Director seeks common ground in worker safety concerns and regulation costs, but warns:
'The cost of noncompliance will go up'
by Ken Krizner, senior editor
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been a lightning rod in recent years for various special interest groups which have a stake in workplace safety.
Organized labor, a solid backer of President Clinton, has insisted on tougher enforcement of existing worker safety laws and tougher new laws. Labor leaders repeatedly accused the Reagan and Bush administrations of lax enforcement of federal job safety laws and regulations leading to an immobile OSHA.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, warn that additional OSHA regulations would tighten cash flow, stifle profits and lead to a slowdown in job creation.
With the Clinton administration closing in on the midpoint of its first term, the battle is about to come to a head.
An OSHA reform bill currently lies before Congress-Democrats seeking to strengthen laws and Republicans seeking to reward companies with model safety records.
Is there common ground between the concerns of workers for safe job sites and the interest of employers in the cost of regulations? Joseph A. Dear thinks so, and is in a position of influence. He is OSHA director.
"It does not have to be confrontational," stresses Dear, whose reputation as a conciliator helped make his Senate approval last November fairly straightforward. He says there should be room to reward companies with outstanding safety records.
But he also warned that companies that take "the low road and neglect workplace safety should be concerned that the cost of noncompliance will go up."
For those employers who believe additional OSHA regulations will hinder industry, Dear has a message: "Ultimately, it will benefit companies through lower workers' compensation costs."
Previous to becoming OSHA director, Dear was director of the Labor and Industries Department for Washington state, where he was responsible for both workplace safety and health, and workers' compensation programs.
Dear spearheaded a major reform of Washington state's workers' compensation program-converting a $225 million deficit into a $350 million surplus while stabilizing premiums for employers and improving benefits to workers. He received support and accolades from both labor and management for the program.
Room to maneuver
He points out that there is "great room for improvement" in the way OSHA sets its priorities.
"Labor and management both complain OSHA hasn't been consistent in its development and implementation of policies," he stresses.
Dear says he has a three-prong plant to reinvigorate OSHA: target the agency's enforcement efforts in areas where the greatest numbers of workers are at the most risk; create a system to set priorities for standards development based on the number of workers at risk, the level of exposure and the hazard's nature; and lobby for worker-management cooperation in safety programs.
Dear simply says, "OSHA is back on the job."
In an interview with Meat Marketing & Technology, Dear voiced support of OSHA's crackdown on meat processors in recent years, but believes the crackdown has made plants safer for workers.
During an AMI conference earlier this year, Dear labeled Aurora Packing Co. and Hormel Foods Corp. as meat processors with model worker safety programs.
He also supports the Memorandum of Understanding agreed upon by OSHA and FSIS, which will give meat and poultry inspectors authority to report potential workplace hazards.
MM&T: Past OSHA administrations have targeted the meat and poultry industries for worker safety violations. There have been a number of huge fines levied against certain processors. Are you keeping an eye on the meat and poultry industries?
Dear: We sure are. They are two of the most hazardous industries. But one of the consequences of OSHA's vigorous enforcement in the meat industry is some significant improvements in worker safety. The Bureau of Labor Statistics show that cumulative trauma disorders in the industry declined in 1992. At the same time, other industries saw cumulative trauma disorders increase by about 25 percent. I think that shows a successful transition from government enforcement to voluntary compliance.
MM&T: Do you believe the meat and poultry industries have gotten a bad reputation when it comes to workplace safety?
Dear: They are making positive strides to improve worker safety. The efforts that companies have taken should be applauded.
MM&T: There was a tragic fire at a chicken plant in Hamlet, N.C., in 1991, in which 25 people died. Following the fire, there was a call to give FSIS inspectors authority to report workplace hazards. (Some plant inspectors saw potential dangers but had no authority to act.) Recently, a Memorandum of Understanding was developed between OSHA and FSIS deputizing inspectors to report safety hazards. Critics say inspectors already have enough responsibility. Will this work?
Dear: The memorandum is a practical way to improve safety in the meat and poultry industries without adding to government's payroll. Inspectors will be trained in a program developed by FSIS and OSHA.
MM&T: Some meat industry executives call the memorandum disjointed. They say plant managers will be left out of the process and corrective action will be delayed because the memorandum directs inspectors to report serious workplace hazards to FSIS who, in turn, will report them simultaneously to OSHA and plant management. How do you respond to the criticism?
Dear: OSHA now has the means to receive reports of serious workplace hazards from FSIS inspectors. That is what the memorandum accomplishes.
