Move to Disband State OSHA

I am shocked that Gov. Deukmejian could be so ill-advised as to recommend canceling the Cal-OSHA program. California industry, labor and the Legislature favor the Cal-OSHA Program over the federal program. I question why these groups were not consulted before the proposal was made.

His statements to the media that the federal government (OSHA) can provide as good or better service than (Cal-OSHA) for occupational safety and health in California are simply not correct.

The Cal-OSHA program has been a model for other states and countries including the federal program itself; e.g., carcinogen registration, cooperative self-inspection by industry and labor monitored by Cal-OSHA, permits for hazardous work, etc.

California had an excellent worker-safety program many years prior to the inception of federal OSHA. In fact, California provided advisers for the development of the federal program.

The federal program today is inferior to the California Program in the following areas:

1--The federal program does not require an employer to be registered for the carcinogens to which his employees are exposed.

2--There is no permit requirement for hazardous types of employment such as demolition, excavations, construction of structures more than 36 feet high. However, an advisory committee has recently recommended the federal program adopt such a procedure as a result of numerous fatalities; e.g., Texas, which is a federal-program state.

3--The federal program has no method to immediately correct an unsafe condition, such as the California order to prohibit use issued immediately by the compliance person. The federal compliance person must obtain a court order for such conditions.

4--Another area of deficiency in the federal program is the practice of determining whether to make an inspection of the facility based upon the employer’s injury and illness log. Not long ago in Illinois, another federal-program state, an employer was overexposing his employees to cyanide, which resulted in the death of a Polish immigrant employee. The federal compliance officer had reviewed the employer’s records just prior to the employee’s death, but because the records revealed no problems, no inspection was made of the atrocious conditions in the plant.

5--Efficiency of the federal program is approximately half that of California; i.e., a California compliance person makes approximately twice as many investigations per year as a federal compliance person.

6--Other deficiencies would necessitate travel to Washington for important meetings and hearings, etc.

The governor also stated that the reason for canceling the Cal-OSHA program was budgetary, that it would save $8 million. I question if consideration was given to lost revenues to the general fund from citation penalties, storage costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of office equipment, furniture, technical equipment and instruments, and penalties for broken leases of office space, etc., in addition to the cost of a life.

As indicated, the federal program would require more staff than the Cal-OSHA program to conduct the same number of investigations. Presently, the federal government funds approximately 40% of the Cal-OSHA program, and California 60%. However, indications are that the federal program would not be staffed at the same level due to the fact that they would then be paying 100% of the program cost.

From the foregoing it is obvious that working men and women in California would not have the same level of protection.

KENNETH L. GOODWIN

Rialto