U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–345 PDF 2007

WORKPLACE SAFETY: WHY DO MILLIONS OF

WORKERS REMAIN WITHOUT OSHA COVERAGE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 24, 2007

Serial No. 110–41

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Tom Price, Georgia 

John Kline, Minnesota 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on May 24, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

Protections ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Article from the Journal of Regulatory Economics (2006), ‘‘Regulatory 

Federalism and Workplace Safety: Evidence From OSHA Enforcement, 1981 to 1995’’ ............................................................................... 6

Letter, dated May 23, 2007, from Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. .................................................................................................. 54

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ................................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Fillman, David, executive director, Council 13, American Federation of 

State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ................................ 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Jones, Casey, on behalf of the American Federation of State, County 

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ......................................................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Sarvadi, David G., attorney, Keller and Heckman LLP ................................ 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Turnipseed, Jon, certified safety professional, on behalf of the American 

Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) ............................................................ 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

(1)

WORKPLACE SAFETY: WHY DO MILLIONS OF

WORKERS REMAIN WITHOUT OSHA COVERAGE? 

Thursday, May 24, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lynn Woolsey [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Woolsey, Payne, Bishop, Shea-Porter, 

Hare, Andrews, Wilson, and Kline. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Jordan Barab, Health/Safety Professional; Jody 

Calemine, Labor Policy Deputy Director; Lynn Dondis, Senior Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Workforce Protections; Carlos 

Fenwick, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor and Pensions; Michael Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Peter 

Galvin, Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Jeffrey Hancuff, Staff Assistant, Labor; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Mark Zuckerman, 

Staff Director; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Steve 

Forde, Minority Communications Director; Ed Gilroy, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg, Minority Legislative Assistant; Richard Hoar, Minority Professional Staff Member; Victor 

Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Jim Paretti, Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Minority Deputy Director of 

Workforce Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to 

the General Counsel; and Loren Sweatt, Minority Professional Staff 

Member. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY [presiding]. A quorum is present. The 

hearing of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee on ‘‘Workplace 

Safety: Why Do Millions of Workers Remain Without OSHA Coverage?’’ will come to order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. 

Now I recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member Joe Wilson, and then followed by Chairman Rob Andrews from another 

subcommittee, and we will go in that order, and then we will go 

to the wonderful panel of witnesses. 

2

So I want to thank all of you for being here today to address the 

serious shortcoming in our federal OSHA law: the lack of coverage 

for public employees. 

I am especially grateful to you, Ms. Jones, for being willing to 

come forward to testify about the human cost of our failure to provide health and safety protection to all workers. 

While OSHA covers most private workers and an Executive 

Order covers most federal workers, there is no comparable coverage 

for over 8.5 million state, county and municipal workers. The tragedy is that Congress gave the states the opportunity to cover their 

public employees with the promise of matching funds, but today, 37 

years after the passage of OSHA, 26 states still do not have OSHAapproved state plans that would cover public employees. 

These employees work in a wide variety of areas and may be 

highway construction workers. They may be wastewater treatment 

plant workers like Mr. Jones; they may be hospital personnel, correctional officers; and they work in the same hazardous environments that private-sector employees work in. 

Every month, dozens of public employees in this country are 

killed or injured—thousands are injured—in accidents that could 

have been prevented had their workplace been covered by OSHA. 

It is important to remember that when we speak of OSHA coverage, we are talking about more than compliance with specific 

OSHA standards. In fact, OSHA sets out a number of other provisions that are critical to safe workplaces, and these include: the 

ability of workers to request and participate in inspections by an 

outside authority and to have an independent investigation of 

every fatality and significant workplace injury; the enforcement of 

the law and training on health and safety standards and hazards; 

a whistleblower provision protecting workers against retaliation for 

exercising their health and safety rights; and the right of workers 

to have access to critical information regarding their health, exposure to certain hazards, along with statistics on injury and illness 

at their worksites. 

And as an aside, this subcommittee is also working to ensure 

what I just listed actually has teeth. So know that. 

Without OSHA coverage, workers have none of these basic 

rights, even if these rights are not always supported by OSHA 

itself. 

So let me give you a brief illustration about how important these 

rights are. 

Tony Poole, a 42-year-old public employee, was killed in Byron, 

Georgia, last year when a trench collapsed on top of him. Because 

Georgia does not approve coverage for its public employees, there 

was never any OSHA investigation into the reason why Mr. Poole 

was killed. Had there been an investigation, his family, and his 

friends, his co-workers might have learned that if an OSHA trench 

standard requiring that the use of a trench box to keep the trench 

from caving in had been in place, Tony Poole would be alive today. 

Today, we will hear from Casey Jones whose husband, Clyde, 

was needlessly killed last year in an explosion at the Bethune 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, a facility owned and operated by the 

City of Daytona Beach, Florida. This incident caught the attention 

of the United States Chemical Safety Board, and it decided to inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
3

vestigate precisely because the employees of the City of Daytona 

Beach, such as Mr. Jones, were not covered by OSHA. 

Let me first say something about the U.S. Chemical Safety 

Board. It is an independent investigative agency created by Congress in the wake of major chemical explosions in the 1980s, and 

it is charged with investigating major chemical-related incidents. 

The board consists of five individuals appointed by the president 

for 5-year terms, and all the current members on the board were 

appointed by President Bush. 

In the accident involving Mr. Jones, the board found that several 

OSHA standards had been violated, standards that, if followed, 

would have prevented the explosion. As a result, it recommended 

to the Florida state legislature and to the governor that the state 

pass legislation providing OSHA coverage to public employees. 

I think it should be noted that this board has submitted testimony for this hearing today calling for OSHA coverage for all public employees. 

Now, there are many who object to providing OSHA coverage to 

state, county and municipal employees on the grounds that it is too 

expensive, and I will be interested to hear the views of safety manager Jon Turnipseed on this very subject. 

As a purely economic matter, the money saved in workers compensation and other costs by covering public employees should and 

would more than pay for these programs. However, it is impossible 

to quantify the cost to victims or to their families of these senseless 

and preventable injuries and deaths. 

But I do know this: The cost is too high, and we in Congress 

must do whatever we can to fulfill the promise OSHA made 37 

years ago to provide all workers—that means all workers—with 

safe and healthful workplaces. 

Mr. Wilson? 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, Chairwoman, Subcommittee 

on Workforce Protections 

I want to thank everyone for coming here today as we address a serious shortcoming in our federal OSHA law: the lack of coverage for public employees. 

And I am especially grateful to you, Mrs. Jones, for being willing to come forward 

to testify about the human cost of our failure to provide health and safety protection 

to these workers. 

For while OSHA covers most private workers and an Executive Order covers most 

federal workers, there is no comparable coverage for over 8.5 million state, county 

and municipal workers. 

The tragedy is that Congress gave the states the opportunity to cover their public 

employees with the promise of matching funding, but today, 37 years after the passage of OSHA, 26 states still do not have OSHA-approved state plans that would 

cover public employees. 

These employees work in a wide variety of areas and may be highway construction workers, wastewater treatment plant workers like Mr. Jones, hospital personnel or corrections officers. 

And they work in the same hazardous environments that private sector employees 

do. 

Every month, dozens of public employees in this country are killed and thousands 

injured in accidents that could have been prevented had their workplaces been covered by OSHA. 

It is important to remember that when we speak of OSHA coverage, we are talking about more than compliance with specific OSHA standards. 

In fact, OSHA sets out a number of other provisions that are critical to safe workplace. These include: 

4

• The ability of workers to request and participate in inspections by an outside 

authority and to have an independent investigation of every fatality and significant 

workplace injury; • The enforcement of the law and training on health and safety standards and 

hazards; • A whistleblower provision protecting workers against retaliation for exercising 

their health and safety rights; and • The right of workers to have access to critical information regarding their 

health, exposure to certain hazards, along with statistics on injury and illnesses at 

their work sites. 

Without OSHA coverage, workers have none of these basic rights. 

Let me give you a brief illustration about how important OSHA rights are. 

Tony Poole, a 42 year old public employee, was killed in Byron, Georgia last year 

when a trench collapsed on top of him. 

Because Georgia does not provide coverage for its public employees, there was 

never any OSHA investigation into the reason why Mr. Poole was killed. 

Had there been an investigation, his family, friends and co-workers might have 

learned that if an OSHA trenching standard—-requiring that the use of a trench 

box to keep the trench from caving in—-had been in place, Tony Poole would be 

alive today. 

Today, we will hear from Casey Jones, whose husband, Clyde Jones, was needlessly killed last year in an explosion at the Bethune Wastewater Treatment Plant, 

a facility owned and operated by the City of Daytona Beach in Florida. 

This incident caught the attention of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, and it decided to investigate precisely because the employees of the City of Daytona Beach, 

such as Mr. Jones, were not covered by OSHA. 

Let me first say something about the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. 

It is an independent investigative agency created by Congress in the wake of 

major chemical explosions in the 1980’s, and it is charged with investigating major 

chemical-related incidents. 

The Board consists of 5 individuals appointed by the President for five-year terms, 

and all the current members on the Board were appointed by President Bush. 

In the accident involving Mr. Jones, the Board found that several OSHA standards had been violated, standards that if followed, would have prevented the explosion. 

As a result, it recommended to the Florida State Legislature and the Governor 

that the State pass legislation providing OSHA coverage to public employees. 

I think it should be noted that this Board has submitted testimony for this Hearing today, calling for OSHA coverage for all public employees. 

Now, there are many who object to providing OSHA coverage to state, county and 

municipal employees on the grounds that it is too expensive. 

And I’ll be interested to hear the views of a safety manager—Mr. Jon 

Turnipseed—on this subject. 

As a purely economic matter, the money saved in workers compensation and other 

costs by covering public employees should more than pay for these programs 

However, it is impossible to quantify the costs to victims or their families of these 

senseless and preventable injuries and deaths. 

But I do know this. The cost is too high, and we in Congress must do whatever 

we can to fulfill the promise OSHA made 37 years ago to provide all workers with 

a safe and healthful workplace. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good morning. I would like to welcome our witnesses today and 

thank them for their testimonies. I look forward to our discussion. 

Before we begin, I believe it is important to provide some context 

for this morning’s hearing. 

First of all, we should recognize that the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act explicitly allows states to adopt workplace health and 

safety programs to cover state and municipal employees, a group 

brought into focus by our current hearing today. 

Likewise, it is important to understand that under current law 

OSHA is able to inspect every worksite very rarely, which, by any 

reasonable measure, is a clear sign that the agency has difficulty 

enforcing laws already on the books. In other words, its ability to 

5

take on a new layer of responsibilities, as some in Congress are 

looking to mandate, is questionable at best. 

And finally, it can be argued that state and local regulators, not 

politicians or federal bureaucrats in Washington, are more attuned 

to the work environments in their unique states and communities. 

Taken together, what does all of this mean? At a minimum, I believe it means that any attempts out of Washington to expand 

OSHA’s jurisdiction raises significant questions as to how this expansion will be funded as well as those of federalism in deference 

to communities’ rights and interests. 

Furthermore, I believe it means that rather than expanding the 

jurisdiction of an already overburdened federal OSHA, Congress 

should be incentivizing states to adopt workplace health and safety 

programs of their own instead of force unfunded mandates upon 

them or asking OSHA to extend itself even further. 

My home state of South Carolina is what is known as a state 

plan state. My state and 20 others have submitted comprehensive 

health and safety plans that meet or exceed federal standards to 

the secretary of labor, who in turn verified and approved them. As 

a result, these states receive 50 percent of their enforcement costs 

from federal OSHA and, consequently, accept responsibility for regulating the workplace health and safety of both private-and publicsector employees. 

In short, the state plan works well to protect employees, regardless of sector, and should be a key focus as Congress works to enact 

any reforms to federal health and safety laws. 

At this time, I would like to introduce an article for the record 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Federalism and Workplace Safety: Evidence 

From OSHA Enforcement, 1981 to 1995.’’

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]

6


brad-1.eps
7


brad-2.eps
8


brad-3.eps
9


brad-4.eps
10


brad-5.eps
11


brad-6.eps
12


brad-7.eps
13


brad-8.eps
14


brad-9.eps
15


brad-10.eps
16


brad-11.eps
17


brad-12.eps
18


brad-13.eps
19


brad-14.eps
20

Mr. WILSON. This article highlights the good work done by state 

plans. I would draw your attention to one of the article’s conclusions: ‘‘The decentralized nature of state programs may give these 

states an advantage in preventing workplace accidents over federal 

regulators.’’

I have seen firsthand the success of VP-8 delegating requirements to state agencies in South Carolina where staff are on the 

ground and can interpret quickly local needs. The result is a cleaner environment immediately in my home state. 

Given this, I hope that today’s hearing focuses on how to encourage states to take delegation of safety and health regulations rather than forcing additional federal mandates on the states, mandates that may fail to adequately protect American workers at the 

end of the day. 

Just yesterday, I met with county councilman Jerry Stewart of 

Buford County, South Carolina, and municipal officials from some 

of the fastest-growing communities in North America in the low 

country of South Carolina from Hardeeville, Bluffton and Hilton 

Head. I assured them I would work to prevent mandates on local 

government. It is challenging now to plan for the extraordinary 

growth that they face without new federal programs. 

