Page images
PDF
EPUB

We are delighted to have both of you with us. We have both management and labor represented here. We are certainly interested in your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN MCGARITY, PRESIDENT, HARMONY BLUE GRANITE, CO., INC., ACCOMPANIED BY STEWART SMITH

Mr. McGARITY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of making an appearance before this committee, and am pleased with this chance to share with the committee the impact of Federal regulatory authority over my company, to share matters of concern to me, and to explore areas of possible improvement. I appear here today as president of Harmony Blue Granite Co., Inc. located in Elberton, Ga. My company employs about 105 people. Our business is using granite to make monuments, grave markers, grave ledgers, and mausoleums. Our products are sold in about 42 States. The company has been in business about 40 years. Regulatory authority over my company of governmental agencies can and does have consequences for the good or for the bad.

I address myself to our experience with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, commonly known at OSHA, and in doing so would like to tell you what I do not want done. I do not ask that the law be repealed, for I am in general agreement with the general objectives of the law. It has accomplished improvement in safe working conditions for many people. My company's objective is to provide a safe and healthy place for people to work. I do not ask that anything be said or done on my company's behalf to OSHA as my company's dealings with them is in a different forum and should be settled there. I do not question the right of OSHA to deal with us because they clearly have the right to do so by congressional mandate. What I do, however, is address myself to the form, the manner and the mechanics of carrying into effect the law.

Our company was first inspected by a single inspector from OSHA about the middle of May 1973. That was a general type inspection dealing with various housekeeping matters and mechanical things. We were cited for violations of Federal standards. This citation was not contested and the violations were all corrected. There was no inspection for sound levels or silica dust levels-conditions common to all granite manufacturing facilities in Elbert County where we are located.

On April 4, 1974, there was a second inspection by a single inspector limited to sound levels and silica dust levels for which we got cited for violations of Federal standards. This citation was contested resulting in OSHA dropping the citation dealing with silica dust levels and resulting in a consent decree on the sound levels. Thereafter, the company retained a sound expert from Atlanta for advice on sound levels at the places in our plant which OSHA had said Federal standards were being violated. His recommendations were implemented.

On June 3 and 4, 1974, we were inspected by three persons for a third time. This inspection dealt with general housekeeping functions and things of a mechanical nature together with inspection for sound levels and silica dust levels. These were completely different inspectors

than before. We received a citation for violations of Federal standards on the general inspection and a further citation of Federal standards on the silica dust levels and sound levels. The citation on the sound levels and the silica dust levels was contested and pends, but the citation on the other matters was not contested and was complied with. The citation alleging general housekeeping and mechanical violations generally involved things present when the two earlier inspections were made, but nothing was done. Places were inspected the third time for silica dust and sound levels that were not inspected before although these places were present as before.

The OSHA personnel were courteous and polite, but, in addressing myself to sound levels and silica dust levels violations, the inspectors were not qualified to pass judgment on remedying a violation. On the two occasions that we have been inspected for sound levels and silica dust levels, the inspectors were industrial hygienists. Their job was to inspect the workplace and to recognize any hazards to employees and to make tests and draw conclusions and to decide whether or not a citation should be issued for violation of Federal standards. They demonstrated no competence in industrial management or manufacturing processes. For years, sound and silica dust have been combatted by use of earplugs and Bureau of Mine forced-air respirators. This has been our way. Relying upon Federal standards the position of OSHA is these respirators, regardless of effectiveness, can only be used if engineering and administrative solutions do not work. Generally, at the time the hygienist caused the citation to be issued, he did not know of any concrete solution for the violation. In spite of this, the regulatory process was triggered under which the company was faced with monetary penalties presently or in the future.

