GOVERNMENT

and SAFETY

From the turn of the century until the late sixties improvement in safety was primarily the responsibility of the volunteer safety movement. This effort resulted in dramatic improvement especially in the early years, but in recent years the improvement has been less spectacular. Certain people who did not understand the history of the safety movement and what had happened began to sound alarms in the late sixties and demand a greater rate of improvement than was being achieved at that time. The result of this hysteria was to turn the responsibility for safety over to the federal government, and with this transfer of responsibility has come more and more interference and control.

As a result safety, like many other areas of our lives, has become bogged down by a multitude of rules and regulations. The laws not only fail to achieve the admirable ends they were supposed to accomplish but are actually counterproductive. The proliferation of laws is even getting to the bureaucrats. In a recent directive President Carter required all cabinet officers to read personally all regulations issued by their departments. This, however, did not last long. The cabinet members soon found that if they did this they would not have time to do anything else. If this is so, how is it possible for the manager of a business to read not only what comes out of one department but from several with which compliance is required.

There is a parallel between what is happening and the message of the Bible. The Old Testament was an attempt to regulate human conduct by laying down laws which were extremely explicit in every respect. The fourth commandment, "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy", seems simple enough, but nine hundred laws were written to give specific instructions. Some of the descendants (ideological descendants, at least) of those Levitical priests must have written the OSHA standards of today. Even the later prophets of the Old Testament recognized that endless laws and regulations were an unnecessary burden and failed to accomplish the desired goal of righteousness.

The New Testament tried a new approach. It gave a new freedom to each individual to work out his own salvation in his own best way. It did not prescribe exactly how it was to be done, but the imperative to achieve righteousness was even more demanding than under the Old Testament regime. Once you had complied with the regulations, you satisfied the old system. Under the new, you are never done until you have achieved perfection or at least your very best.

The New Testament prescribes the goal but leaves the method of achieving that goal to the individual. The Old Testament tried to spell out each step of the way, and the method becomes far more important than the objective.

Hammurabi, in 1800 B.C., used the simpler method which concentrated on the objective. His building code specified that the builder would be put to death in the event one of his buildings collapsed and killed an occupant. This approach might be a simple and effective (although perhaps harsh) replacement for OSHA.

OSHA puts two seemingly very simple obligations on an employer: (1) He shall

furnish a safe place of employment free from recognized (as well as unrecognized) hazards, and (2) he shall comply with OSHA's standards. Complying with the standards is far from simple. There are thousands of regulations, and trying to comply with all of them is extremely time-consuming, if not impossible. The basic idea is that if an employer would comply with the standards he would, in effect, furnish a safe and healthful place of employment. Employees, too, are supposed to comply with certain OSHA standards. The difference is that there are no penalties involved for the employee while there are severe penalties for the employer.

The history of the Act hasn't been quite as bad as first anticipated. The fines have been more than industry would like, but in spite of early threats no one has been thrown in jail. The mass of regulations has, however, been the final straw that has put many companies out of business. The number of foundries in this country has dropped from over 4,000 to about 1,500 because of the difficulties in complying with OSHA and EPA standards. Consequently, we are facing unemployment and shortages of many specialty products at the same time. This anomaly is not confined to foundries. Unreasonable OSHA and EPA regulations together have caused a drop in milk processing plants from 4200 to 1750, and another 550 are expected to go out of operation. In many cases the regulations actually conflict. EPA regulations say there must be tile walls which can be cleaned easily; OSHA regulations require sound absorbing walls to cut down the noise.

The intention was that compliance with the standards would create a workplace free of accidents, but this has failed to happen. Statistics indicate that in some industries there is an increase in work-related injuries. OSHA says there is a slight increase because of better reporting. It is more likely that we are going downhill in our safety program because of reliance on law instead of on our own effort.

In 1976 Paul McAvoy a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors speaking before the American Bar Association stated that OSHA has "little or no effect" in the workplace.

A similar situation exists as a result of the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act which was passed two years before the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The effect of the Act has been negative. Data in West Virginia underground mines shows that the accident frequency which had been declining prior to the Act from about 40 to 30, has increased to 52 lost time injuries per million tons of coal mined. the fatality rate, which had been dropping, has pretty much leveled off and in some states there has been an increase. Meanwhile, productivity has dropped from 14 tons per man per day to 8 tons which means that we have more than doubled the price of coal. Even the UMW is beginning to recognize that the law has not been effective and more effort must be placed on motivation and training.

The distressing thing is that during the same period the largest mine operator in West Virginia has reduced their accident frequency by 75 percent in two years by following sound safety practice observed in other industries. This is an example of what an appropriate effort could have accomplished.

It is hard to believe that the Act could increase accidents, but there are perfectly good reasons why it does. The main reason is that the Act has increased exposure. If it takes nearly twice the manpower due to reduced productivity to mine the required coal, the accidents will be increased substantially. However, there are other reasons. It reduces the responsibility of the individual. A man taking responsibility for doing what he determines is best is the only thing that really makes him safe. Now he is led to depend on the law to be safe.