Before I conclude, Chairman Woolsey, I would also like to briefly 

mention another aspect of this hearing, specifically the preemption 

of other federal agencies for implementing safety and health plans 

for workers, also known as the so-called 4(b)(1) exemption. 

I know H.R. 2049 attempts to change the longstanding practice 

of federal preemption. There have been scattered concerns in some 

industries that health and safety coverage by an agency other than 

OSHA is inadequate. I will be interested to hear from our witnesses how your proposed legislation would change the existing 

structure and if, indeed, it would be an improvement. 

With that, I look forward to the hearing today. Again, I thank 

the witnesses for appearing before us today, and I am eager to hear 

your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Good morning. I would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank them for 

their testimonies. I look forward to our discussion. 

Before we begin, I believe it’s important to provide some context for this morning’s 

hearing. First, we all should recognize that the Occupational Safety and Health Act 

explicitly allows states to adopt workplace health and safety programs to cover state 

and municipal employees—a group brought into focus by our hearing today. Likewise, it’s important to understand that—under current law—OSHA is able to inspect every worksite only once every 167 years, which—by any reasonable measure—is a clear sign that the agency has difficulty enforcing laws already on the 

books. In other words, its ability to take on a new layer of responsibilities, as some 

in Congress are looking to mandate, is questionable, at best. And finally, it can be 

argued that state and local regulators—not politicians or federal bureaucrats in 

Washington—are more attuned to the work environments in their unique states and 

communities. 

Taken together, what does all of this mean? At a minimum, I believe it means 

that any attempts out of Washington to expand OSHA’s jurisdiction raises significant questions as to how this expansion will be funded, as well as those of federalism and deference to communities’ rights and interests. Furthermore, I believe 

it means that rather than expanding the jurisdiction of an already overburdened 

federal OSHA, Congress should be incentivizing states to adopt workplace health 

21

and safety programs of their own instead of forcing unfunded mandates upon them 

or asking OSHA to extend itself even further. 

My home state of South Carolina is what is known as a ‘‘state plan state.’’ My 

state—and 20 others—have submitted comprehensive health and safety plans that 

meet or exceed federal standards to the Secretary of Labor, who—in turn—verified 

and approved them. As a result, these states receive 50 percent of their enforcement 

costs from federal OSHA and—consequently—accept responsibility for regulating 

the workplace health and safety of both private and public sector employees. In 

short, the state plan system works well to protect employees—regardless of sector—

and should be a key focus as Congress works to enact any reforms to federal health 

and safety laws. 

At this time, I would like to introduce an article for the record entitled, ‘‘Regulatory federalism and workplace safety; evidence from OSHA enforcement, 1981-

1995.’’ This article highlights the good work done by state plan states. I would draw 

your attention to one of the article’s conclusions, namely: ‘‘The decentralized nature 

of state programs may give these states an advantage in preventing workplace accidents over federal regulators.’’

Given this, I hope that today’s hearing focuses on how to encourage states to take 

delegation of safety and health regulations, rather than forcing additional federal 

mandates on states—mandates that may fail to adequately protect American workers at the end of the day. Just yesterday, I met with County council members and 

municipal officials assuring them I would work to prevent mandates on local governments. 

Before I conclude, Chairwoman Woolsey, I’d also like to briefly mention another 

aspect of this hearing: specifically, the pre-emption of other federal agencies for implementing safety and health plans for workers, also known as the so-called 4(b)(1) 

exemption. I know H.R. 2049 attempts to change the long-standing practice of federal pre-emption. There have been scattered concerns in some industries that the 

health and safety coverage by an agency other than OSHA is inadequate, and I will 

be interested to hear from our witnesses how your proposed legislation would 

change the existing structure and if—indeed—it would be an improvement. 

With that, I look forward to this hearing, and again, I thank the witnesses for 

appearing before us today. I am eager to hear your testimony. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

Without objection, I now recognize Representative Rob Andrews 

of the 1st District of New Jersey, a member of the full Education 

and Labor Committee and chair of the Subcommittee on Health, 

Employment, Labor and Pensions, for 5 minutes to make an opening statement. 

And, Mr. Andrews, you are welcome to stay for questions if you 

would like and be part of it. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank you and the ranking member for your courtesy 

in giving me this opportunity to express my thoughts on the topic 

on which I care deeply. 

I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for being an aggressive and 

dynamic chairwoman in the few weeks that you have sat and held 

the gavel. I think you have done more in a few weeks on these topics than some of your predecessors did in a decade and a half, and 

I am very grateful to you for your leadership. 

This morning, one American got up and went to work on a cement mixer, and the person who lives next door to him got up and 

went to work on the back of a trash truck working for the town 

in which they live. 

If, God forbid, today there is an accident on the cement mixer, 

the full power of the OSHA statute would be there to either prevent or protect the worker or deal with the consequences of that 

accident on the cement mixer. But if there is a looming problem on 

the trash truck or if, God forbid, there is an accident on the trash 

22

truck, the public worker has no recourse and no protection to speak 

of. It has virtually none in 26 states. 

Now why is it? Why should the law draw a distinction between 

whether you work on the back of a cement mixer for a private contractor or on the back of a trash truck for the county? I do not 

think it should make that distinction, and the purpose of the legislation I have introduced and that Ms. Woolsey has been so kind to 

work with us on is to eliminate that distinction. 

Now I have heard three good arguments—or three arguments, I 

should say—as to why we should continue to have this distinction 

in the law, that the law should protect the person working on the 

back of a cement mixer but not on the back of the trash truck. 

The first argument is that, well, it will raise taxes by too much 

and cost local governments too much money to impose this requirement on local governments. I have not seen a shred of evidence 

that bears out that conclusion in any of the states that have aggressively and proactively protected worker safety, and I would invite any of the panelists who would disagree to tell me why that 

is not true. 

I think the opposite is true. I think that employers that are diligent and careful in protecting their workers spend less money on 

workers comp claims, on health-care claims, on litigation, on all the 

other problems that come with workplace injury. I think the evidence is rather compelling—the insurance industry would back this 

up—that employers who are careful about worker safety are more 

profitable and more efficient and spend less money than those who 

do not. I think it is good business to be careful about your workers’ 

health. 

Second is the argument that somehow extending OSHA protection to public workers would interfere with state sovereignty. We 

feel very strongly about state sovereignty and the rights of state 

governments to make decisions that they view as being in the best 

interests of their constituents, but I think there are some rights 

which trump that. 

I think there are some basic protections that every American 

ought to have, whether they live in Nevada or New Jersey, whether 

they live in California or Florida, and the idea the safety of your 

workplace is a function of the accident of your ZIP Code makes no 

sense to me. I think someone’s life is equally worth protecting in 

Nevada as it is in New York or California as it is in Florida, and 

I think there should be a basic and uniform protection of that. 

The third argument I have heard is that, well, there really has 

not been much of a problem, that this is a bill that is a solution 

in search of a problem. I wish that were true. I wish that were 

true. 

The last time this Congress paid any serious focus on the issue 

of extending OSHA protections to public employees was in the 

early 1990s. Since then, virtually no attention has been paid to this 

subject and nothing has been done, and since then, 8,600 public 

workers have lost their lives. Were all preventable? I doubt it. 

Were some preventable? I am sure. I am sure. 

And I think if we had had sufficient protections in states, we 

would not have had that problem and that situation for so many 

families. 

23

I also wanted to add a word of personal appreciation to Mrs. 

Jones for her presence here today. I think that the mark of true 

character is someone who deals with tragedy not by dwelling on 

the hurt and the loss, but by moving on to something positive and 

doing something as a positive response to tragedy, and your statement here today, Mrs. Jones, on behalf of Clyde Anthony Jones and 

others like him, I think is a measure of your character, and we appreciate it very, very much. 

So I understand there are arguments about the taxes and spending and there are arguments about interference with state sovereignty and arguments about the scope of the problem, but I think 

the record is very clear that employers who are careful about workers’ safety spend less money than those who are careless. 

I think the record is very clear that there are certain protections 

that should not be an accident of where you live and should be a 

function of your standing as an American worker, and I unfortunately think the record is very clear that there is a very significant 

problem: 8,600 public workers killed since 1992, 520 in 2005 alone. 

So I, again, thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for 

their courtesy and their indulgence. I thank the panelists for being 

here today, and I would urge this Congress would take expeditious 

and wise action on this matter. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Congressman. 

Now I am going to introduce our wonderful panel of witnesses 

starting with Mr. Fillman and going in order that you will present. 

David Fillman is the executive director of AFSCME Council 13 

in Pennsylvania and is a vice president at AFSCME. He previously 

worked at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and has 

several years of experience in the areas of worker safety and 

health. Mr. Fillman is a graduate of Springfield High School in 

Montgomery, Pennsylvania. 

Casey Jones is the brave widow of Clyde Jones, a municipal employee who died in an explosion at the Bethune Wastewater Treatment Plant in Daytona Beach, Florida, in 2006. She is a certified 

surgical technologist and is a graduate of Daytona Beach Community College. 

David Sarvadi is an attorney at Keller and Heckman in Washington, D.C., and represents clients in the areas of occupational 

health and safety, toxic substance management, pesticide regulation, employment law and product safety. He attended Pennsylvania State University and received a master’s in science from the 

University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. Mr. 

Sarvadi also holds a law degree from George Mason University. 

Jon Turnipseed, from my home state of California, is the safety 

program manager for the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water 

Department in California. Today, he is testifying on his own behalf 

as well as on behalf of the American Society of Safety Engineers. 

He is a professional member of that organization. He has over 30 

years of management experience working for large government contractors and local government agencies and is a certified safety professional. Mr. Turnipseed spent 20 years in the United States Air 

Force and retired as a major. He received his bachelor of business 

24

administration from the University of Iowa and a master’s in 

science from Central Missouri State University. 

I welcome all of you. 

Before you get started, let’s talk about the lighting system. For 

those of you who have never testified before the committee, let me 

explain how it all works. We have a 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presenting and questioning. So the green light is illuminated when you begin to speak, 

and it is right there in front. 

When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1 minute remaining. You probably should start wrapping up. And when you 

see the red light, it means your time has expired and you need to 

conclude your testimony. We are not going to cut you off mid-sentence or mid-thought, but just be aware that that is our 5-minute 

rule. Usually, you will be able to complete some thoughts or some 

new ideas during the question-and-answer period. 

So be sure to turn on your microphones when it is your turn to 

speak and speak right into the microphone. Otherwise, we will do 

a lot of gyrations up here and you will just save yourself a lot of 

heartache. 

So we will now hear from Mr. Fillman, our first witness. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FILLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COUNCIL 13, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY 

AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Mr. FILLMAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Woolsey. My name is 

David Fillman. I am the executive director of Council 13 of the 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. 

I am honored to represent more than 65,000 public employees in 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania today, and as an international 

vice president with AFSCME, I speak for more than 1.4 million 

public employees nationwide who are employed by states and their 

counties, townships, boroughs, cities, and school districts as well as 

private and public nonprofit health and human service facilities. 

I would like to have my complete statement placed in the record. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

Mr. FILLMAN. Our membership is extremely diverse and is made 

up of hardworking members who provide vital public services to 

the citizens of Pennsylvania in the areas of transportation, health 

care, public safety, public works, water and wastewater treatment, 

corrections, and education, just to name a few. 

But despite their various backgrounds, our members have two 

things in common: number one, they confront serious and even lifethreatening dangers on the job every day; second, they are not covered by our nation’s most basic workplace safety protections required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA. 

OSHA was passed in 1970 to provide American workers with 

safe workplaces, but there was a catch. The law excluded state and 

local government workers. Today, more than 35 years later, only 21 

states have exercised their option to operate their own state OSHA 

programs. Three other states—New York, Connecticut and New 

Jersey—have a federally approved plan for their public workers, 

and responsibility for the private sector falls under the federal 

OSHA laws. 

25

That means that 26 states do not have a federally approved program in place to cover workplace safety for public employees. That 

translates to more than 8 million public-sector workers. There are 

a handful of states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, which have 

state laws that provide similar protection to their public workers, 

but which are not federally approved programs. 

In a few minutes, you will hear from Ms. Casey Jones who lost 

her husband. Mr. Jones’ employer was not required to follow OSHA 

rules that could have prevented his death, and even more tragically, the state law that was enacted in 1982 to assist employers 

to make their workplaces safe had been repealed by Governor Jeb 

Bush and the Florida legislature in 1999. 

Public employees in the other Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, 

Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas also work without OSHA protection. That means that public workers who responded to hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, men and women who performed heroically, were 

not entitled to any workplace safety protections whatsoever during 

the disasters, in their aftermath, or while they continue to rebuild 

those devastated regions. 

I do not have to look any further than where I live to explain 

what the lack of OSHA protection means. Neither the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor local governments are required to follow OSHA standards. For example, workers who must go into a 

deep trench to repair a water main break do so without their employers having to follow specific procedures or use equipment to 

prevent the trench from collapsing. 

