U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–235 PDF 2017

PROMOTING SAFE WORKPLACES THROUGH 

EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE 

RECORDKEEPING STANDARDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 25, 2016 

Serial No. 114–50 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Dave Brat, Virginia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 25, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ... 1 

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

Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Sapper, Mr. Arthur G., Partner, McDermott Will and Emery LLP, Washington D.C. .................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54 

Sarvadi, Mr. David, Partner, Keller and Heckman LLP, Washington, 

D.C. ................................................................................................................ 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Sokas, Dr. Rosemary, M.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Human 

Science, Georgetown University School of Nursing and Health Studies, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Sprick, Ms. Lisa, President, Sprick Roofing Co., Corvallis, OR ................... 30 

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

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Sapper: 

Letter dated October 27, 2015, from McDermott Will and Emery ........ 94 

Letter dated May 31, 2016, from McDermott Will and Emery ............. 107 

Chairman Walberg: 

Letter dated May 24, 2016, from AGC of America ................................. 110 

Letter dated May 31, 2016, from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and 

Feld LLP ................................................................................................. 111 

Ms. Wilson: 

GAO Report: Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data ...................... 6 

GAO Report: Better OSHA Guidance Needed on Safety Incentive 

Programs ................................................................................................ 7 

GAO Report: Additional Data Needed to Address Continued Hazards 

in the Meat and Poultry Industry ........................................................ 8 

GAO Report Links ..................................................................................... 9 

Op-ed entitled ‘‘Don’t Fear the Injury Data’’ .......................................... 78 

Warning Notice .......................................................................................... 81 

Letter dated May 23, 2016, from Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation .................................. 89 

Letter dated May 24, 2016, from the American Federation of State, 

County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ................................... 85 

Letter dated May 24, 2016, from United Steelworkers .......................... 87 

Letter dated May 25, 2016, from Public Citizen ..................................... 83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

PROMOTING SAFE WORKPLACES THROUGH 

EFFECTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE 

RECORDKEEPING STANDARDS 

Wednesday, May 25, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Tim Walberg [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walberg, Bishop, Stefanik, Wilson, 

Pocan, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representatives Kline and Scott. 

Staff Present: Bethany Aronhalt, Press Secretary; Janelle 

Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Ed Gilroy, 

Director of Workforce Policy; Jessica Goodman, Legislative Assistant; Callie Harman, Legislative Assistant; Nancy Locke, Chief 

Clerk; John Martin, Professional Staff Member; Dominique McKay, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly 

McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Loren Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; 

Olivia Voslow, Staff Assistant; Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff 

Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Christine Godinez, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, 

Minority General Counsel; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor 

Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Civil Rights Counsel; 

and Marni von Wilpert, Minority Labor Detailee. 

Chairman WALBERG. A quorum being present, the subcommittee 

will come to order. Good morning. I want to start by thanking our 

witnesses for being here today. 

As members of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, we 

greatly benefit from your expertise, and we appreciate that you 

took time out of your busy schedules to testify here today, and 

walked in from beautiful weather outside as well. Representative 

Pocan and I were trying to figure out how we could do this outdoors instead of indoors, but protocol continues. 

There are many issues under our jurisdiction that touch workplaces across the country. One of the more important issues is employee health and safety. This is a challenging issue that directly 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

impacts the lives of America’s workers and their families, and one 

that demands thoughtful and meaningful solutions. 

As I said at a hearing last month, we all agree that hardworking 

men and women should be able to earn a paycheck without risking 

a serious injury or being exposed to a deadly disease, and every 

family deserves the peace of mind that their loved ones are safe on 

the job and will come home to them. 

There is no one in this room who doubts the need for strong 

health and safety protections or that OSHA has a role to play in 

promoting safe workplaces. Reducing occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities is a priority that crosses party lines and 

stretches from the White House to the halls of Congress. 

However, there are times when we share a difference of opinion 

in how to reach that goal. One illness, one injury, or one fatality 

in the workplace is one too many. That is why as a Committee we 

believe bad actors who cut corners and put workers in harm’s way 

must be held accountable. At the same time, the administration 

should work with employers to address gaps in safety in order to 

prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. 

We also believe health and safety policies should be created with 

input from the public. Employers and their employees know better 

than most the unique safety challenges facing their workplaces. 

They are there. 

If rules coming out of Washington fail to account for those 

unique challenges, or if they are too complex and confusing to understand, they will not deliver the protections workers need. That 

is why the rulemaking process should be transparent and allow for 

public feedback. 

