Democrats Attack Deukmejian’s Bid to Abolish Job Safety Agency

Democratic legislators opposed to Gov. George Deukmejian’s plan to abolish the state job safety agency and hand over worker safety supervision to the federal government launched their attack on the proposal Wednesday with the assertion that it would leave many California workers with “significantly less protection.”

Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne) and state Sen. Bill Greene (D-Los Angeles) told a Capitol press conference that federal job safety laws fall short of many California provisions and urged Deukmejian to change course.

“The federal program is far, far less comprehensive than our state program,” said Greene, chairman of the Senate Industrial Relations Committee. “The Reagan Administration, with the deficit problem it faces, cannot be expected to match the resources now committed to protecting our workers.”

Deukmejian, in releasing his proposed 1987-88 budget last Thursday, said he would abolish the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, commonly called Cal-OSHA. He said that he would turn over to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration responsibility for the safety and health of California’s private sector workers on June 30, the end of this fiscal year.

The move would eliminate about 360 jobs and save the state an estimated $8 million, according to Deukmejian Administration officials. Deukmejian said he wants to reduce costs in order to avoid violating a 1979 constitutional limit on state spending. The federal government also supports Cal-OSHA with about $14 million annually.

Floyd, chairman of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, asserted that the move would pad the state’s reserve fund “at the expense of California employers and employees.”

He said that he and Greene will hold a series of hearings on the impact of the abolition of Cal-OSHA, and will attempt to enlist the support of organized labor, business leaders and industrial safety experts in the medical industry.

The two legislators distributed a hastily compiled list of “major differences between Cal-OSHA and federal OSHA.” The list notes that California law requires employers to register with Cal-OSHA if they are using carcinogens, while such registration is not required by federal OSHA. Other differences they cited include:

- There is no federal regulation on the use of the short-handled hoe, which has been banned from California agriculture.

- There is no federal regulation requiring employers to provide toilets, drinking water and washing water for agricultural workers. California law mandates that such amenities be provided for field laborers.

- California has extensive worker safety standards governing “high-hazard tunneling operations,” while the federal government has no regulations specifically directed to tunneling. Greene said that for the state to abandon responsibility in this field could be particularly important in coming months as construction gets under way on the Los Angeles Metro Rail subway, which will involve considerable underground tunnel work.

All the California standards would become null and void if the federal government took over, according to Ronald T. Rinaldi, the state’s industrial relations director.

Steve Brown, a spokesman for federal OSHA in San Francisco, said that his agency has a “general duty” clause that enables it to handle a hazardous situation where there is no federal regulation. But Jack Henning, executive secretary of the California Labor Federation, said the provision has not been particularly beneficial to workers.

Deukmejian, responding to a question at a Wednesday news conference, said it would be “wasteful” for California to continue its program when the federal government could do it just as well. “Worker safety is just as good” in major industrial states where federal OSHA has sole responsibility, he said. He cited New York, New Jersey and Illinois as examples, and said his information came from federal studies but was unable to provide details.

Unaware of Studies

Terry Mikelson, a spokesman for federal OSHA in Washington, said he is not aware of any studies comparing injury rates in states with their own programs versus states relying on federal OSHA. Brown of OSHA in San Francisco said that in 1984 there were eight occupational injuries and illnesses per 100 workers nationwide, compared to 9.3 occupational injuries and illnesses per 100 workers in California. He cautioned against drawing conclusions by assessing data in different states without knowing whether there were comparable industries with comparable hazards in the states being analyzed.

Rinaldi said he will go to Washington next week to begin discussions with federal officials about the transition from state to federal control. He said that even if the legislature restores money for Cal-OSHA in its budget, the governor could still use his line-item veto authority to abolish the agency.