Having OSHA coverage for all public employees is not just an 

issue of fairness; it is a matter of life and death. With the exception 

of few occupations, such as law enforcement and firefighters, the 

general public and their elected officials have little or no idea about 

the dangers faced by state and local government workers. 

A great deal of attention was paid, and rightfully so, to the Sago 

mine disaster that killed 12 miners. By contrast, public employees 

are usually killed one at a time and with little, if any, public notice. 

According to a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, from 1992 

to 2001, 6,455, workers at the federal, state and local levels lost 

their lives on the job. About half of these fatalities, 3,227, occurred 

in local government, while 1,224 state government workers died on 

the job during this period. 

AFSCME members, like other public employees, have died under 

horrible and gruesome circumstances, such as suffocating in a confined space, being fatally assaulted by patients or by inmates, or 

developing cancer from exposure to asbestos. 

I also want to make you aware of the many workers who have 

died across the country while maintaining our nation’s roads and 

highways. More than 100 employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alone, members that I represent here today, lost their 

lives while working on the state’s highways. 

Hundreds of thousands of public employees are injured or made 

ill each year. For some types of hazards, such as workplace violence, public workers are at much higher risk than private-sector 

employees. According to a 2005 BLS study, 32 percent of all state 

government workplaces and 15 percent of local governments reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
26

ported some form of violence within the preceding 12 months of the 

survey, as compared to only 5 percent for private industry. 

In conclusion, I submit to the members of this Committee that 

our nation’s failure to provide the most basic rights to a safe workplace for over 8 million working people—the people who protect 

and serve the citizens of this nation, even in its darkest hours—

is an outrageous injustice. 

To correct this injustice, it is imperative that you in this room 

support prompt and decisive legislative action. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Fillman follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Fillman, Executive Director, Council 13, 

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

Thank you. My name is David Fillman, and I am the Executive Director of Council 13 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. I am 

honored to represent more than 65,000 public employees in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania today. And as an International Vice President with AFSCME, I speak 

for more than 1.4 million public employees nationwide, who are employed by states 

and their counties, townships, boroughs, cities, and school districts, as well as private and public non-profit health and human service facilities. 

Our membership is extremely diverse, and is made up of hard-working members 

who provide vital public services to the citizens of Pennsylvania, in the areas of 

transportation, health care, public safety, public works, water and wastewater treatment, corrections, and education, just to name a few. 

But despite their various backgrounds, our members have two things in common. 

Number one, they confront serious and even life-threatening dangers on the job each 

and every day. Second, they are not covered by our nation’s most basic workplace 

safety protections required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct). 

Let me repeat the second point because so few people, including too many elected 

officials at the national, state, and local levels, even realize that millions of public 

employees across this country are not covered by OSHA. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970 to provide American 

workers with safe workplaces. But there was a catch. The law excluded state and 

local government workers. Today, more than 35 years later, only 21 states have exercised their option to operate their own state OSHA programs. Three other states, 

New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, have a federally approved plan for their 

public workers, and responsibility for the private sector falls under the federal 

OSHA laws. 

That means that 26 states do not have a federally approved program in place to 

cover workplace safety for public employees. That translates to more than 8 million 

public sector workers. There are a handful of states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin, 

which have state laws that provide similar protection to their public workers, but 

which are not federally approved programs. 

In a few minutes, you will hear from Mrs. Casey Jones, who lost her husband. 

Mr. Casey’s employer was not required to follow OSHA rules that could have prevented his death. And even more tragically, the state law that was enacted in 1982 

to assist employers to make their workplaces safe, had been repealed by Governor 

Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature in 1999. 

Public employees in the other Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas also work without OSHA protection. That means that the public 

workers who responded to hurricanes Katrina and Rita—men and women who performed selfless acts of heroism—were not entitled to any workplace safety protections whatsoever, during the disasters, in their aftermath, or while they continue 

to rebuild those devastated regions. 

I do not have to look any further than where I live to explain what the lack of 

OSHA coverage means. Neither the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor local governments are required to follow OSHA standards. For example, workers who must 

go into a deep trench to repair a water main break or for some other reason do so 

without their employers having to follow specific procedures or use equipment to 

prevent the trench from collapsing. When public employees perform the same job 

just across the border to the east in New York or New Jersey, or to the south in 

Maryland, their public employers are required by their state OSHA laws to take 

precautions to prevent their workers from being buried alive. This situation is not 

27

fair, and it is not right. Having the right to a safe job should not depend on the 

state in which public employees work. 

Having OSHA coverage for all public employees is not just an issue of fairness; 

it is a matter of life and death. With the exception of a few occupations such as 

law enforcement or firefighters, the general public and their elected officials have 

little or no idea about the dangers faced by state and local government workers. At 

the beginning of 2006, a great deal of attention was paid, and rightfully so, to the 

Sago mine disaster that killed 12 miners. By contrast, public employees are usually 

killed one at a time, and with little, if any, public notice. According to a U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) Report entitled Fatal Occupational Injuries to Government 

Workers, 1992-2001, 6,455, workers at the federal, state and local levels lost their 

lives on the job. About half of these fatalities (3,227) occurred in local government, 

while 1,224 state government workers died on the job during this period. According 

to the most recent BLS data available, in 2005 another 520 government workers 

died, of which 107 were state and 300 were local government workers. 

The statistics are important to show the scope of the problem, but we must remember that each number is a worker who has died and suffered, and left loved 

ones behind to cope with the loss. AFSCME members, like other public employees, 

have died under horrible and gruesome circumstances such as suffocating in a confined space, being fatally assaulted by patients in mental health facilities or by inmates in prisons, or developing cancer from exposure to asbestos. I also want to 

make you aware of the many workers who have died across the country while maintaining our nation’s roads and highways. More than 100 employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alone, members that I represent here today, lost their lives 

while working on the state’s highways. Highway work is the most dangerous work 

in the Commonwealth, which I learned as a young employee of PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 

Public awareness campaigns have helped to make highway work safer by educating drivers to slow down and drive more carefully in work zones. But to this day, 

no enforceable workplace safety law exists for that highly dangerous occupation—

or for the other public service occupations throughout Pennsylvania. 

Fatalities are but the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of thousands of public employees are injured or made ill at work each year. For some types of hazards, such as 

workplace violence, public employees are at much higher risk than private sector 

employees. According to a 2005 BLS 2005 study, 32 percent of all state government 

workplaces and 15 percent of local governments reported some form of violence 

within the preceding 12 months of the survey, as compared to five percent for private industry. 

I came here to describe why OSHA coverage for all public employees is so important. However, before I end my remarks, I also feel compelled to say that we deserve 

coverage that translates into real safety and health protection for our members, and 

all other workers in this country. For the past six years, OSHA has failed miserably 

to meet its mandate to protect workers. Enforcement of OSHA rules has taken a 

back seat to voluntary compliance and alliances with companies and trade associations. OSHA has failed to issue new and needed standards. It even withdrew its proposed tuberculosis rule, and now public health officials are warning us about a 

super drug resistant strain of TB that has emerged. OSHA just recently denied 

AFSCME’s petition for an emergency standard for pandemic influenza preparedness, 

stating they could not take action because no human pandemic influenza virus exists at this time. OSHA should know that the time to prepare for a crisis is before 

it occurs and compel employers, if necessary, to take action in advance of emergency, not during or after a catastrophe has happened. 

Some state OSHA programs have tried to address part of the massive void left 

by federal OSHA. Within the past couple of years, New York State passed a workplace violence prevention law, Washington State passed a safe patient handling bill, 

and California issued a standard to protect workers from exposure to heat. Federal 

OSHA should be addressing these and many other hazards. 

In conclusion, I submit to the members of this Committee that our nation’s failure 

to provide the most basic rights to a safe workplace for over 8 million working people—the people who protect and serve the citizens of this nation, even in its darkest 

hours—is an outrageous injustice. 

To correct this injustice it is imperative that you, in this room, support prompt 

and decisive legislative action. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Jones? 

28

STATEMENT OF CASEY JONES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 

FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Ms. JONES. Good morning. My name is Casey Jones, and I am 

from Daytona Beach, Florida. I would like to thank the chairman 

and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. 

I have a larger statement that I would like to have placed in the 

record. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

Ms. JONES. On January 11, 2006, my husband and best friend, 

Clyde Jones, was taken from me and the children, family, friends 

and community who loved him. He was only 40 years old. 

He went to work one morning for the city that he loved and to 

a job that he loved. He never came home. 

He was instructed by the City of Daytona Beach to repair buildings damaged by the hurricanes of 2004. The roof, which was to be 

removed, was directly over tanks holding highly flammable and 

dangerous gases which escaped through venting pipes at the wastewater treatment where he worked. 

Clyde was not a roofer. He worked in general maintenance. He 

had no knowledge of dangers associated with these tanks that he 

had worked around for the last 7 years because there had never 

been any safety meetings for him or other workers. 

He did not know of the dangerous gases which were escaping. He 

was never advised such a situation existed, nor were there any 

warning signs or precautions given to him. 

He was instructed to go with the other workers and use lighted 

torches to begin cutting away the torn metal to start the repair 

process. My husband was in a crane that was used to lift the metal 

pieces that were cut away. 

As the lighted torch cut through the metal, the gases coming 

from the vent exploded into a horrible fireball. The tanks and pipes 

broke, and hot flammable gases were directed into the cab where 

my husband was severely burned. 

He was transported to the hospital where I work. The doctors 

who knew him cried uncontrollably because of their empathy for 

the unbearable pain they knew he was in. Clyde was burned over 

90 percent of his body with third-degree burns. 

He was stabilized at the hospital and then airlifted to Orlando 

Regional Medical Center 60 miles away to the burn unit. Clyde suffered through a horrible cleaning process that finally showed the 

severity of his burns. 

When Clyde was brought into his room and I had the opportunity 

to see him once again, I was devastated. I spent several hours with 

him to comfort him and promised that I would be strong for him 

and would be there for him through his recovery. 

I received a call the next morning from the doctor informing me 

that Clyde had no chance of recovery and they were keeping him 

on life support until the family could say their goodbyes. 

The city has shown no mercy. 

There were no safety meetings in advance. There was no review 

or written plan as to how to safely proceed that day. The City of 

Daytona Beach, like so many other governmental agencies, did not 

have to abide by OSHA standards. 

29

Thus, not having to comply, no one cared enough to voluntarily 

comply. Daytona Beach did not even have a safety officer on payroll 

at the time. No one required them to do so. They cut the budget 

for that position when the law did not make such a position mandatory. 

The government that my husband loved and served did nothing, 

absolutely nothing, to provide him with a safe workplace. They 

simply ignored responsibility for his safety because they did not 

have to provide a safe work environment as a city government. 

My husband’s life was not the only one taken that day. Another 

co-worker died, and another still suffers with terrible burn injuries. 

The state that he also loved ignored our cry for help. A bill was 

presented to the State House of Representatives in Florida which 

would have required local governments to meet minimum OSHA 

safety requirements. The bill never made it to the floor. 

The Chemical Safety Board responsible for investigating this 

tragedy found numerous basic safety issues which were ignored 

due to the lack of any requirement that the city adhere to such 

standards. It concluded that had any of these basic safety standards been in place, my husband would be alive today. 

You cannot help my husband or others that suffered, but you can 

help to save lives and the devastation caused by horrific injuries 

to the future victims and future families. I am only here for that 

purpose. I am here hoping that my husband’s life was not taken 

in vain. 

If you would know the person that Clyde was, you would realize 

we cannot afford to lose another woman or man like him. He is the 

backbone of what makes our country work. 

Clyde served in the U.S. Army in the Gulf War. At 6 feet and 

270 pounds, he was a very big man. He worked hard every day. As 

big as he was, his heart was even larger. His heart would break 

even more if he knew that he died senselessly, with no one wanting 

to prevent something like this from happening again. 

My heart breaks as I speak. I know that he did not have to die. 

My heart breaks for his children. They will never understand why 

he died. My heart breaks for those that lost families, friends in 

similar situations all needlessly, all so senselessly. 

I am now sitting in front of my leaders of my country. I never 

dreamed I would sit here at such a place. Only you can help make 

sure this does not happen to others. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

[The statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

Prepared Statement of Casey Jones, on Behalf of the American Federation 

of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 

Good Morning. My name is Casey Jones and I am from Daytona Beach, Florida. 

I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for inviting 

me to testify today. 

On January 11, 2006, my husband and best friend, Clyde Jones, was taken from 

me and the children, family, friends and community who loved him. He was only 

40 years old. He went to work one morning for the City that he loved to a job that 

he loved. He never came home. 

Clyde put his life on the line for you and me and countless others while on duty 

with the U.S. Army in the Gulf War. We trusted our lives to him, but the government which he served so proudly did not place his life in their trust in any fashion 

whatsoever. 

30

He was instructed by the City of Daytona Beach to repair a building damaged by 

the hurricanes of 2004. The roof, which was to be removed, was directly over tanks 

holding highly flammable and dangerous gases which escaped through venting pipes 

at the waste management plant where he worked. 