Unfortunately, time and time again, the Obama administration 

has pursued a different, more punitive approach. The majority of 

employers want to do the right thing, and I truly believe that, but 

instead of working with those employers to develop proactive safety 

measures, the agency is focused more on punishing everyone for actions of a few. Regulation by shaming. 

As I said, employers who jeopardize the safety of workers must 

be held accountable, but the agency’s reactive approach does nothing to help employers understand complicated regulations, and it 

does nothing to achieve our common goal of preventing tragedies 

from occurring in the first place. 

Several recent changes to OSHA’s injury and illness reporting 

standards are the latest example of this flawed approach and the 

focus of our hearing today. These new requirements significantly 

change who the standards apply to, what needs to be reported, and 

how and when OSHA must be notified. 

As is often the case, these changes will create additional layers 

of red tape, especially for small businesses with limited resources 

to fully understand complex safety standards. To make matters 

worse, the administration has advanced these expensive changes 

despite broad public concerns. 

One of the most concerning requirements calls for public posting 

of injury and illness records online without corresponding context. 

This regulatory scheme designed to shame employers will do little, 

if anything, to advance the cause of worker safety. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

What it will do is make it easier for big labor to organize and 

for trial lawyers to bring frivolous lawsuits. The agency will need 

to spend millions of dollars on this special interest tool which will 

shift scarce resources away from proactive policies to improve safety, such as inspections and compliance assistance programs, VPP 

and the like, and in the process, the agency is jeopardizing the privacy of workers’ personal information. 

This rule is not about serving the best interests of workers, it is 

about serving powerful special interests at the expense of workers. 

We owe it to working families to hold the administration accountable for its misguided policies and to call on OSHA to take a more 

responsible, effective, and collaborative approach. 

This oversight hearing is an important part of that effort and our 

commitment to protecting the health and safety of American workers. 

I look forward to today’s important discussion, and will recognize 

the Ranking Member, Ms. Wilson, for her opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walberg, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Workforce Protections 

There are many issues under our jurisdiction that touch workplaces across the 

country. One of the more important issues is employee health and safety. This is 

a challenging issue that directly impacts the lives of America’s workers and their 

families, and one that demands thoughtful and meaningful solutions. 

As I said at a hearing last month, we all agree that hardworking men and women 

should be able to earn a paycheck without risking a serious injury or being exposed 

to a deadly disease, and every family deserves the peace of mind that their loved 

ones are safe on the job. There is no one in this room who doubts the need for strong 

health and safety protections, or that OSHA has a role to play in promoting safe 

workplaces. Reducing occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities is a priority that 

crosses party lines, and stretches from the White House to the halls of Congress. 

However, there are times when we share a difference of opinion in how to reach 

that goal. One illness, one injury, or one fatality in the workplace is one too many. 

That’s why, as a committee, we believe bad actors who cut corners and put workers 

in harm’s way must be held accountable. At the same time, the administration 

should work with employers to address gaps in safety in order to prevent injuries 

and illnesses before they occur. 

We also believe health and safety policies should be created with input from the 

public. Employers and their employees know better than most the unique safety 

challenges facing their workplaces. If rules coming out of Washington fail to account 

for those unique challenges, or if they’re too complex and confusing to understand, 

they won’t deliver the protections workers need. That’s why the rulemaking process 

should be transparent and allow for public feedback. 

Unfortunately, time and again, the Obama administration has pursued a different, more punitive approach. The majority of employers want to do the right 

thing. But instead of working with those employers to develop proactive safety 

measures, the agency is focused more on punishing everyone for the actions of a 

few. 

As I said, employers who jeopardize the safety of workers must be held accountable. But the agency’s reactive approach does nothing to help employers understand 

complicated regulations, and it does nothing to achieve our common goal of preventing tragedies from occurring in the first place. 

Several recent changes to OSHA’s injury and illness reporting standards are the 

latest example of this flawed approach, and the focus of our hearing. These new requirements significantly change who the standards apply to, what needs to be reported, and how and when OSHA must be notified. As is often the case, these 

changes will create additional layers of red tape—especially for small businesses 

with limited resources to fully understand complex safety standards. And to make 

matters worse, the administration has advanced these expansive changes despite 

broad, public concerns. 

One of the most concerning requirements calls for public posting of injury and illness records online without corresponding context. This regulatory scheme designed 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

to shame employers will do little—if anything—to advance the cause of worker safety. What it will do is make it easier for Big Labor to organize, and for trial lawyers 

to bring frivolous lawsuits. The agency will need to spend millions of dollars on this 

special interest tool, which will shift scarce resources away from proactive policies 

to improve safety, such as inspections and compliance assistance programs. And in 

the process, the agency is jeopardizing the privacy of workers’ personal information. 