When the hygienist completed his inspection, he held a conference with us relating what he found, stating that there was an apparent violation of Federal standards, intimating a citation for violation of those standards could be expected and stated it was up to the company to find a solution for the violation. The hygienist stated the solution was a managerial problem and he offered no valid solution. The hygienist talked in vague and general terms, suggesting theoretical and speculative solutions, but nothing practical and concrete. The company was put under the gun without knowing of solutions and without being shown any.

There was no period in which solutions could be sought before the company was slapped with a violation of Federal standards even though the company, as was our case regarding silica dust and sound, was doing what had been acceptable in the industry for years. After the first citation for sound level violations, we got pointed toward a partial solution to our sound problem by a company officer seeing in Elberton a dealer from Kentucky, who had seen a man from Minnesota, who suggested rugs. The company was left to its own devices in trying to work out solutions to the sound and silica dust problems. In our pursuit of our silica dust problem, I find OSHA subordinates quality without at the same time improving healthful working conditions.

Our experience demonstrates the objective of the law can be met and at the same time the procedures can be changed. In my belief,

there are certain things that need to be done. I find one of our difficulties is that OSHA forgets we are dealing with human beings. The regulation becomes an end to itself. As in our case, we had adopted industry standards dealing with sound levels and silica dust levels. Employees become accustomed to these standards. Then OSHA steps in and requires change within a specific time. My company has one employee who states emphatically he will quit before he will make a change in operations where silica dust is present. He could be lost to a company in Elbert County who has not been visited by OSHA. He uses a Bureau of Mines forced air respirator. Now the company cannot afford to lose a valuable, trained employee. However, I find no room in OSHA's approach to the silica dust problem to accommodate this employee to change.

The second area that causes me concern is you never know when you are through with OSHA. Now I realize and can appreciate that employee working conditions is a continuing concern. However, I do not understand why in 1975 my company was found to be in violation of Federal standards when those conditions existed in 1973. Why did not the inspector in 1973 make a complete inspection? The things that were found in 1975 were akin to the same things found in 1973. There comes a time when an employer should be able to reasonably say we are in substantial compliance with the Federal standards.

The third matter that concerns me is there no time lag between finding of a violation of the Federal standards and the citation. I can appreciate the necessity for no time lag when the violation is critical and possibility of injury is pressing and immediate. When the violation is not of that nature, such as in my company's case dealing with sound levels and silica dust levels, then there should be efforts toward a solution before citation. A person should be given a chance. OSHA should be known as a solving agency and not a citing agency. I get the idea OSHA does not trust people.

A fourth area that produces concern is OSHA should not have the authority to issue a citation unless it knows of a solution to the violation. To me it is fundamentally unfair to drag a person into court without reasonable cause and that is what OSHA does when a citation is issued and it does not know of a solution. This makes for too much power and breeds distrust in government.

My fifth concern is that OSHA should be required to furnish to the employer a reasonable solution before it could issue a citation. I do not say that solution must be followed as a person might have an equally valid alternative. I do say if there is a solution, OSHA ought to furnish it. After all we are playing a game, we are trying to better the working arena of the American employee. If there is no solution, OSHA in my judgment has no business issuing a citation. This to me is an arbitrary exercise of power incompatible to what I have come to know as the American form of government.

My sixth and final concern is the qualifications of the inspectors. In our case, that of the inspectors for sound and silica dust. The inspection should involve people with a background qualified to judge if there is a violation in fact and the significance of ordering a change, and I think it fair to state our inspectors had no knowledge of manufacturing processes and what ordering change meant. My

company has been cited for violation of silica dust levels where another company down the street has been given approval, though not final, for doing the same thing. The inspectors should have a competence to discuss with the employer the practicality of change. The inspectors that cited us had no conception of what it means to build a mausoleum which involves silica dust levels. They had no competence of what handling large pieces of granite entails.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this time given me. My company has a reputation in the granite industry for doing right for its employees in furnishing proper working conditions. We covet that reputation. My recommendations today are in keeping with my company's policy through the years.

Senator NUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. McGarity.