In addition, the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 has put an additional burden on management. Mine safety people are spending too much time escorting inspectors through the mines, filling out forms, and making reports to comply with the Act and neglecting effective safety programs. The safety director of a major corporation relates that after OSHA was passed he found that his safety record was deteriorating. His people were spending so much time on complying with the nonessentials prescribed in the Act that they were neglecting important activities. He put out a directive to minimize efforts to implement the Act and get back to working on safety. As a result his accident rate is improving again.

This misplaced priority is a serious result of the Act. The manager who operates an establishment should be the best qualified to determine priorities for achieving safety. Unfortunately, the government inspector is usually not technically qualified to contribute significantly to a specific problem. Furthermore, a plant supervisor is reluctant to discuss the details of a problem with an inspector because he doubts that he will get any help and is likely to get further citations as a result of calling the attention of the inspector to a specific problem. As a result, the inspector oftentimes forces the manufacturer to spend his resources to correct items that have minimum risk, and at the same time items with a high degree of risk are slighted or ignored. To solve problems requires a maximum degree of cooperation, but the result of OSHA and other federal laws is generally to reduce. cooperation to a minimum. To state it another way, cooperation is essential to achieve safety, but confrontation between all parties involved is the result of most federal regulations.

Even though the Act is not effective in promoting safety, it cannot be ignored since failure to comply with the provisions of the act could result in serious penalties. On the other hand, the employer cannot afford to neglect an effective safety program. The principles involved in carrying out such a program are discussed elsewhere. While there are many problems today, it is probably going to be worse in the future.

In recent years the tendency in product liability suits has been to increase dramatically the settlement paid as well as to absolve the injured of any responsibility for his injuries. The limits of Workmen's Compensation have kept these claims at a more reasonable level, but these limits are being increased rapidly. In one state the injured has the option to sue the employer outside the framework of Workmen's Compensation. With settlements reaching astronomical proportions, the concern and responsibility of the worker in accident prevention is bound to diminish, and the thought of self-inflicated injuires may not be unthinkable in the future. While the use of cigarettes may be an essential ingredient in the development of various forms of pneumoconiosis, the injured is absolved from any responsibility for this self-inflicted factor contributing to his illness.

In spite of (or perhaps because of) recent laws, industrial accidents still take an unacceptable toll. It is likely, then, that more legislation will be proposed and passed unless industry begins to take positive and effective action. Senator Harrison Williams of New Jersey, one of the major sponsors of safety legislation, may be a harbinger. He has submitted the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendment Act of 1977 (S-717). His justification is statistics from the Mining Safety and Enforcement Division which shows that the number of serious injuries is increasing. It is Williams' intention "to give mine safety and health legislation a high priority". The strong features of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act would be applied to all mining. The administration would be transferred to the

Department of Labor to avoid conflict of priorities within the Interior Department. This is an indication that Congress is not yet willing to do anything constructive in the field of safety. Bad legislation compounds problems and begets further bad legislation.

While there is serious disenchantment with OSHA, it is unlikely that the bill will be modified in a constructive way. It is more likely that Congress, responding to the many complaints, will continue to fund OSHA at a relatively low level. This is an effective and unobtrusive way to prevent the agency from becoming too much of an irritant to large numbers of businessmen who incidentally are also constituents.

In a recent news story, Eula Bingham, the director of OSHA, is quoted as saying that "nit-picking" type of inspections and regulations has resulted in a bad image for the agency. To counteract this she plans to "go after those areas that we know cause irreversible disease and death". Most safety people would agree that the area of hygiene needs greater emphasis, but one suspects the motivation behind this change in emphasis. Almost anyone could see that the demand for a split toilet seat or coat hooks in the toilet stall is "nit-picking”. How many are in a position to evaluate the recent standard mandating reducing exposure to benzene from 10 ppm to 1 ppm. No one can afford to call this "nit-picking", and yet it may be even more unnecessary than the obvious mechanical things and far more expensive to correct.

It is unlikely that industry can do enough in reducing accidents to forestall new laws. Those employers that are concerned have already done an excellent job. The improvement must come from those employers who have done a poor job. New laws worked out by an enlightened management, labor and legislative group, directed specifically toward the poor performers with adequate incentive for good performance, may be a partial answer.

Furthermore, doing a good job in itself is not sufficient to prevent further oppressive and unproductive legislation. There are many examples of legislation that have been passed, motivated by false or misleading statistics. Once the media and advocacy groups decide there is a need for legislation, they will manufacture the data, if necessary, to justify the legislation and build support for its passage. The end result will likely be still more counterproductive and oppressive legislation, increasing costs, and deteriorating competitive position in world markets.

To stop this trend industry must do several things:

1. Find ways, either through voluntary effort or selective legislation, to obtain better performance of those employers with poor records.

2. Get their story in the media so as to give the public a more accurate picture. 3. Influence legislation and oppose bad legislation with all their combined resources even though the legislation has a favorable public image.

4. Establish or improve cooperation between labor and management to solve the problems of accident prevention and encourage increased responsibility by all parties.

VOLUNTARISM