Masonry Magazine April 1997 Page. 40
OSHA Reform
Continued from page 33
even claimed that OSHA's tough enforcement was the only thing between most workers and certain injury or death. Of course this type of rhetoric disregards all facts and reason, but it succeeded in sidetracking the legislation.
Even while joining in this political opposition (including promising organized labor that the President would veto any OSHA reform bill), the Clinton Administration implicitly accepted our criticisms and even endorsed parts of our agenda in announcing that OSHA would be "reinvented." Thus with OSHA as with other areas, the Clinton Administration has tried to be both "anti-" and "pro-" reform at the same time.
That is where we are as we begin the 105th Congress. Speaking from the House of Representatives' side of the Capitol, we begin this Congress and our approach to OSHA mindful of two facts: (1) the American public gave us the opportunity to continue efforts to redirect the program towards one that is more reasonable and more effective at promoting safety and health, and (2) we must do so within a legislative body in which the margin of votes between the political parties is narrower than it was in the last Congress, and with a Democratic President who won re-election by a substantial margin. Thus I intend to continue to push the process of change at OSHA, but be realistic about the scope and prospects of any legislative change.
I intend to begin by looking at the results thus far of OSHA's "reinvention" efforts.
Some of the changes will, if maintained, help change the agency's approach to safety. I was pleased, for example, when the Clinton Administration dropped its previous penalty quotas for inspectors and area offices. Nothing sent a stronger message about the purpose of the agency than telling inspectors that they were expected to increase the number of penalties they issued by 5% in the Clinton Administration's first year. Fortunately the policy of evaluating inspectors on the basis of such quotas has been changed, though the new policy remains ambiguous. Similarly, OSHA's "focused inspections" in the construction industry appear to have helped direct enforcement activities towards the more serious health and safety problems.
Other changes, however, appear to be more an attempt at a gloss on the OSHA program than a substantive change in approach. Many of the so-called "partnership" programs, for example are in reality simply a means of targeting enforcement (using sometimes questionable criteria) and extending regulatory requirements without the proper procedures and opportunity for public comment and scrutiny. Similarly, there ere is little evidence in current rulemakings that OSHA's approach to regulation is any more common sensical.
Based on these hearings I hope to test the waters with legislation that will push OSHA's reform and reinvention. Obviously we have not decided which issue or issues might be most appropriately considered: should it be OSHA rule-making, or strengthening consultation and outreach efforts, or encouraging new approaches such as the use of certified persons to conduct safety reviews? We want to use the hearings to help us decide which changes are both most important and enjoy the broadest support.
One other point about this process: I want to use these hearings and this period of time to hear from people who most directly experience OSHA's regulatory and enforcement burden. It is one thing for OSHA officials in Washington D.C. to say that things have changed, it is another thing to have that change actually occur where employers are affected in their workplaces. The difference between political rhetoric and real change can actually work both ways. Two years ago, when our Subcommittee was holding hearings on OSHA reform legislation, the Director of the North Carolina OSHA program was invited by opponents of the bill to testify in opposition to what we were trying to do. In contrast, last year my company was notified of a new program instituted by the North Carolina OSHA that allowed for "right to fix" inspections similar to what I had proposed. My company participated, and found it a helpful program, and certainly a more positive way to improve health and safety than the usual enforcement visit. So I was pleased that my state's OSHA program saw merit in the substance of our bill, even though I had to bear their slings and arrows in the political process.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to continue my efforts to see OSHA reformed. I'm pleased that some change has been made. I'd like to see much more change, and I'd like to see these changes put into the statute to give greater assurance of their longevity. That's what I and others will be working on in the 105th Congress.
Editors Note: Representative Cass Ballenger, Republican, North Carolina, 10th District Chaiman of the Sub-Committee on Workforce Protections of the House Educational & Opportunities Committee.
TIME IS MONEY
CUT CLEANING TIME BY HALF OR MORE
ON YOUR MASONRY JOBS
AVERAGE SQUARE FEET OF NEW BRICK CLEANED
BY ONE MAN IS USUALLY 2000-3000 PER DAY
WITH CONSISTANT RESULTS
DON'T LET A BAD CLEANING JOB REFLECT ON
YOUR SUPERIOR MASONRY WORK
Distributor
Inquiries
Invited
For further information or to arrange a
demonstration, call or write today.
UNIQUE INDUSTRIES, INC.
KEM-O-KLEEN DIVISION
FOR EXCELLENCE UNDER PRESSURE
700 W. Mississippi B-3, Denver, CO 80223
Phone 800-274-4121