State, U.S. Officials Disagree Over Worker Safety Under Federal Unit

State and federal officials disagreed sharply Monday at a congressional hearing on whether California’s private sector workers are as safe on the job under the federal occupational safety and health program as they were under the state program that was abolished by Gov. George Deukmejian last July.

Much of the hearing was highly partisan and appeared to be aimed at aiding the forces that are seeking to restore the state’s worker safety agency through a November ballot initiative.

“It appears that there has been a significant decline in the protection given private sector workers since federal OSHA stepped in last July,” said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), who chaired the hearing. “Part of this decline results from the different playing field. Under the California state program, occupational safety and health standards are more comprehensive, contain stricter exposure limits and cover more potential work site hazards.”

He also asserted that worker safety had declined because of a decrease in the number of inspectors.

Inspections Down

“The total number of inspections have declined by almost two-thirds under federal OSHA,” said Lantos, who chairs the employment and housing subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations.

Lantos’ contentions were supported by William J. Gainer, associate director of the General Accounting Office’s Human Resources Division. He said the number of safety and health inspections in California has decreased under federal OSHA and is expected to remain at about a third of the previous level at least through the 1988 fiscal year.

In response to a question on the merits of the two programs, Gainer said, “The tools that were available under the California program tended to make it more effective.”

C. Robert Simpson Jr., chief deputy director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, disagreed.

“Available data would strongly indicate that there has been no decline in health and safety protections of workers in California under federal OSHA,” Simpson said.

“Specifically, the total number of disabling work injuries and illnesses in California reported to the department in 1987 declined slightly from that total in 1986. Comparing the relevant periods--July through December, 1986, under Cal/OSHA, with July through December, 1987, under federal OSHA, the total number of occupational injuries and illnesses declined under federal OSHA by one-tenth of 1%.”

Primary Goal

John A. Pendergrass, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, said the agency’s primary goal since taking over last July “has been to provide equivalent coverage” to what the state’s 9.4 million private-sector workers had previously. He said that federal OSHA had done a good job but added that it had been a difficult task.

He said one-third of all of the agency’s inspectors had been brought into California on temporary duty at one time or another since last July. Michael Munoz of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters said the continuing turnover of personnel had hampered safety investigations.

Pendergrass acknowledged some difficulties because of turnover. But he said that the bugs had been ironed out by mid-May. He said OSHA has 125 permanent safety and health inspectors in California now working out of seven offices. In December, 1986, just before Deukmejian announced his plan to eliminate Cal/OSHA, the agency had 198 inspectors working out of 21 offices, and there were 15 vacant positions, according to the testimony of state Sen. Bill Greene (D-Los Angeles).

Joining Lantos in questioning witnesses were Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Joseph DioGuardi (R-N.Y.). Both Lantos and Pelosi said they favored restoration of Cal/OSHA. DioGuardi did not take a position on the issue.

While Deukmejian has scuttled Cal/OSHA as it applies to the private sector, the program remains empowered to insure the safety of public employees.