Clyde was not a roofer. He worked in general maintenance. He had no knowledge 

of the dangers associated with these tanks he worked around every day for the last 

7 years, because there had never been any safety meetings for him and other workers. He did not know of the dangerous gases which were escaping because he was 

never advised such a situation existed, nor were there warning signs or other precautions given to him. 

He was instructed to go with other workers and using lighted torches, they began 

cutting away the torn metal roof to start the repair process. My husband was in 

a crane which was used to lift the metal pieces as they were cut. As the lighted 

torch cut through the metal, the gases coming from the vent exploded into a horrible 

fireball. The tanks and pipes broke and hot flammable gases were directed into the 

cab of the crane, where my husband was severely burned. He was transported to 

the hospital where I work. The doctors who knew him cried uncontrollably because 

of their empathy for the unbearable pain he was in. Clyde was burned over 90 percent of his body with 3rd degree burns. He was stabilized at the hospital and then 

air-lifted to Orlando Regional Medical Center 60 miles away to the burn unit. Clyde 

suffered through a detriment cleaning process that finally showed the severity of his 

burns. When Clyde was brought to his room and I had the opportunity to see him 

once again I was devastated. I spent several hours with him to comfort him and 

promised that I would be strong for him and would be there throughout his recovery. I received a call the next morning from the doctor informing me that Clyde had 

no chance of recovery and they were keeping him on life support until the family 

could say their goodbyes. The City has shown no mercy. 

Every day countless men and women go to work with nothing to protect them 

from the harm that faces them from doing their jobs as they are instructed. There 

were no safety meetings in advance of the work that day. There was no review or 

even a written plan as to how to safely proceed. There was no safety precautions 

taken such as spark arresting mats or other devices required in private industry 

to be used whenever lighted torches are part of the work conditions. There were numerous regulations in place through OSHA, and had Clyde been working for private 

industry, these regulations would have likely saved his life and prevented the explosion from ever occurring. However, none of these regulations or safety considerations were in place because the City of Daytona Beach, like so many other governmental agencies, did not have to abide by OSHA standards. Thus, not having to 

comply, no one cared enough to voluntarily comply. Daytona Beach did not even 

have a Safety Officer on payroll at the time, because no one required them to do 

so. They cut the budget for that position when the law did not make such a position 

mandatory. 

The government that my husband loved and served did nothing, absolutely nothing to provide him with a safe place to work. They simply ignored any responsibility 

for his safety because they did not have to provide a safe work environment as a 

city government. When people hear this, the sounds of such words echo with disbelief. 

I still cannot believe this could happen in a world wrecked by the lessons of poor 

preparation and the need to vigilantly protect one another at all costs. 

My husband’s life was not the only one taken that day. Another co-worker died 

and another still suffers with terrible burn injuries. 

Only you can help. Sadly, cities and other smaller governmental agencies will not 

take action to save lives unless they are told they must do so. The budget is more 

important to the city that the people who work for the city. 

Only you can help. The state that he loved has also ignored the cry for help. A 

bill was presented to the State House of Representatives in Florida which would 

have required local governments to meet minimum OSHA safety requirements. The 

bill never made it to the floor. The safety of local governmental workers who make 

up such a large part of the work force is not a priority in the State of Florida at 

the present time. 

Only you can help. The Chemical Safety Board, responsible for investigating this 

tragedy, found numerous basic safety issues which were ignored due to the lack of 

any requirement that the City adhere to such standards. It concluded that had any 

of these basic safety standards been in place my husband would be alive today. They 

met in a public forum to present their findings. Important members of the community were present. They pleaded for action. None was taken. Only you can help. 

You can not help my husband or the others that have suffered but you can help 

to save lives and the devastation caused by horrific injuries to the future victims 

31

and future families. I am here only for that purpose. I am here, hoping that my husband’s life was not taken in vain. If you will listen to my story. If you would only 

know the person that Clyde Jones was, you would realize that we cannot afford to 

lose another man or woman like him. He is the backbone of what makes our country 

work. At over 6 feet and 270 pounds, he was a very big man. He worked hard every 

day. He carried a lot of people’s needs on his broad shoulders. As big as he was, 

his heart was even larger. His heart would break even more if he knew that he died, 

senselessly, with no one wanting to prevent something like this from happening 

again. 

My heart breaks as I speak. I know that he did not have to die. My heart breaks 

for his children. They will never understand why he died. My heart breaks for those 

that have lost family and friends in similar situations, all so needlessly. All so 

senseless. 

I am now sitting in front of the leaders of my country. I never dreamed I would 

sit in such a place. I never dreamed I would have the courage to speak these words. 

I am honored to be here on behalf of my husband and so many others. I pray you 

will take on the responsibility that others have avoided taking. I thank you from 

the bottom of my heart for letting me speak today. God bless each one of you. 

Only you can help make sure this does not happen to others. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Sarvadi? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. SARVADI, ATTORNEY, KELLER AND 

HECKMAN LLP 

Mr. SARVADI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is David 

Sarvadi. I am an attorney and also a certified industrial hygienist, 

which, to those of you who do not know, is one of the two professions that works on workplace safety, and I have been doing this 

now for about 35 years. 

These kinds of workplace tragedies affect everybody, not just the 

families and the immediate friends of the victims. I have seen numerous cases where not just the employees, but the managers and 

the families of those managers, get very, very seriously affected by 

the emotional trauma that is associated with it, and we certainly 

should expect our governments to be exemplary, to be models in 

terms of workplace health and safety. 

In regard to the proposal to expand OSHA coverage and to add 

state and local employees to the coverage under the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act, regardless of whether we do it with a mandatory requirement or if we leave it to the states to do it on their 

own, we should expect them to do it with the same degree of earnestness and attention that the private sector does. 

I think my experience with state and local government activities 

and a little bit of the research that I have done on the topic shows 

that in the states that are not now covered by state plans, a number of them have statutory requirements mandating that their local 

governments as well as the state governments comply either with 

general safety and health provisions in the state law or specifically 

with the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its implementing 

regulations. 

One of the things that is undoubtedly true is that even where we 

have coverage under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, having that coverage does not guarantee that compliance will occur, 

and compliance does not guarantee that safety results. My experience with this shows that you can be in compliance with lots of regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
32

ulations and still have safety hazards and activities on the job that 

result in great tragedy. 

So let’s not lose sight of the fact that while the regulations are 

important in identifying the kinds of things that generally need to 

be done to try to prevent safety and health hazards, it is the responsibility of everybody involved, both the managers as well as 

the employees, to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. 

The second issue I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee is the issue of whether or not coverage is going to be allowed. I took a quick look at the Supreme Court decisions on imposition of federal employment mandates on state and local governments, and I think it is fair to say at this point it is not clear how 

the Supreme Court would end up. 

They have gone back and forth about it over the last couples of 

years, and I think it might be better if we avoided a constitutional 

issue over this by trying maybe a different approach to encouraging 

the states to participate. 

It is true that the current statute provides some incentive to the 

states to adopt a comprehensive program and it provides some 

funding, but it seems to me that perhaps a system of education and 

grants and other kinds of assistance might move things along in 

some of the states that have not been as aggressive as perhaps 

they should be. 

I think the other point that I wanted to make is that the preemption issue is one that we really need to keep a focus on and maybe 

from a little bit different perspective here. One of the things that 

Congress does when it passes statutes and assigns responsibility to 

various agencies is that it expects those agencies to develop expertise in particular areas, and so if we have the Federal Aviation Administration responsible for aviation safety, for example, it is unlikely that OSHA is ever going to get the kind of expertise in that 

area that the FAA has. 

So I think it is important to keep in mind that if we are going 

to deal with preemption, I do not think the proposed language is 

going to help very much because it is going to put an overlay of 

having OSHA make a judgment about whether the existing regulation by that other agency is as effective as OSHA standards, and 

not having the expertise that the other agency has, I am not sure 

that they are going to be able to make the judgment correctly. 

Then having a procedure for appeals and all of the rest of that—

we know what is happening with OSHA’s current regulatory process and how difficult it is to get regulations through. I do not think 

adding another layer of bureaucracy is the right way to go on that 

regard. 

And, Madam Chairman, I would like to have the written document that I submitted earlier entered into the record as part of my 

written statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Sarvadi follows:]

Prepared Statement of David G. Sarvadi, Attorney, Keller and Heckman 

LLP 

Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and invited guests, 

thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important proceeding. 

My name is David Sarvadi. I am an attorney with the Washington, D.C., law firm 

of Keller and Heckman LLP, and I am here to comment on H.R. 2049, the ProVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
33

tecting America’s Workers Act. I also have some suggestions to improve the bill. At 

Keller and Heckman LLP, we represent and assist employers in meeting their obligations under a variety of federal and state laws, as well as international treaties 

and the laws of Canada, Europe, and many countries of the Far East. In particular, 

we help clients maintain progressive health and safety programs intended to protect 

their employees in their workplaces, as well as to comply with national and international health and safety laws and standards. The Occupational Safety and Health 

Act is the primary focus of our compliance assistance here in the U.S. 

I am appearing in this hearing on my own behalf, and any views expressed herein 

should not be attributed to my firm, my partners, or any other entities, including 

any of our clients. I am here solely as a person with a long standing interest in the 

topic of occupational safety and 

The two provisions that we are discussing today are the issue of whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act should be amended to modify the definition of the 

word, employer, to remove the exemption of state entities and their political subdivisions, as well as to extend coverage of the OSH Act to federal employees. The second 

question is whether the provision in the statute prohibiting the Secretary of Labor 

(SOL) from regulating workplace conditions where another federal agency has established regulations or standards applicable to those workplaces should be amended 

to require the Secretary to affirmatively determine that the protection provided is 

‘‘at least as effective as’’ that provided by the OSH Act. In both cases, I believe the 

proposals are misdirected and therefore could be improved. Let me explain why. 

In 1968, when Congress was considering the proposal to regulate workplace safety 

and health at the federal level, there was some attention paid to the question of 

whether federal agency safety and health programs were up to snuff. Congressional 

proposals included provisions to make federal programs ‘‘models’’ including comprehensive safety and health programs, adequate, to provide ‘‘safe and healthful 

workplaces and conditions of employment, consistent with the standards set under 

section 6,’’ and to keep records of occupational injuries and illnesses and to report 

them to the Secretary. In the end, these provisions were adopted, but there was no 

provision calling for inspections of federal agencies or for providing for enforcement 

through some system of penalties. What the proposal would do is, in effect, adopt 

a penalty system for federal agencies. 

I do not believe that this should be necessary. Federal agencies have extensive 

programs and are required to comply with OSHA regulations by executive order. 

Having federal agencies paying penalties to the Treasury for OSHA violations would 

simply reduce the resources available for compliance. It is a non sequitor. 

With regard to states and political subdivisions, the Congress recognized limitations on its power to regulate internal state operations, including those related to 

the relationships between public employees and their state and local government 

employers. While not mandating compliance with OSHA standards, the legislation 

required those states that would operate a state plan of OSHA enforcement would 

have to simultaneously adopt a program of compliance and enforcement for state 

agencies and their political subdivisions. In doing so, Congress also appropriated 

money to be paid to those states who would take over the new programs. 

Much has been made of the argument that because the OSH Act does not cover 

states as employers that their employees are not protected. I do not believe that is 

entirely true. Of the 25 or so states that do not have state plans, a number of them 

have mandatory compliance requirements enacted under state law, while others require compliance with OSHA standards through executive order. 

Two things need to be remembered in deciding the public policy of attempting to 

impose federal OSHA requirements on the states. The first is that compliance with 

OSHA standards does not assure safety. Surely, many of OSHA’s standards address 

physical changes in the workplace that prevent employees from being injured, such 

as machine guards and electrical design standards. But many accidents occur not 

when normal operations are occurring but during service, maintenance, and other 

non-routine operations. In those circumstances, the protective devices that are normally used may have to be removed to accomplish the task at hand. I do not believe 

it is possible to write regulations to address what are essentially infrequent occurrences. So what is necessary is for people to be trained in the kinds of hazards that 

they encounter on the job, to recognize them, and to take steps to prevent them. 

In some ways, this is more a problem of education than enforcement. Perhaps the 

current Administration’s approach of outreach and education should be expanded 

and funding increased to address this perceived deficiency. 

Second, it is not clear that Congress has the authority to apply OSHA standards 

to the states by mandate. The Supreme Court has gone back and forth on the subject of regulation of workplace conditions between states and its employees. The 

question of the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause to impose employVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
34

ment conditions on states has been debated in Supreme Court cases without clear 

resolution. 

Rather than engender a debate over the esoteric constitutional issue, I personally 

believe that it would be better to have Congress encourage states to comply by tying 

grants and other funds to state compliance programs. Similarly, it makes little 

sense to have a scheme in place in which scarce local government resources are used 

to pay federal penalties with the idea that public employers need a stick to force 

them into compliance. Most private employers comply with OSHA regulations because they are good citizens. I would hope that Congress believes our state and local 

governments do not need to be coerced into doing what is right for their employees. 

Similarly, I do not believe that an enforcement system involving penalties paid to 

the federal government makes good sense. 