I think it might be helpful if we hear from Mr. Norman first, and then we might have some questions.

Mr. Norman, you might want to move those microphones up closer.

Mr. Norman is the international representative of the Granite Cutters, International Association of America.

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT S. NORMAN, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, GRANITE CUTTERS, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have never done anything like this before, and I am glad to have this chance to come and appear before your committee.

I live in Elberton, Ga., and have been in the granite business, one way or the other, for about 40 years. During that period of time, I have owned my own granite business, and I have done just about everything there is to do in the granite business.

At this time, I am the international representative for the Granite Cutters, International Association of America, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

In Elbert County, there is something like 60 granite plants and I am in the plant of most of those every week. I have, therefore, some knowledge of what is going on in those plants, what is happening to the employees, and what OSHA is doing. I would like to tell this committee what I am finding out about what OSHA does.

OSHA has done some good things for the men who work in the granite industry in Elbert County. They have done some bad things for the men who work in Elbert County. They have improved the working conditions of the men in the granite industry, and they have eliminated some hazards to the men who work in that industry. I think the law that OSHA works under is good. I would not want to see the law done away with. What I would like to see is for OSHA to change the way it is doing some things, because I think they are not consistent, do not treat everybody alike, and are not realistic in some of the things they do. This makes for bad regulations for the Government.

I find that OSHA is not consistent in what it tells people in the granite industry. This causes confusion and an attitude of "so what"

and hurts the creation of favorable conditions for men in which to work. It also increases the likelihood that conditions where men work will not be improved as they should be. I find that when OSHA tells one granite plant one thing and another granite plant another thing, the employers talk and the employees talk. This makes for no good and the men that I want to help are hurt.

I wish to talk about a case in point. There have been real problems in Elbert County in knowing what to do about hard hats because of the way OSHA has done it. You could go into one granite plant and find that OSHA has told them hard hats did not have to be worn. You could go into another plant and find that OSHA has said that they should be worn. Now, when some people have to wear hard hats and some do not, that will cause friction in an industry. The problem is increased by realizing that many times in Elbert County the granite plants are real close together. The picture I get is lack of uniformity in telling employers what they should do as demonstrated by the hard hats.

Maybe OSHA would say this cannot be helped when you have a lot of people doing what they have to do, but I say, when it comes to something as important as whether or not you should wear hard hats, you should not find in an industry which is closely grouped, the problem that I have seen.

One thing that concerns me about OSHA and its activities in the granite business, perhaps more than anything else, there is no enforcement of the Federal standards industry wide. Dust and sound is something that you find everywhere you go when people are working in granite plants, and they are making grave monuments, and grave markers. The noise comes from blasting the granite, and the dust is coming from using sand in shaping and carving the monuments and grave stones when the lettering is made, and when such things as the flowers are put on the grave stones.

OSHA in the granite industry has shown concern for things beside noise and dust. It has shown concern for such things as guard rails, blade guards, fire extinguishers, electrical matters and other like things. I find that OSHA has gone into very few of the granite plants in Elbert County. Harmony Blue Granite Company, Inc., has been inspected more than any employer that I know of in Elbert County, and has had, over the years, an employee-safety program second to none in Elbert County. It has spent as much money as anyone in Elbert County to correct conditions where men work.

I don't know but a few granite plants in Elbert County where OSHA has made any efforts about dust and noise. There are some plants who still do not have dust collectors and OSHA has not inspected them. I know of places that are doing the same thing on dust that Harmony Blue Granite Co., Inc., is doing which have never been inspected. I think the industry should be inspected evenhandedly and not in the way to create the idea that some employees will not get their protection of the law but other employees will.

I make these remarks in the knowledge that OSHA has not just overlooked some granite plants, but in the knowledge that OSHA has not inspected wide parts of the granite industry.

My interest is the employees and I want them to get the advantage of an evenhanded, across-the-board industry wide enforcement. I do

« PreviousContinue »