MM&T: One of the principle points of the OSHA reform bill currently before Congress is the creation of labor-management safety and health committees. Critics contend that such committees can't operate in all workplaces, saying that they would constrain management to design programs that meet individual company requirements. What are your views on such committees?
Dear: Everyone agrees that worker participation is essential for effective safety and health on the job. There is a provision in the bill that would recognize alternate forms of worker participation in safety and health committees. That provision will allow enough flexibility to address many of the concerns that critics have with the OSHA reform legislation.
We've seen safety and health committees adopted in 12 states. We know from that state experience that these committees can be extremely effective in improving workplace safety. And these committees have not developed the problems that critics say they would. It is a very important part of OSHA reform legislation-giving workers a voice through joint safety committees.
MM&T: OSHA traditionally investigates violations of workplace safety only after complaints are filed. Do you want to go out and investigate a suspected company before a complaint is filed?
Dear: About 25 percent of our inspections take place because of complaints, about 50 percent of our inspections are programmed inspections, and the remainder are investigations that are required after fatalities and referral from other government agencies. I would like to improve the inspection targeting system so we can direct our enforcement resources to workplaces with the most serious safety hazards.
MM&T: What is your vision for OSHA? Is it just to punish the offenders, or do you want to reward companies with model safety records, as well?
Dear: OSHA's mission is to protect lives, save lives and prevent injuries. We have enforcement, standard setting, education, training and compliance programs to carry out this mission. It is important that we use all resources available to carry out our mission. Sometimes, when we are dealing with employers who are ignoring workplace safety, the most effective means is through strict enforcement with serious economic consequences for noncompliance.
But I also believe it is important to recognize companies that go above and beyond government requirements-companies that are showing the best safety practices.
MM&T: How do you respond to critics' charges that additional OSHA regulations would tighten cash flow and stifle profits, leading to a slowdown in job creation?
Dear: Safe workplaces are productive workplaces. We have seen this evidence from companies and industries that make a serious commitment to workplace safety.
Costs dramatically drop, worker productivity significantly increases, turnover rates decline, and labor relations improve.
One of the obstacles we have is the mind-set that says safety is something that cannot be afforded.
If we can break through that mind-set, the most hard-nosed, numbers-driven business people will be pleasantly surprised at the positive effects that active safety programs can bring to their bottom lines.
MM&T: How important is it to protect whistle-blowers?
Dear: One of the fundamental rights of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is the right to a safe company workplace and the ability to ask the government to intervene if that right is not being observed. That right only exists on paper if whistle-blowers cannot be protected.
MM&T: You recently said that you would offer a break to owners of small, high-hazard businesses. They would not be punished for violations if they seek OSHA's help in correcting hazards.
Are you trying to get the word out to small businesses that if they make an attempt to fix wrongs, OSHA will not come down hard?
Dear: When small companies in high-hazard industries participate in OSHA programs that point out hazards needing to be abated, there are no citations or penalties. It is a valuable service that is available to small business owners.
But the companies must abate identified hazards in the time frame agreed upon or they will still be subject to citations and penalties.
The Joseph Dear File
Age: 43
Born: June 7, 1951
Education: Graduated from Evergreen State College [Washington] in 1976 with a bachelor's degree in political economy. He is a 1986 graduate of Harvard University's program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government offered through the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Career: He was director of the Washington [state] Department of Labor and Industries from 1987 to 1993, where he was responsible for workplace safety and health, and workers' compensation costs.
He was also chairman of the State of Washington Investment Board, which manages public pension portfolios and workers' compensation funds.
Prior to joining the state government, Dear was research director of the Washington State Labor Council from 1981 to 1985.
He founded People for Fair Taxes, a public interest coalition of labor, church and civic organizations supporting progressive state and local tax policies.
Highlights: With the help of labor and management, Dear spearheaded a major reform of Washington state's workers' compensation program, converting a $225 million deficit into a $350 million surplus while stabilizing premiums for employers and improving benefits to workers at the same time. He also began health care cost containment and quality assurance programs.
In 1992, the workers' compensation program received the Innovations in State and Local Government Award from the Ford Foundation and Harvard University.
About OSHA: 2,300 employees, armed with a $300 million budget, police the nation's 6 million employers.
President Clinton on Dear: "With his experience running a major state agency regulating workplace safety, Joseph Dear is an outstanding choice."
Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Dear: "[He] is well grounded in workplace safety and health concerns and has shown himself to be an innovative administrator. He brings strong, creative leadership to an agency fundamental in developing safe, healthy, high-performance workplaces."
Source: MM&T research, Department of Labor