Masonry Magazine April 1997 Page. 33
WASHINGTON UPDATE
OSHA
Still Needs
Reform
by U.S. Representative Cass Ballenger
As the founder and owner of a small manufacturing business as well as a Congressman from North Carolina, I used to make the claim that I was the only Member of Congress who has actually been cited by OSHA. With the election over the past few years of more Members of Congress with backgrounds in business, I no longer make that claim. And I never made it, obviously, for the purpose of highlighting that my business had been found in violation of an OSHA requirement. My point was that until you've actually been in the position of running a business and of trying to take care of your employees and (hopefully) make a profit to then have an OSHA inspector come into your workplace who seems to be a lot less interested in the health and well-being of either your business or your employees than he or she is in finding some violations for which to cite and fine you you really can't appreciate why OSHA has the reputation it has among most employers, especially those operating small businesses.
Two years ago, when the Republicans took control of Congress, I became Chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, which has jurisdiction over OSHA. I announced then that one of my priorities as Chairman would be to change OSHA. I support the mission and purpose of OSHA: to promote and improve the safety and health of American workers and workplaces. But I disagree with the approach and tactics that have too often been used by OSHA. I made as my goal to try to move the agency away from its focus on violations and penalties and towards a focus on actually improving workplace safety and health. Towards that goal I hoped to see more practical and reasonable regulations from the agency, and more emphasis on working with employers and employees to improve safety and health in their workplaces. I was often met with skepticism that any change to OSHA's enforcement first approach was really anything other than "gutting" OSHA and the government's support for workplace safety and health. Such skepticism reflected a view of employers which is all too common in Washington. In my life as a manufacturer and a business man, I know that my employees are my most valuable resource. Obviously their safety and health is not only in my personal interest, but my financial interest. Every employer that I know wants his or her workers to be safe and healthy, if only to reduce worker's compensation and other costs. Certainly there are employers who try to take shortcuts and risk their employees' safety. There is a need for enforcement, but should that be the primary, indeed, almost sole, focus of the government's program to promote workplace safety and health? The former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, once told our committee that in his view about 10% of employers were actually interested in the health and well-being of their employees, and the other 90% only did so in the face of government enforcement. I told the former Secretary that he had the numbers backwards. But unfortunately it's his perspective that has largely guided OSHA. Even looked at simply in terms of efficient use of government expenditures, there is ample reason to try new approaches to improving safety and health. The federal government has spent over $5 billion directly on OSHA, and mandated billions more in expenditures. Yet there is little evidence that OSHA has made a significant impact on safety and health. Imagine you or me trying to run a business that way: year after year pouring money into an operation that consistently fails to show results. We'd obviously try some new approaches, or go out of business.
I introduced a bill early in the last Congress that reflected the types of change that I believe would improve OSHA and worker health and safety. In brief summary, the bill was designed to insure that OSHA requirements reflected both their costs and benefits, that the requirements were appropriate for each industry to which they applied, and that enforcement was balanced with consultation and education. Among other changes, the bill would have instituted a program within OSHA to provide "right to fix" inspections that would give employers the opportunity to fix violations without penalty if no employee had been injured or placed in serious danger. This was consistent with my overall goal of putting the focus back on safety and health and fixing problems, rather than on citations and penalties. Unfortunately in my view, rather than participating in a constructive debate about OSHA's record, political opponents mostly played to the legitimate concerns of workers and their families for safe and healthful workplaces. Some of those who most vociferously opposed my bill Continued on page 40
MASONRY-MARCH/APRIL 1997 33