptable.''
  The AFL-CIO complains that ``The Occupational Safety and Health Act 
has not lived up to its promise of a safe job for every American 
worker.'' While Al Gore's ``Reinventing Government'' report recommends 
that OSHA privatize its inspection duties to increase efficiency.
  Even pro-OSHA rhetoric is strained. Labor Secretary Robert Reich 
recently patted the agency on the head by saying, ``According to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, fatality rates have declined since 1971.''
  Talk about damning somebody with faint praise. Yes, death rates have 
been falling since 1971--they've been falling since 1934--and they fell 
faster before OSHA than they did after. That's not a recommendation, 
though, and Mr. Reich didn't mention it.
  As this dearth of praise indicates, there is no way to measure OSHA 
success in saving worker's lives. Nevertheless, a little common sense 
with show that even if OSHA were effective in preventing deaths, its 
prospects are limited.


                          what's the frontier?

  Let's say that OSHA was 100 percent effective at ending preventable 
workplace deaths. How many lives could it save?
  According to the Department of Labor's Census of Fatal Occupational 
Injuries, there were 6,083 workplace deaths in 1992.
  Of those deaths, 2,441 were caused by transportation accidents, 
including highway, farm, aircraft, and other transportation deaths. 
Another 1,216 deaths were the result of homicides and suicides. 
Finally, 76 workers died by drowning. Unless OSHA teaches employees how 
to drive, fly, swim, and cope better, it's not going to have any impact 
on these deaths.
  Then there is the presence of drug and alcohol abuse. Random drug 
testing has proven to reduce drug-related deaths, but OSHA doesn't 
supervise these programs.
  Employee recklessness is another hurdle. You can train some people 
all you want, they are still going to go out and endanger themselves 
and others.
  Finally, you have the self-employed. OSHA rules may apply to a self-
employed person, but if they are not willing to protect their own 
health, why would they respond to OSHA?
  That leaves a generous guess of 1,500 deaths each year that OSHA 
could prevent, if it worked perfectly. To put that in perspective, 
Congress could prevent more deaths each year just by abandoning current 
CAFE standards.
  As Imperial Chicken demonstrates, OSHA isn't anywhere near 100 
percent effective.


                              injury rates

  The other measure of OSHA's effectiveness is workplace injury rates. 
Again, there's no credible measure of how effective OSHA has been at 
making the workplace injury free. Injury rates fluctuate with 
innumerable variables, and it is impossible to isolate the impact of 
OSHA. So instead of citing success, OSHA proponent instead emphasize 
the problem. As you might expect, it's getting worse.
  In the markup of his reform legislation, William Ford noted that 
American workers suffer 3.3 million injuries every year. Not 10 minutes 
later, Representative Matthew Martinez claimed that 6.3 million 
workplace injuries occurred every year. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO claims 
that 7 million workers are killed, injured, or made sick on the job 
each year.
  In Secretary Reich's earlier testimony before the same committee, he 
pointed out that injury rates have risen in the last 20 years, from 3.5 
per 100 workers in 1974 to 3.9 today. Reich revealed that repetitive 
motion disorder cases, the ``occupational disease of the information 
age,'' rose from 27,000 recorded cases in 1983 to 224,000 in 1991. From 
Secretary Reich's perspective, OSHA is facing new workplace risks that 
require new laws and regulations to combat.
  From my way of looking at it, we've had 20 years of OSHA and injury 
rates are exploding. Labor statistics like these remind me of our 
success with government-sponsored birth control and low-income housing. 
Inevitably, the more time and money we invest in the solution, the 
bigger the problem becomes.
  A closer examination of the workplace injury problem reveals that 
it's over-stated. Not only are most workplace injuries minor in nature, 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that two-thirds of them don't 
result in any lost time at all.
  Other more serious injuries are not work related, but are reported as 
such so that the employee can take advantage of worker's compensation 
and other employer-provided benefits.
  That's not to say that workers don't get seriously hurt at the job. 
Its just that, as Secretary Reich admits, most workplace risk aren't 
addressed by OSHA.


                          what osha does best

  OK, so OSHA is ineffective at saving lives, and its impact on 
injuries is suspect. What does it do well?
  Raise money. OSHA is so proficient at levying fines that employers in 
my district are convinced that the OSHA gets to keep all the money it 
raises. They can't believe a Federal agency could be so energetic 
without a direct incentive.
  While this fear is unfounded, unless Chairman Ford's reform bill 
becomes law, the reality is not much better. Congress, under the guise 
of public safety, is using OSHA to balance the budget.
  In the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress Explicitly called on 
OSHA to increase it's collections by $900 million over 5 years. To help 
it accomplish that goal, OSHA fines were increased seven-fold and 
mandatory minimums are established for serious violations.
  The conference report to the reconciliation act gives lip-service to 
increasing safety, but the true motion is transparent enough: changes 
in OSHA Act civil penalties will produce nearly $900 million in new 
Federal revenues over 5 years. The conferees expect OSHA to assess 
significantly higher penalty across-the-board given the seven-fold 
increase in the maximum allowable penalty. All revenues collected will 
be deposited in the U.S. treasury for purposes of Federal deficit 
reduction.
  OSHA responded to Congress' mandate with gusto. In October 1992, 
Builder magazine noted:

       OSHA's 1,200 inspectors are making fewer visits to housing 
     sites than they did during the last housing boom, but their 
     inspections are more thorough and more likely to result in 
     fines. OSHA fines against builders have soared from $29,000 a 
     month in fiscal year 1987 to $114,163 a month in fiscal year 
     1991. Since fiscal year 1992 began on October 1, 1991, OSHA 
     has been handing out fines to builders at the rate of 
     $117,750.

  In my State of Colorado, OSHA penalties have risen from $298,000 in 
1990 to $803,093 in 1992, an increase of 170 percent in 2 years.
  I think it's obvious that Colorado's workplaces aren't three times as 
dangerous today as they were in 1990. But then, it is also evident that 
the increased number of fines have little to do with safety.
  According to the Association of General Contractors, of the top 20 
most frequently cited violations, paperwork violations make up the top 
7, followed by positions 9, 11, 12, and 16. Almost 70 percent of OSHA 
citations are paperwork violations.
  So instead of working to ensure the safety of their employees, 
employers are forced to spend their time filling out forms and posting 
signs. I'm tempted to say that's what happens when you put bureaucrats 
in charge of safety. You get safety on paper.


                          let the market work

  While OSHA is busy collecting fines for missing files and warning 
labels, the market is busy making the workplace safer. Remember what 
happened to owners of Imperial Food? Imprisoned for 20 years, sued, and 
fined into bankruptcy. OSHA had nothing to do with those penalties.
  Market economics and criminal laws work to punish employers who 
recklessly endanger the lives of their employees. Once again, let's 
listen to Secretary Reich:

       In addition to human suffering, accidents, and illnesses on 
     the job also exact a substantial economic toll on society. 
     Employees are directly saddled with much of this bill, as 
     exemplified by workers' compensation payments of $52 billion 
     in 1992, the last year for which such data are available. 
     Total employee benefits paid on an annual basis, such as wage 
     replacement and medical costs, increased from $3 billion in 
     1970 to $38 billion in 1990. Compensation per covered 
     employee increased from $51 to $402 during that period.

  Chairman Ford sounds the same refrain when he points out that all 
those injuries result in 1.5 million lost workdays or $116 billion per 
year in lost productivity. Add those two numbers up and you get $198 
billion lost by employers every year due to workplace deaths and 
injuries.
  Do you think America's employers have noticed?
  What Secretary Reich and Chairman Ford are telling us, apparently 
without being aware of it, is that the market of economics and existing 
labor laws--exclusive of OSHA--already work to protect employees.
  To make the point clearer, in 1990, the market fined employers $198 
billion for the injuries and illnesses of their employees. That same 
year, OSHA proposed $72 million in penalties.
  Which has a bigger impact?


                              osha's costs

  On the other hand, OSHA's costs are much greater than just adding the 
cost of operating the administration with the amount of penalties it 
assesses.
  First, there's the compliance cost to employers. How many millions of 
hours do American employers spend researching OSHA's requirements and 
filling out OSHA paperwork?
  Second, and perhaps more importantly, is the loss in productivity 
that regulatory agencies like OSHA cause, OSHA regulations have 
resulted in a significantly reduced productivity growth in the United 
States. This lower productivity has resulted in billions in lost income 
per year.
  These numbers are peanuts compared to the costs of OSHA if the Ford 
OSHA bill becomes law. The nonpartisan Employment Policy Foundation 
estimates that the compliance costs alone of the Ford bill will be $58 
billion per year. Lost productivity will add billions more.
  Obviously, the costs of these OSHA regulations can't be ignored. The 
paperwork, the surprise inspections, the excessive penalties all 
combine to force employers to jump through federally-mandated hoops and 
hurdles when they could be concentrating on their jobs.


                               conclusion

  William Ford is right; we need to reform OSHA. Not expand it, mind 
you, but refocus its efforts into more profitable channels. If OSHA is 
supposed to prevent accidents from occurring, then let's allow OSHA 
officials to concentrate their efforts on prevention.
  That means taking away OSHA's enforcement powers and expanding its 
consulting responsibilities. If Congress thinks it's necessary for the 
Federal government to preach safety to employers, we can do it without 
the bully-boy mentality.
  Once again, the bottom line was summed up nicely, if unconsciously, 
by Secretary Reich when he noted that ``work accidents make up only 20 
percent of all accidents.'' All things being equal, you're safer on the 
job.

                          ____________________