Preemption adopted by another agency is at least as effective as compliance with 

the OSHA provisions at issue. That, in and of itself, does not seem offensive, except 

that it will impose a requirement on the Agency that will detract from its primary 

mission. Preemption is intended to preclude overlapping, redundant, or conflicting 

regulation by different arms of the federal government. 

In the proposal by requiring OSHA to review and make a determination that another agency’s decisions provide equivalent protection, Congress is suggesting that 

OSHA has greater expertise on these topics than the agencies charged with their 

full-time regulation. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the OSHA case of Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

(OSHRC), 59 U.S.L.W. 4197, 111 S. Ct. 1171 (1991) (CF&I Steel), when OSHA develops a standard, it develops an expertise in the subject matter, both in the rulemaking process and in the enforcement context. That expertise entitles OSHA and 

other regulatory agencies to deference when interpreting the regulations they adopt. 

Similarly, if OSHA under the proposed language were to reject the balancing and 

judgments adopted by the sister agency on a subject about which they are acknowledged to have superior expertise, it would be substituting its lesser informed judgment for that of the agency charged by Congress with implementing the totality of 

the public policies addressed in the enabling legislation. In other words, the bill 

would allow OSHA to substitute its judgment over that of a more experienced and 

knowledgeable government organization. 

A few examples might suffice. Under current regulations of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) a number of different regulatory programs address public 

health and safety. Among them are the programs addressing transportation of hazardous materials, safety. One example related to me of an OSHA regulation that 

reflects a lack of complete understanding of the technology regulated by DOT. 

Under OSHA regulations, the wheels of trucks that are being serviced by powered 

industrial trucks like for lifts must be ‘‘chocked’’ to prevent the trucks from rolling 

away from the dock. Under DOT rules, chocks are not required if the trailer is 

equipped with ‘‘spring brakes’’ that lock in place when air is removed from the braking system. Having to chock a truck takes time, and it is not clear that it is a necessary improvement from a safety perspective over the brake system DOT has approved. Under the present system, OSHA is theoretically precluded from enforcing 

its rule. This means a significant savings of time, especially where there are large 

numbers of trucks moving in and out of a distribution center, and in DOT’s judgment without a cost in safety. Whether OSHA’s rule improves safety is not clear. 

The change in the statute will add another layer of bureaucracy to an already 

burdened system. Making OSHA perform an affirmative determination, then subjecting it to challenge and judicial review may seem like a good idea from an administrative law perspective, but it implies that the initial determination by OSHA’s 

sister agency is suspect. For employers, it creates greater uncertainty and confusion, 

which is the opposite of what any changes in the law should seek to achieve. Moreover, it increases complexity in an area that everyone already admits is ponderous 

and working badly, if at all. That is the rulemaking process. 

The current language of section 4(b)(1) is clear enough. The courts have fleshed 

out the Congressional mandate in a workable way, wherein the agency whose regulation would displace OSHA’s must address the hazard OSHA’s standard would address. Having done so, it is not a question of efficacy. Properly so, it seems to me, 

the present arrangement presumes that the enabling statute and the OSH act articulate. In this way, the full intent of Congress is acknowledged and implemented 

by the agency specifically charged with balancing these competing interests. The Supreme Court in the case of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 122 S.Ct. 2045 (2002) 

noted that compliance with all laws is mandated, and that agencies are expected 

to make ‘‘the substantive choices that agencies are expected to make when Congress 

leaves the intersection of competing objectives both imprecisely marked but subject 

to administrative leeway. * * *’’ The provision contemplated will put OSHA—with 

35

less experience and knowledge on a topic—in the position of second-guessing the 

other agencies’ decisions. It hardly seems an appropriate and efficient use of limited 

government resources. 

Conclusion 

The proposals sound plausible on their surface but the reality is that they distract 

public attention from important work that remains to be done. Federal employees 

and those in states with approved state plans are already covered by OSHA requirements, and a number of the remaining states do so by state statute. Having OSHA 

oversight should be unnecessary and duplicative, and there is no justification for expansion of OSHA jurisdiction where states on their own are following OSHA’s rules. 

The better approach would be for Congress to use its funding power to provide 

states with the incentive and the wherewithal to upgrade their public employee 

safety and health programs. 

Regarding preemption, the present system is working, and there is nothing to fix. 

Congress made the correct choice in 1969 when it recognized that some agencies 

with specific expertise in individual industries or activities are better equipped than 

OSHA to understand and implement safety programs. The provision would simply 

increase bureaucracy and inefficiency and is not a proposal designed to lead to better government programs. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Without objection. 

Mr. Turnipseed? 

STATEMENT OF JON TURNIPSEED, SAFETY SUPERVISOR, 

MUNICIPAL WATER DEPARTMENT 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. Chairwoman Woolsey and members of the subcommittee, I am Jon Turnipseed, and I am very pleased to be here 

today as a certified safety professional representing the 30,000 

members of ASSE. That is the American Society of Safety Engineers. They have asked me to speak as strongly as I can in support 

of providing occupational safety and health coverage for all publicsector workers no matter where they work. 

I am a public-sector employee. I am the safety supervisor for the 

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department in Southern 

California. I see every day how important safety and health coverage is for my fellow workers, 

And might I add that what Ms. Jones has gone through is something I work hard to prevent every single day. I am probably the 

only person in this room that has to worry about that every morning when I walk in, so my heart goes out to Ms. Jones. I know how 

tough this is. 

Most people are shocked to learn that in 26 states, public-sector 

employees are not guaranteed the same level of workplace health 

and safety protection that private-sector workers have. They also 

do not understand the risk that many government workers face on 

their behalf. I have heard people say and tell me, ‘‘Oh, working at 

the water works or the sewer plant cannot be that dangerous, is 

it?’’

Let me tell you it is. This is why San Bernardino hired me to 

make sure our workers properly follow OSHA standards. 

Water and wastewater workers enter hundreds of underground 

vaults, trenches, pits several hundred times every year. On any 

given day, the potential of a lethal atmosphere in a vault or similar 

confined space or trench collapse can kill them. 

On the street level, these same workers also have to direct traffic 

around their work zones. Water and wastewater treatment depends 

36

on electrical pumps and motors. So, every day, we face electrocution hazards. 

Potentially hazardous chemicals, like chlorine, are used throughout our industry. Operating large construction equipment, like 

earthmovers, backhoes and cranes, is always risky business. Office 

workers face everything from carpal tunnel injuries to assaults by 

angry customers. 

People fail to realize also that many of these public-sector workers who are without health and safety coverage are the very first 

responders who rush in during a disaster to save their lives. Water 

and wastewater people are right in the middle of those disasters, 

too. 

My experience shows only one example of the need for public-sector coverage. People working in hundreds of other jobs within the 

government arena face similar risks and deserve the same protection they would enjoy if they were private-sector workers, yet more 

than 8.5 million of these workers remain without occupational safety and health coverage that meets federal OSHA standards. 

We do understand the arguments against this: unfunded mandate; ‘‘It costs too much’’; ‘‘We do not need it because we take good 

care of our public employees.’’ In all honesty, these arguments just 

are not supportable. 

I understand the unfunded mandates as a public employee myself. I also struggle to keep on top of the ever-changing government 

regulations, yet I accept that my job is to do the best I can to care 

for the workers and the citizens of San Bernardino, and I do not 

shirk that task. 

As a safety professional, I soundly reject the idea that the cost 

of safety is just too much. Beyond meeting the moral duty to protect workers’ lives, the best corporations in our country know that 

investing in safety and health pays off in improving the bottom 

line. No doubt taxpayers would like to know why their governments do not have a better understanding of the safety and health 

payoff to the bottom line. 

The numbers of deaths and injuries among public-sector workers 

contradicts the idea that they are taken of, and if a government entity’s employees are well cared for, it would not cost them more to 

follow OSHA standards because the investment in meeting those 

standards would have already been made. 

I had this coverage, and I know that the San Bernardino Water 

Department is no less a good steward of taxpayers’ hard-earned 

dollars than a water department where coverage is not provided. 

In fact, the recent tragedy in a similar Daytona Beach department 

discussed here already today speaks volumes against each of these 

arguments. 

ASSE was the Chemical Safety Board’s hearing on the accident 

in Daytona Beach. So were the plaintiffs’ lawyers for the victims, 

and rightfully so. We do know what the tragedy cost in lives. No 

doubt the cost in taxpayer dollars to Daytona Beach for not meeting the most basic OSHA standards will be much higher than the 

investment in meeting those standards had they done it properly 

in the first place. 

Now ASSE’s Florida members are working to see the Florida legislature provides public-sector coverage. We understand, though, 

37

that the surest way to achieve coverage for every public-sector 

worker is to amend the federal OSHA Act. ASSE fully supports 

provisions to do this in your bill, Chairwoman Woolsey. 

The time has come to be fair to all public-sector workers who risk 

their wellbeing for all of us. ASSE stands ready to help. Whatever 

questions the subcommittee has for me, I would be more than 

happy to answer. 

[The statement of Mr. Turnipseed follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jon Turnipseed, Certified Safety Professional, on 

Behalf of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) 

Chairwoman Woolsey and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Jon Turnipseed, 

and I am pleased to be here today representing both my own views as a Certified 

Safety Professional and the views of the 30,000 members of the American Society 

of Safety Engineers (ASSE). As a volunteer, I am a member of ASSE’s Government 

Affairs Committee. In my professional capacity, I am a public sector employee serving as the Safety Supervisor for the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department in California. Although I work for a municipal government, I am grateful 

we are subject to inspections and civil penalties for violations of occupational safety 

and health laws, unlike the estimated 8.5 million other public sector employees 

across the country who are not. Accompanying me today is Dave Heidorn, ASSE’s 

Manager of Government Affairs and Policy. 

ASSE is the oldest and largest society of safety, health and environmental professionals in the world. Founded in 1911, ASSE’s dedicated members include Certified 

Safety Professionals, Certified Industrial Hygienists, Professional Engineers, academicians, fire protection engineers, system safety experts, health professionals and 

an impressive collection of other disciplines. Our members are experts committed 

to excellence in the protection of people, property and the environment worldwide. 

The Society has thirteen practice specialties, including an active Public Sector Practice Specialty with members who have wide ranging expertise and knowledge in 

managing safety, health and environmental risks in every kind of public sector 

workplace. 

Based on the expertise and knowledge of our members, ASSE has long advocated 

the need to address the lack of occupational safety and health coverage for state and 

local government workers that now exists in 26 states and the District of Columbia. 

With the attention today’s hearing brings to the issue, ASSE hopes that the reasons 

why millions of workers remain without OSHA coverage can quickly be resolved. 

Government Workers Are Not Covered by OSHA 

Most people are shocked to find out that the workplace safety and health protections put in place by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) 

apply only to private sector workers and not all state and local government employees. Under the OSH Act, states are allowed to run their own state OSHA programs 

in lieu of federal coverage of the private sector. These approved state OSHA programs must be at least as effective as the federal program and, unlike the federal 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), are required to cover both 

the private sector and their own state and local government workers. 

Twenty-one states and Puerto Rico have federally approved OSHA programs that 

cover public employees—Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Three states whose private sector workers are covered by federal OSHA—

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, along with the Virgin Islands—have federally approved state programs that apply only to state and local government workers. 

Therefore, 26 states and the District of Columbia leave their state and local government workers unprotected by any federally approved occupational safety and 

health laws—Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. No pattern or underlying 

reason explains the lack of coverage. Larger and more populated states like Florida, 

Illinois and Texas join smaller, less populated states like Delaware, Montana and 

North Dakota in failing to give their workers the same protections private sector 

employees have in those states. 

38

These unprotected state and local government workers are the good people who 

keep our state, county and municipal governments functioning on a daily basis. 

They run the gamut from workers in high-risk jobs such as law enforcement and 

fire fighters to workers in low risk office jobs. They are the people who make sure 

that we all have safe water to drink, battle to keep our aging street infrastructure 

functional, make sure that our kids have decent parks, and keep our legal system 

up and running to fight crime. Most people are familiar with the hazards associated 

with working in high profile jobs such law enforcement and firefighting. The safety 

and health risks these people take every day to protect us go without saying. What 

this Subcommittee and the American people need to know are the largely hidden 

occupational safety and health hazards that many less well-known public sector 

workers face daily. 

In my own job, I make sure California OSHA regulations are followed to protect 

the people who provide drinking water and wastewater treatment for the city. When 

I tell people what I do, the typical comment is something like, ‘‘Working at the 

water works and the sewer plant surely can’t be that dangerous.’’ On the contrary, 

the men and women I work with enter hundreds of underground vaults, trenches 

and pits several hundred times each and every year. On any given day, the potentially lethal atmosphere in a vault and other similar confined spaces as well as the 

potential for a trench collapse can turn their work deadly. Many of these trench entries are in the middle of heavy-traffic streets and highways, which not only compounds trench stability issues but also poses risks to workers on the street level who 

must try to control the never-ending flow of traffic. 

