WASHINGTON : Bills Attempt to Give Employees a Voice in Improving On-the-Job Safety

Twenty years after enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the law’s original sponsors have proposed its first major reform. It would overhaul workplace safety laws, give workers a say in job safety and increase criminal penalties for willful violations that result in death or serious injury.

The original, groundbreaking legislation represented a government promise to millions of workers that the country was willing to “assure so far as possible” a safe and healthy workplace. OSHA is credited with significant reductions in on-the-job fatalities.

Still, 10,000 workers die each year from injuries sustained on the job, according to the National Safety Council. Another 100,000 die of occupational diseases, according to the Bureau of Labor Standards.

“The stark fact is that as a nation, we continue to pay for the goods we consume and the services we use with the health and the lives of the workers who produce them,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)

Under identical bills introduced in the Senate by Kennedy and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) and in the House by Rep. William Ford (D-Mich.), companies with 11 or more employees would be required to set up safety and health committees with equal numbers of workers and managers to review the health and safety program and conduct inspections.

In addition, employers would be required to establish written safety programs to educate and train employees about job hazards. The bills also contain provisions to protect employees who report unsafe conditions from retaliation.

The bills also require OSHA to establish a special-emphasis inspection program to target high-risk industries. The sponsors have also incorporated provisions of another, narrower bill into their legislation that would increase penalties for criminal violations that result in death and impose the first criminal penalties in cases of serious injury resulting from willful violations.

Labor supports the reform bills. Although business groups back the proposed employee-employer effort, it does not like the bills in general.

Hearing on Alleged Bias by Japanese Under Way

The code name for men was “Adam” and for women “Eve.” Latino women were “Maria” and black women “MaryAnne.”

Paul Schmidtberger, a former headhunter for Recruit U.S.A., testified before Congress recently that the Los Angeles-based Japanese employment agency used the code to screen job candidates solely on the basis of race, gender and age. For instance, he said, if an employer wanted to interview a man between ages 20 and 35, he could ask to speak to “Adam in suite 2035.” If he wanted to avoid minorities, he could say, “Don’t talk to Maria or MaryAnne.”

Employment discrimination at Japanese-owned companies in the United States is the subject of a series of hearings by the House Government Operations subcommittee on employment and housing.

“The increasing number of workers charging employment discrimination by Japanese firms in the U.S. is a serious problem,” said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Jose), chairman of the subcommittee. “As a nation, we welcome Japanese investment, but we cannot allow Japanese companies in the process to flout our values and principles.”

Lantos says the hearings may result in proposals for new legislation to bring foreign employers into compliance with domestic laws.

Congressmen Trade Potshots With Bills

When it comes to protecting the auto industry, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) will go to almost any lengths. He will even go nuclear.

The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has circulated a draft of legislation to clear the way for a nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Why Nevada? Some say it is geologically suited for a nuclear waste facility. Some say its sparse population and arid climate make it safer than other portions of the country.

But the state is also the home of Sen. Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), the sponsor of a bill to require increased fuel efficiency in American autos. While provoking the ire of the auto industry, Bryan’s corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) bill gathered enough support to pass the Senate in the last session but fell just short of the necessary votes to defeat a threatened filibuster.

The continuing dispute over CAFE standards will be one of the biggest issues facing Congress when it returns from summer recess. Insiders say the vote, anticipated after Labor Day, is too close to call.

Into this hot fray comes Dingell’s bill, which opponents say would strip Nevada of its ability to regulate its environment the way other states do through the permit process. “This is raw politics in its most crude and unvarnished form,” a Senate staffer said.

But Dingell denies any link between his legislation Bryan’s CAFE bill. “This is an issue that concerned the committee long before Mr. Bryan came to the Senate,” he said.