Water and wastewater treatment requires a huge amount of electrical pumps and 

motors. Therefore, my colleagues must work with or near thousands of low and high 

voltage electrocution hazards every day. Chemicals are used throughout various 

water department operations and many of these constitute potential health hazards 

if not properly used. Chlorine gas is an essential product for keeping our drinking 

water safe but, if improperly handled or transported, can quickly become lethal for 

the workers and nearby citizens. Operating large construction equipment like 

earthmovers, backhoes, and cranes is another daily task that can become risky if 

appropriate safety procedures are not followed and enforced. Office staff faces everything from carpal tunnel injuries and other ergonomic hazards to workplace violence 

from being assaulted by disgruntled customers. In short, people who think that 

working for a city water department is low risk work that does not need OSHA protections are wrong. 

My experience in a municipal water department is only one example of the need 

for public sector occupational safety and health coverage. People working in hundreds of other job specialties within the state and local government arena face no 

less dangerous safety, health and environmental risks and deserve the same protections they would enjoy if they were doing these jobs in the private sector. 

The Risks to Government Workers 

Good reasons support what ASSE hopes will be action by this Subcommittee to 

protect public sector workers across the United States. From my own view as a public sector employee, the simplest but most compelling reason is that saving lives and 

preventing injuries always tops the list of values that our government holds dear 

in every other responsibility it undertakes. State and local government workers are, 

in many instances, the ‘‘first responders’’ upon whom we all depend. Whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, these first responders are the first people who 

rush in to help save lives. We put a premium on that capability in our society. 

These same people who protect the public from hazards deserve the no less of a 

commitment to occupational safety and health protections from their employers, the 

public, and all of us here today. 

Please note that, when I say ‘‘first responders,’’ the term encompasses much more 

than the usual perception of law enforcement and fire fighters. I know from personal experience that water and wastewater people are right there in the middle 

of most disasters, moving throughout the affected areas to keep the infrastructure 

up and running. Hurricane Katrina taught many people a valuable lesson that people in my line of work have always known—a city is a miserable place when it is 

without electrical power and communications system. Cut off the water and waste 

water systems, and a safe and habitable city no longer exists. 

That occupational safety and health risks are a problem for public sector workers 

is clear. The U. S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us that, 

from 1992 to 2001, 6,455 employees of government entities at all levels were fatally 

injured while at work. During that period, the annual number fluctuated from a 

high of 780 in 1995 to a low of 566 in 1999. Among the three levels of government—

federal, state and local—workers in local government, which accounted for 50 perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:34 Nov 14, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-41\35345.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
39

cent of all government employment, incurred the highest number (3,227) of occupational fatalities over the period. 

Because government workers are employed in a wide variety of occupations, they 

provide a diverse cross section of workers to examine. Of the 6,455 government employees that were fatally injured on the job from 1992 to 2001, 5,694 (88 percent) 

were men and the remaining 761 (12 percent) were women. In terms of age, 12 percent of the fatally injured workers were aged 24 years and under, 26 percent were 

aged 25 to 34, 24 percent were aged 35 to 44, 22 percent were aged 45 to 54, and 

16 percent were aged 55 and over. Caucasian workers accounted for 77 percent of 

all workplace fatalities in government over the 10-year span; they accounted for 73 

percent of total workplace fatalities. Black workers accounted for 12 percent of the 

fatalities in government and 10 percent of overall workplace fatalities. Hispanic 

workers represented 6 percent of the fatalities in government and 11 percent of 

overall workplace fatalities. 

Approximately half of the fatal occupational injuries to government workers resulted from transportation incidents. The next largest event or exposure category 

was assaults and violent acts, which accounted for 22 percent of the workplace fatalities in government over the 1992-2001 period. The next most common event or 

exposure category among government workers was exposure to harmful substances 

or environments, which accounted for 426 (7 percent) workplace fatalities during the 

period. Of these, 159 involved contact with electric current, and 139 involved oxygen 

deficiency. A total of 423 government workers were killed through contact with objects or equipment—most (257) from being struck by an object. Finally, 359 government workers lost their lives in falls, and 270 died in fires and explosions. It must 

be noted that these totals do not include the many public sector fatalities that resulted from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The public sector is subject 

to the same difficult questions facing private industry about underreported deaths 

from work-related illnesses that are not recorded. Many occupational exposures to 

chemicals and toxic substances, such as crystalline silica and asbestos, result in illnesses with a long latency period. The correlation between workplace exposure and 

death is often missed when the worker succumbs fifteen or more years after leaving 

the workforce. 

What is not available are complete data comparing the injury and illness and fatality rates of states whose public sector workers have safety and health coverage 

and states not requiring such coverage. ASSE has undertaken its own review of 

what we believe is incomplete data and would be happy to share what we have 

found with Subcommittee staff. However, the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the problem is needed. ASSE urges this Subcommittee to task OSHA 

and BLS to work together to devise a way to develop this data and share it with 

the Subcommittee as quickly as possible. 

From my own experience and the experience of my fellow safety and health professionals, rates should be lower in states that have established health and safety 

requirements and OSHA oversight than rates in states where no one takes responsibility for workplace safety, as is found in the private sector in comparisons between 

companies who are committed to safety and health and those that are not. Although 

the data may not be clear, we know for sure that hundreds of state and local government workers are killed and thousands injured each year. Because private industry widely accepts that workplace health and safety programs do prevent or mitigate 

the effects of workplace hazard exposures, it is difficult to understand why so many 

state and local governments do not better protect their workers with OSHA coverage. 

An Unfunded Mandate? 

In the early 1990s, the labor movement attempted several revisions of the OSH 

Act. One of these revisions would have provided the coverage for all public employees that we seek today. At that time, reportedly, the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors and the Association of State Legislators opposed coverage. The 

primary objections were that such a requirement would be an ‘‘unfunded mandate,’’ 

that it would ‘‘cost too much,’’ or that ‘‘we don’t need it because we take good care 

of our public employees.’’ These are not supportable positions 

I can appreciate the sentiment behind the unfunded mandate argument. As a supervisor, I likewise struggle each year to keep on top of ever-changing regulatory 

requirements from various levels of government. Yet, as a professional with a moral 

commitment to protecting the citizens of San Bernardino, I also accept that part of 

my job is to stay current and help see we do our best to take care of our citizens 

and our employees with whatever limitations there are on resources. I do not shirk 

my duty. 

40

As a safety professional, I reject that safety costs too much. Most importantly, not 

spending money to protect state and local government worker’s health and safety 

sends a message that such workers are expendable, that it is cheaper to kill or injure employees than to protect them. As the best working corporations across this 

country have found, investment in managing safety, health and environmental risks 

pays in more productive employees, fewer accidents, less injuries and deaths in 

workers that can only take from a company’s bottom line. Although not the direct 

subject of this hearing, the benefits of investing in safety and health can be found 

on ASSE’s Business of Safety Committee’s website at http://www.asse.org/

search.php?varSearch=business+of+safety, ASSE’s white paper, ‘‘Return on Investment for Safety, Health and Environmental Programs’’ at http://www.asse.org/

search.php?varSearch=return+on+investment, and the safety and health topics page 

on OSHA’s website, ‘‘Making the Business Case for Safety and Health’’ developed 

by OSHA, ASSE and other Alliance participant leaders in safety and health at 

http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/products/topics/businesscase/index.html. No doubt, taxpayers would like to know why their governments do not have the same concern 

over bottom line issues that private sector employers widely accept. 

As to the argument that government employers already take good care of their 

employees without a mandate, the contradiction is obvious. The numbers of deaths 

alone among public sector workers contradict this statement. If a government entity’s employees are well cared for, it could not cost more to follow OSHA standards 

because an entity would already be making the commitment required by those 

standards. I receive this coverage, and I do not believe the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department is any less a good steward of taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars 

than water departments where coverage is not provided. 

In fact, a recent tragedy in a municipal water department in Florida, where 

OSHA coverage is not mandated, provided a telling demonstration of why providing 

such coverage is both a moral and an economic imperative. On January 11, 2006, 

an explosion at the City of Daytona Beach’s Bethune Waste Water Treatment Plant 

killed two municipal employees and gravely injured a third. In 2000, Florida had 

stopped requiring state entities to provide safety and health coverage, giving public 

sector employers the choice to provide such coverage voluntarily. Six years later, 

Daytona Beach did not have a commonly found ‘‘hotwork’’ permit system used by 

OSHA to control cutting and welding operations. The city also did not have a hazard 

communication plan to train workers on the hazards of the flammable chemicals 

they were told to work above. When sparks from their cutting torches ignited the 

flammable liquid tank, two of the workers burnt to death and the third was critically injured. 

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) investigated and 

found that the tragedy was preventable if the city had been required to follow the 

same OSHA standards as private industry. ASSE shares the conclusion CSB Chairman and CEO Carolyn W. Merritt captured when she said, ‘‘Workers in private industry benefit from a variety of OSHA standards designed to prevent death and injury, and public sector employees deserve no less.’’ CSB’s completed investigation report is at http://www.chemsafety.gov/index.cfm?folder=completed—

investigations&page=info&INV—ID=57. Now, ASSE members in Florida are engaged in an effort to see to it that Florida public sector workers do receive occupational safety and health coverage. Due to their work, we fully expect a bill to be 

introduced in next year’s legislature that would reverse the state’s policy that such 

coverage need only be voluntary. 

ASSE’s members understand, though, that the surest way to achieve coverage for 

Florida’s workers and every one of the 8.5 million public sector workers who do not 

have such coverage is an amendment to the federal OSH Act. ASSE fully supports 

provisions in the bills introduced this year by you, Chairwoman Woolsey (HR 2049) 

and Senator Kennedy (SB 1244) that would do just that. Until coverage is made federal law, however, ASSE’s members will continue to work for solutions at the state 

level, as our members are already doing in Florida. 

Conclusion 

ASSE greatly appreciates this opportunity to share our views today. Since 1970, 

a missing section in the OSH Act has lessened the well being of 8.5 million public 

sector workers who are not protected from occupational safety and health risks as 

private sector workers are. The time has come to be fair to all those public sector 

workers who risk their well being for all of us. The 30,000 members of ASSE stand 

ready to help this Subcommittee achieve that fairness. 

Whatever questions the Subcommittee has for me, I would be more than happy 

to answer. 

41

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much to all four of you. 

I will begin the questioning with you, Mr. Sarvadi. 

I know you think it is better that rather than amend OSHA that 

states be given incentives to comply with OSHA standards, but I 

ask you: The federal government has already provided matching 

funds of their very own for OSHA-approved programs, and after 37 

years, only 21 states have OSHA-approved state plans, and only 

three states have plans cover public employees only. 

What are we going to do with the other 26 states? Why do you 

think good faith works when it doesn’t? What would you do if you 

were in our shoes? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, let me clarify a couple of points, Madam 

Chairman, about the matching funds that OSHA provides. Those 

matching funds go to support the enforcement programs that those 

21 states operate. That covers private-sector employees as well. So 

the money that is available in those funds is for operation of the 

state program similar to OSHA’s funding. 

What I am talking about in terms of additional funding that 

would encourage the other states to participate would be the kinds 

of grants that would go to pay for the kinds of programs that the 

water department in San Bernardino has and that the City of Daytona obviously needs. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Well, let me reclaim my time to ask 

then, Mr. Turnipseed, why are you able to follow OSHA standards 

in San Bernardino? That is part of your job. Why can you do that? 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. Obviously, you know, my city, my water department is committed to following OSHA—in this case, CAL-OSHA 

standards. We are a state program state. They are very committed 

to making sure that our public-sector workers know what to do, the 

right way to do it, and we do not have tragedies like Ms. Jones has 

just gone through. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Tell me what you think after reviewing 

the report on the Daytona Beach’s safety program. Explain how 

this explosion could have been prevented. I mean, you have read 

it. 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. Yes. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Your association has made a report on it. 

Would you tell us about that? 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. The tragedy for me is there are two very, very 

basic OSHA programs that were totally neglected here. If they are 

not training their folks—and we call it hazard communication—on 

the chemicals and the substances you work with, that is a very 

basic thing that everybody needs to know. Everybody has a right 

to know. In fact, it is known as the Right to Know law. 

Hot work permits—how you deal with welding and cutting and 

brazing, anything that generates a spark—that is a very basic simple thing that we all know and we all follow. By following those 

very simple basic things, this tragedy would have been totally preventable. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Jones, to your knowledge, did your husband’s employer take 

any steps to investigate the incident and report to you, the family, 

the cause? 

42

Ms. JONES. When the explosion first happened, they were all 

right there wanting to help, wanting to find out things, why this 

happened, what can we do better. The day of his funeral, I had the 

city commissioner tell me that ‘‘whatever we could do to change 

this, we will.’’

Nothing has been changed except they hired a safety officer in 

the City of Daytona Beach. As far as I know, the city has not told 

me nothing else besides why, how. It just seems like they keep 

pointing fingers behind each other. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. So, without the report of the Chemical 

Safety Board, would you have known any of the facts about how 

it happened? 

Ms. JONES. No. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Fillman, when OSHA was passed 37 years ago giving the 

states the option of covering state, county and municipal employees, why do you think only half of the states became involved in 

it and what would the obstacles be for a state to offer to be part 

of OSHA? 

Mr. FILLMAN. I can only talk about my experience in Pennsylvania, and in Pennsylvania, for the last 20 years, we have tried to 

submit on 10 different occasions a bill to give OSHA protection to 

public employees. It really has not gone far because the opponents 

of it always raise the issues of unfunded mandates, staffing that 

would have to be accomplished, which really is not the intent of 

OSHA-type bills at all. 

So we have not been successful in Pennsylvania, and I think the 

opposite is true that if an OSHA-type bill was in place for public 

employees in Pennsylvania, not only would the possibility of some 

of the deaths that we have, especially in the highway work, have 

been prevented, but a lot of lost wages, lost time, disability pensions, those kinds of things would have been averted. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here today. 

Particularly, Ms. Jones, thank you for being here. Your courage 

is a tribute to your husband, and so it is just been very meaningful 

to have you here. Thank you. 

Mr. Turnipseed, I am delighted to see you. My youngest son is 

studying engineering, so I appreciate your profession. 

In your testimony, you indicated that in 1994 when this issue 

came up to cover state and municipal employees that organizations, 

such as the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors and the Association of State Legislators, opposed the coverage. Do you know 

if they have changed their position? 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. I honestly do not know what their current position is. 

Mr. WILSON. And at that time, it was largely due to the issue of 

unfunded mandates. 

Additionally, in your testimony, you suggest that states who 

have adopted their own programs have a better safety and health 

record than those of federal OSHA states. From that, would it seem 

that the best answer is for the states to take the programs? What 

43

measures and incentives do you think we could provide that could 

promote delegation, if any? 

Mr. TURNIPSEED. Certainly. I believe the state program states 

are the best. Obviously, you know, when you know your local issues 

better than anybody else, you do a little bit better job. That just 

goes without saying. 

We need OSHA, though, in those states that do not have anything. Right now, those folks are out just running blind in the 

minefield, and that is ridiculous in this day and age. As far as encouraging other folks to have state plans, all I can say is money 

always helps everything. If we can increase the money for state 

plan states, giving OSHA more money to help in those areas would 

always be a good thing to have. 

Mr. WILSON. Indeed, I have seen that with EPA delegating to the 

Department of Health and Environmental Control in our state that 

it has enhanced the environment. 

Then I have worked with the Corps of Engineers to delegate to 

state agencies permittings because locally people know, and it is 

quite a burden to have to contact a regional office in Atlanta or, 

heaven forbid, Washington, D.C. 

People do not even know how to pronounce different communities. It may be Buford in South Carolina and Beaufort in North 

Carolina, and by the time the bureaucrat figures which it is, they 

have lost track of which state they are talking with. So I really 

would like it to be municipal and state. 

Mr. Sarvadi, you have testified very well. With your extensive career, and as an attorney, I appreciate your background. By imposing federal standards and inspectors on to the states, will that ensure employee safety? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, I think I answered that but maybe a bit indirectly in my statement, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. It does not guarantee it, right. 

Mr. SARVADI. It does not guarantee it, and certainly, taking steps 

to implement a safety and health program is going to improve the 

chances of not having these kinds of tragedies. 

I think the point that was made by Mr. Andrews first and maybe 

some of the others in their opening statements about the benefits 

to a workers compensation program that comes from having the 

safety and health program, certainly the money that they save 

there could go towards supporting some of these programs. 

But the way the legislation presently is written, if OSHA were 

to have authority and started to go in and inspect the City of Daytona or another agency outside of the state plan states, then OSHA 

would have the same enforcement authority—that is penalty authority—that presently it has with regard to private-sector employers, and I just do not see the utility of having a state government 

agency or a local government agency taking money out of its budget that would better be used to improve the safety and health programs in those states and pay it to the federal Treasury, and that 

is what the present arrangement would suggest. 

I do not see how that improves safety and health in any way. So 

I really think, especially with this administration’s program, in the 

voluntary protection program and other cooperative programs that 

OSHA has developed, we have seen dramatic improvements in 

44

those industries that are participating in those. I think it is time 

for us to start seriously thinking about another approach besides 

a hammer, maybe a few more carrots on the table, to get those 

states that are not in the programs now to do so in the future. 

Mr. WILSON. In line with that theory of the carrot, my state’s 

own safety plan would be more productive and efficient for employee safety than the federal OSHA mandates, and how might 

states without plans be encouraged, as you were just implying, to 

implement their own safety plans for state and local government 

employees? 

Mr. SARVADI. I think that one way to approach this would be to 

target the grants that OSHA would be authorized to pay out and 

maybe OSHA is not the best place to do this. Maybe it should be 

through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

I have not given any thought to the mechanism. 

But if those grants were targeted to specific activities—for example, to pay for a safety and health manager at a city or local level, 

to help pay for training to be made available to the state and city 

employees—you accomplish the same end, and you do it in a way 

that does not interfere with the states’ abilities to manage their 

program. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Bishop from New York? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

And thanks to the panel, particularly Ms. Jones. Thank you very 

much for being here. 

Mr. Sarvadi, do you consider the imposition of a national OSHA 

standard on the states that right now do not follow such a standard 

to be a violation of state sovereignty? 

Mr. SARVADI. Personally, I am a little bit uncomfortable with 

having the federal government dealing at that level in the relations 

between the state and its employees, but, as I said in my opening 

remarks, the Supreme Court seems to be two-minded about this. 

In every case that is directly addressed, for example, under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act, 

both of those decisions that I looked at were 5-4 decisions, so it is 

not clear that constitutionally we have that. 

Mr. BISHOP. So it would——

Mr. SARVADI. Personally, I think, I expect my state and local government officials to do the right thing, and the right thing is to 

have a safety and health program. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think we would all agree in an ideal world that 

that would be the case, but, I mean, the record is replete with examples where the federal government has imposed a national 

standard. 

We have a national standard for handicapped access. We have a 

national standard for how students with special needs are to be 

treated. We have a national standard for what educational expectations would be for K through 12 students. Under current law, the 

president has the authority to deploy the National Guard in each 

state as he sees fits. 

45

How do you see this issue not rising to the same level of importance as those issues, such that one would reasonably argue that 

we do not need a national standard? 

Mr. SARVADI. I do not think it is correct to say that we do not 

have a national standard. In the 26 or 27 states and territories 

that have state plans, they are following the federal standards. In 

a number of the other non-state plan states, they have state mandates to follow the federal standards—not their own standards, the 

federal standards. 

I will admit because of the shortness of the time that I had to 

prepare for the hearing, I was not able to go out and look at all 

of the states, and I would encourage this committee to ask the Congressional Research Service to find out exactly what——

Mr. BISHOP. Let me just go to a specific case. It is my understanding that Florida had a non-federally approved standard, 

which then-Governor Bush abolished in 2000. In the absence of a 

national standard, a governor is free to do that, under current law, 

as I understand it. 

Using the construct that you are proposing, which is some system of carrots as opposed to sticks, how do you see that working 

to incentivize a Governor Bush or others who are likeminded to follow a federal standard and not to, in effect, voluntarily withdraw 

from the system? 

Mr. SARVADI. I am glad you asked me about Florida because I 

want to set the record straight, if I can. Again, I did not have a 

lot of time to look at this, but I did look specifically at Florida. 

The Florida legislature repealed the statutory requirement. Subsequent to that, I believe it was Governor Bush who issued an executive order requiring state and local governments to comply with 

federal OSHA standards, and I believe that is the case in Florida 

today. 

So the issue in Florida is an interesting one in light of the accidents that occurred and it is interesting to me to pass the question 

perhaps to the City of Daytona officials about why they have not 

complied with that executive order. That executive order approach 

is the one, in fact, that we use at the federal level. 

Mr. BISHOP. If I may use that as a segue to Ms. Jones, again, 

thank you very much for being here. Are you aware of any official 

actions taken by the City of Daytona Beach to prevent tragedies 

such as the type that took your husband or any other formal response to that tragedy on the part of the City of Daytona Beach? 

Ms. JONES. The only formal response that I can recall that the 

city has announced that they have done since the accident in 2006 

is to hire a safety manager to oversee any kind of work to be done, 

to follow guidelines, and the only reason I even found that out is 

they came out in the papers. 

You know, it is kind of funny. They eliminated the position years 

ago, but within 3 months of my husband passing away, they have 

a safety officer they could not afford just the year or 2 before, but 

they found it in the budget now since then to keep this position. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

And just to clarify, Mr. Sarvadi, the executive order signed by 

Governor Bush applied to state employees only. It did not apply to 

city or other municipal employees. 

46

Mr. SARVADI. As I said, I did not have a lot of time to get ready 

for this. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Shea-Porter? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. 

I have some concerns, if I could address those, please. What I am 

disturbed about, Mr. Sarvadi, is the way you are acting as if we 

can count on private industry and we can also count on governments to just do the right thing because they are good citizens. 

The reason that we have courts is because we do not always do 

the right thing. So I have trouble with your basic premise there 

that we just leave it up to them because they will do the right 

thing. 

And we have Ms. Jones sitting next to you, and I offer my deepest sympathies. It is a tragedy that was not necessary because the 

right thing was not done. 

So I wanted to ask you a question about—and you also pointed 

out that it does not guarantee compliance, and so I guess you get 

right back to: Do you believe in seat belts? Putting seat belts in 

cars does not guarantee compliance, and compliance does not guarantee safety, but we know it sure helps a lot. We have seen the 

change in numbers when people started using seatbelts. 

So I cannot quite understand where you are coming from. I know 

you have a certain set philosophy, but can you address what I just 

brought up in terms of: Do we have to have some set of protections 

for these employees and their families? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, let me address, if I can, the point that you 

made about voluntary compliance, which is sort of a misnomer because there is nothing voluntary about complying with OSHA for 

the private sector, and in those states that have state laws, there 

is nothing voluntary about that either. 

But we do rely in this country not only in the occupational safety 

and health area, but in other areas like the Internal Revenue Service on the good citizens of the country to do the right thing. 

I think our experience with the IRS—and with OSHA, for that 

matter, with the Occupational Safety and Health Act—is that, for 

the most part, our citizens do the right thing. So the question is: 

What is the best way to get the rest of them up to speed? 

It seems to me that the notion that if we pass this requirement 

and bring these states into the federal plan that magically things 

will change and, all of a sudden, they will be doing all the things 

that we think they should be doing, that does not happen. Our experience in the private sector shows that we do have people that 

do not do the right thing, and of course, that is why we have courts 

and why we have enforcement. 

But I do not think the American people—and I certainly personally would be opposed to the notion of having an OSHA inspector 

on every workplace. That is not going to work. We are never going 

to pay for that kind of response, and, in fact, it would not really 

make any difference. 

47

The OSHA inspectors are good people, and they do work hard, 

but, in fact, they cannot be everywhere every minute, and these 

kinds of things sometimes occur randomly without expectations. 

So the best we can hope to is to educate not only the employees 

but the managers about the importance of these things and about 

the ways to prevent injuries and illnesses from happening and then 

to learn from the experience of the past and make sure that we do 

the things differently in the future, so they never happen again. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, first of all, I hate to bring you bad news, 

but when the IRS started cutting down the number of compliance 

officers, the rate of compliance dropped. So it certainly does help 

to have somebody watching. 

When I was reading your testimony, you wrote that the idea that 

public employees need a stick to force them into compliance—you 

said it makes little sense, and that most private employers comply 

with OSHA regulations because they are good citizens. 

Now I could agree with you that most people are good people, but 

we should not each time let somebody like Ms. Jones and her family suffer so that we can ‘‘learn’’ the next time to prevent the next 

accident. 

I do think it is our responsibility to prevent accidents instead of 

trying to learn from them, and I have not heard anything else offered besides the idea that you have to have people on the job who 

are the eyes and the ears for our public workers. 

I just have not heard anything different today, but I thank you 

for your comments. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding the hearing. 

Mr. Sarvadi, let me ask you, in the years that you have been 

doing all of this, how many safety and health inspections have you 

done in public employee workplaces where OSHA standards did not 

apply? 

Mr. SARVADI. How many I have personally done? 

Mr. HARE. Yes. Have you ever done any like at a public work 

yard or a wastewater treatment plant? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, while I was in law school, I was a consultant 

for a company that had contracts with Prince William County, the 

D.C. government, and there may have been some other government 

agencies for asbestos inspections. So that is the kind of thing that 

we did. 

I am not sure that those were voluntary. There was a lot of public pressure from families to look into asbestos in the schools, and 

there were some statutory provisions, but——

Mr. HARE. Well——

Mr. SARVADI. I do not do inspections. Mr. Hare, I do not do inspections per se anymore. I have not done them for about 20 years. 

Mr. HARE. Well, let me ask you this. If you had a choice, Mr. 

Sarvadi, would you rather go into a trench or to a confined space 

where there were OSHA standards and you had work or where 

there were not OSHA standards? 

Mr. SARVADI. The point, I think, is that it is not the OSHA 

standard that makes any difference. Part of OSHA adopting the 

confined spaces standard——

48

Mr. HARE. No, I am saying to you would you rather go someplace 

where there is a standard, or would you rather go to work someplace where there is no standard whatsoever? 

Mr. SARVADI. I worked at a company that had standards before 

the federal government had them, before the federal government 

imposed them, and my point is that the standards are not uniquely 

effective because they are federal standards. They are effective because they address the technical issues that occur. 

The point to be made is that people need to do these things, and 

states and local governments need to do them just as much as the 

private sector or even Congress in its offices need to do these 

things. We all have a responsibility. I just do not think that the 

proposed legislation with this mandate for penalties on state and 

local government necessarily is the best way to go about it. 

Mr. HARE. Well, in your statement, you said, ‘‘I do not believe it 

is possible to write regulations to address what are essentially infrequent occurrences.’’ In your 35 years of practicing as an industrial hygienist in occupational safety, have you ever heard of the 

OSHA lockout-tagout standard? 

Mr. SARVADI. Of course. We had that standard in place before 

OSHA adopted it many years ago. 

Mr. HARE. After the incident that killed Mrs. Jones’ husband, 

would you refer to that as an infrequent occurrence and could that 

have been prevented had basic OSHA standards been followed? 

Mr. SARVADI. I think the incident could have been prevented and 

training provided to the employees that would have helped them 

recognize the hazards, but, as I read the CSB report, I believe the 

way the accident occurred was that the welding sparks fell into the 

vent, and the vent had a flame arrestor that had been corroded and 

degraded, and it was that combination of things that occurred that 

actually led to the fire and the explosion. 

That is the kind of technical analysis that you get into. Would 

a lockout-tagout program have prevented that particular incident? 

I do not believe so because it was not a question of having uncontrolled energy present. It was a problem of having the vent open 

to the atmosphere, and the lockout-tagout standard I do not believe 

would have applied in that particular situation. 

Mr. HARE. Well, it seems to me that when people go to work 

every day—and, Ms. Jones, I am sure when your husband got up 

and went to work every day—people have, I think, a right to assume that they are going to someplace that is reasonably safe and 

where there are some standards to keep them safe. 

What I do not understand is the reluctance, quite frankly, to expand this to a group of people who need the protection. I mean, it 

would seem to me, if we are going to allow the good will of folks 

to determine this—as my colleague has already mentioned, you 

know, they have seat belts in cars. You know, we have speed limits. It does not mean that people always obey them, but the fact 

of the matter is I do not know why we cannot seem to err on the 

side of the worker and give them the protection that they need. 

I do not think federal grants, with all due respect, to get cities 

to comply is the answer here. I think that those types of accidents, 

infrequent as they are, they are tragic. 

49

Listen, if we do nothing, if we do nothing except say, ‘‘Well, we 

want the states, you know, to be good citizens and try this and we 

will not get any pressure from the feds to try to get them to live 

up to their end of the bargain,’’ I think that is really disrespectful 

to the workers, to get up every day and for their families that depend on them to come home at night. 

So, with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, and let me thank you for calling this very important hearing. 

We have been very active in New Jersey with OSHA. We had a 

leader from the IUE years ago, Archer Cole, who used to have an 

annual funeral, and a number of people who died from occupational 

hazards and accidents would have a funeral to commemorate the 

lives of those persons. 

So, as you know, we are one of the three states—just Connecticut, New York and New Jersey—that have a public employee 

only plan, which really establishes the public employee only where 

the state government enforces safety and health protection for the 

public sector, and the federal government covers the private sector. 

But we really take the whole question of occupational safety and 

health in New Jersey very, very seriously. 

Let me just ask you, Mr. Fillman, the OSHA law gave the states 

the option of covering state, county and municipal employees 37 

years ago, yet less than one-half of the states have stepped up to 

the plate. What are some of the obstacles you have faced in Pennsylvania attempting to get OSHA coverage for public employees 

and, in your opinion, do other states face the similar obstacles? 

Mr. FILLMAN. As I stated before, I can speak for Pennsylvania, 

and I do not think the obstacles that were outlined when we proposed—that we have proposed 10 times in the last 20 years—the 

opponents of that type of bill are any different than any state, and 

that is the unfunded mandates. 

It is the misnomer of added staffing, the misconception that 

buildings would have to be torn down because they are not safe 

any longer, a whole realm of mistruths, if you will, that are 

brought—and staggering numbers that are attached to those—and 

that is really the idea behind the defeat of that bill on most occasions. 

Mr. PAYNE. Could you give me one reason that has been given 

for not providing OSHA coverage for all public employees? One of 

the reasons that we hear is that it would bankrupt the states and 

counties, and so what do you think about this, and do you, in fact, 

believe that covering public employees by a federal OSHA plan 

would save states money, and if so, how? 

Mr. FILLMAN. Yes, definitely. We feel that the loss of time, the 

workers compensation claims, disability, pensions if it is a more severe injury, the replacement of a worker if a worker is out, the 

training that goes with replacing that worker, the lost wages, if I 

have not said that already, all of those things would be cost factors 

that would be alleviated if we had less accidents, more safeguards 

in place and ultimately less deaths in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, I am sure, for the rest of the states. 

50

Mr. PAYNE. Finally, could you spend a little time telling us about 

some of the workplace accidents that have taken place in Pennsylvania that, in your opinion, may have been prevented if public employees were covered by OSHA? 

Mr. FILLMAN. We have the most significant and dangerous work 

and sometimes it is not really represented, is the highway. We 

have lost over 100 members, 100 employees of the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania since 1970 that have died on the highways. 

We have tried to piecemeal some protections when it comes to 

highway work with construction work safety zones, increasing 

fines, as best as we can, but unless the standards are in place as 

far as working on the highways and giving the employees the benefit of having a standard and safeguards in place, there would have 

been less than those 100 deaths. 

We have had incidents in the custodial area dealing with chemical safety, a mismix of chemicals without any standards in place. 

I just had heard of an incident at one of our universities where 

without an OSHA standard or an OSHA compliance officer, there 

was a question as far as an electrical panel box over what is known 

as a slop sink in the custodial work area where our member had 

to actually, through the network in the union, find out someone 

that knew about electrical compliance and standards to find out if 

the area was safe. And it was an unsafe area, but the employer 

was not in the position of helping enforce that compliance. 

So, at times, we are battling it ourselves without any real standard or compliance officer that could help. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Well, thank you all. 

Oh, wait a minute. I forgot. Mr. Andrews from New Jersey? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony. 

I thank you again for the courtesy of the privilege of participating in the hearing. 

Mr. Sarvadi, let me say from the outset I appreciate your testimony. I do not agree with your conclusion that we are asked to encourage states and localities to cover public workers is the right 

idea. 

But let’s say for a minute that it became the law and let’s say 

that we offer these more generous grants and 20 states say, ‘‘No, 

we are not interested in these grants. We just do not think it is 

a very good idea, and we are not going to offer standards comparable to OSHA or OSHA standards to cover public employees.’’

What should we do? 

Mr. SARVADI. Find out if those people had a recent psychiatric 

examination because I do not think states ever turn down money 

from the federal government. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Oh, I do not think that is true. Oh, I do not think 

that is true at all. The federal government offers abstinence education money, but states believe that is an intrusion on their curriculum and do not do so. We offer money in exchange for meeting 

certain enhanced clean water and clean air standards and people 

turn it down because they do not want to do so. 

I think you have to assume that because the amount of money 

here would be relatively modest that there would be people who 

51

would turn this down. So what do we do when someone turns this 

down? What should we do then? 

Mr. SARVADI. I think we better wait and see what happens. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well——

Mr. SARVADI. I do not agree with you that the states will turn 

the money down, and depending on how much it is, it depends on 

what you are going to ask them to do. If the money is available for 

them to fund specific positions in the state government to address 

these things, it seems to me most of the states, if not all of them, 

will take that money. The problem is——

Mr. ANDREWS. Have you surveyed the states to ask them this, or 

how do you know this? 

Mr. SARVADI. I do not think anybody has asked the states what 

they would do under those circumstances because I think this is 

the first time that we have had this conversation. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, your testimony implies that you believe that 

the present incentives that are offered to pay for state employees 

who inspect private employers are insufficient. By what measure 

are they insufficient because there is an incentive system in place, 

right? 

Mr. SARVADI. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. ANDREWS. You testified earlier that the present OSHA 

grants and incentives pay states to help them hire personnel to inspect private employers, but that does not extend to state employees, right? 

Mr. SARVADI. No, it does not extend. These are the state plan 

states. In those states, the money that is given to them goes to operate the state OSHA plan which does cover the public employees 

in those states. 

Mr. ANDREWS. But you must think that because everybody has 

not done that, that that offer is insufficient to get everybody to 

jump on board this financial gravy train, right? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, remember what I said. The money is not 

going to pay for safety managers in the different state agencies. 

The money goes to the state enforcement agency to enforce it. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I see. 

Mr. SARVADI. What I am suggesting is that the money should be 

made available to pay for the safety program itself. 

Mr. ANDREWS. So we should pay the salaries of state employees 

to manage their own safety programs in cities and states out of the 

federal Treasury. Is that what you think? 

Mr. SARVADI. I am suggesting that if you want to give them an 

incentive to adopt——

Mr. ANDREWS. Wow. 

Mr. SARVADI [continuing]. Programs like the ones that are mandated in the state plan states, that that is one approach that could 

be taken. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Why should we stop there? Why should not we 

pay them to hire their division of taxation employees to do a better 

job collecting taxes? Why should not we pay them to have their environmental employees do a better job inspecting federal environmental laws? Why stop with just OSHA then? 

Mr. SARVADI. I think we actually do pay state employees through 

grants from EPA where EPA contracts with the state to do——

52

Mr. ANDREWS. We pay them a very tiny percentage of the payroll 

of people who do that. Very, very tiny. 

Mr. SARVADI. I would guess you probably would know. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Let me ask you another question. If we had a situation where states are subject to the OSHA rules, your testimony 

is you do not think penalties for the federal Treasury are an effective means of encouraging compliance. 

What is then? If someone is required to do something and if they 

do not do it they are not fined or penalized, what is an effective 

means of making people comply? 

Mr. SARVADI. Well, it seems to me if we were talking about state 

and local governments, simply the fact that having it become publicly known that they are out of compliance would be an incentive 

for the political authorities in those jurisdictions to reorient the career employees to do so. 

Beyond that, I have not given a lot of thought to it at this point. 

Mr. ANDREWS. What would you think if the fines were put into 

a fund that was dedicated to deal with the medical costs of injured 

workers? 

Mr. SARVADI. I guess that is what the workers compensation system already does. 

Mr. ANDREWS. But wouldn’t it be a good idea to supplement that 

system to pay for injuries caused by careless practices by states? 

Isn’t that an effective fine? 

Mr. SARVADI. Anything that you can do to help the victims of 

these incidents is very important. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I take that as a yes? 

Mr. SARVADI. I would like to think about the implications of it 

before we agree unequivocally. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Okay. I am sure the chair would invite you to supplement the record with that. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Thank all of you for being here. 

Thank you, Casey, Mrs. Jones, for testifying. 

Ms. JONES. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. All of our hearts go out to you and to 

your family. I do not know if you know how important your coming 

here today was to all of us because your story puts a human face 

to the issue so that we can remember how important it is that we 

have OSHA coverage, that it is not a luxury, it is not a matter of 

dollars and cents, it is actually a matter of life and death, and it 

is an absolute necessity. 

The numbers reinforce the necessity. In 2005, the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics reported that there were over 400 work-related fatalities among state, county and municipal workers, and these 

numbers do not even take into account those public employees who 

died as a result of workplace-related diseases. 

In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of workers who are 

injured or become ill each year. In fact, in 2005, there were 570,000 

reported incidents of injury and illness among public workers. 

However, reported incidents do not tell the full story because this 

data is taken from the 26 states representing less than 60 percent 

of public workers in this country. We do not have the data for the 

53

rest of them. So actual numbers of injury and illness, of course, are 

much much higher. 

And, most importantly, the injury and illness numbers show that 

public employees are much more likely to be hurt on the job than 

private-sector employees covered by OSHA. 

In addition, although it is not the subject of this particular hearing, there are millions of other workers, including air traffic controllers, flight attendants, rail workers and other transportation 

workers. who receive inferior workplace safety and health protections from federal agencies other than OSHA. They need to be covered by OSHA as well. 

Earlier this spring, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Protecting America’s Workers Act, which would not only mandate that 

OSHA cover all public employees, but it would increase penalties 

and make it much easier to send people to jail who kill their employees. It enhances the protections of the Whistleblower Act, and 

it gives more rights to families. 

Representative Andrews has a similar bill which requires OSHA 

to cover public employees as well. 

This hearing has once again pointed out this urgent need for 

OSHA coverage of state, county and municipal workers. As chair 

of this subcommittee, I will work very hard to accomplish that very 

goal. 

I thank you all for coming here today. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

As previously ordered, members will have 7 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any members who wish to 

submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within 7 days. 

Now, without objection, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you 

very much. 

[Letter from Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., submitted 

by Mr. Wilson, follows:]

54


abc-1.eps
55

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ


abc-2.eps