This rule isn’t about serving the best interests of workers—it’s about serving powerful special interests at the expense of workers. 

We owe it to working families to hold the administration accountable for its misguided policies and to call on OSHA to take a more responsible, effective, and collaborative approach. This oversight hearing is an important part of that effort and 

our commitment to protecting the health and safety of America’s workers. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chair Walberg, and many thanks to the 

witnesses who are with us here today. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was established to assure so far as possible every working man 

and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions. 

Sadly, every year, tens of thousands of Americans are severely 

injured on the job, with significant, sometimes permanent impact 

to self and family. Until last year, OSHA lacked information vital 

for effectively responding to these workplace injuries. 

In its ongoing efforts to improve workplace safety, OSHA has 

issued two rules to provide transparency about injury and illness 

rates and to ensure disclosed information is accurate. 

First, as of January 2015, OSHA requires employers to report 

work-related amputations, inpatient hospitalizations, or loss of eye 

within 24 hours. This severe injury reporting requirement is in addition to OSHA’s preexisting requirement to report all fatalities 

within eight hours. 

In the year since this requirement took effect, over 10,000 incidents were reported to Federal OSHA alone, including 2,644 amputations and 7,636 inpatient hospitalizations. 

Ideally, OSHA would inspect each workplace where a severe injury occurs, but because Congress has literally starved OSHA of 

much-needed resources, the Federal agency lacks a sufficient number of facility inspectors. For example, with only 63 inspectors in 

my home state of Florida, it would take 266 years for OSHA to inspect each workplace in Florida. 

Despite its limited resources with 24-hour reporting of severe injuries, OSHA was able to work with employers, asking them to conduct their own incident investigations, report their findings to 

OSHA, and implement remedies to eliminate hazards and prevent 

recurrence. 

For example, while a worker at a Missouri meat processing plant 

was cleaning a blender, it started up suddenly, amputating both of 

the worker’s lower arms. The employer immediately reengineered 

the blender’s computer control system, changed safety interlocks, 

and enhanced worker training and supervision, significantly reducing the risk of amputation. According to OSHA, the worker’s arms 

were surgically reattached and he is undergoing rehabilitation. 

Under its more recent efforts to protect worker safety, OSHA 

issued a final rule on May 12, 2016, requiring large employers and 

those in high hazard industries to electronically transmit to OSHA 

injury logs and annual summaries employers are already required 

to maintain and make available to their employees. OSHA will 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

make this information publically available on its Web site. OSHA 

will not collect personal identifiers. 

Prior to this rule, most workplace injury and illness logs were 

only available at the workplace, making it impossible for OSHA, 

other employers, prospective employees, investors, and public 

health researchers to know which employers have bad or good injury records. 

Some object to posting this data to OSHA’s Web site, claiming it 

could harm reputations and damage businesses. However, under 

OSHA’s 1995 data initiative, 80,000 establishments in high-risk industries were required to provide OSHA with annual summaries. 

Since 2004, OSHA posted this data to its Web site and used it to 

target its inspections to the most hazardous worksites. Under this 

new rule, however, the universe is expanded to approximately 

460,000 establishments. 

Furthermore, for the past 15 years, the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration has posted injury and illness rates allowing mine 

operators, prospective employees, and current workers to access the 

information. Indeed, MSHA posts even more information to its Web 

site than required under OSHA’s new rule. 

I would again argue that responsible employers want to demonstrate to their employees, investors, and the public eye that they 

are committed to workplace safety. Public disclosure can help 

nudge employers towards improved safety outcomes. 

DOL’s reporting rules also seek to ensure injury and illness reports and records are accurate. This means addressing the major 

problem of underreporting of injuries, as recommended by two GAO 

reports for this Committee. These GAO reports document how employer policies, such as rate-based safety incentive programs, discourage workers from reporting injuries. 

One can easily imagine how programs that cut potential employee bonuses when the worksite injury rate goes up can have a 

chilling effect on reporting. In addition, the Committee will be releasing a new GAO report examining underreporting of injuries in 

the poultry and meat process industries. 

To further ensure accuracy of data, OSHA’s rule also makes it 

clear employers may not discriminate against workers for reporting 

injuries or establish policies discouraging them from doing so. We 

know that the accuracy of reporting rests on employees’ confidence 

that reporting injuries will not lead to job loss. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter these three 

GAO reports into the record. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, and hearing none, they 

will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 20235.001
7 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 20235.002
8 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 20235.003
9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 20235.060
10 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, as we begin this hearing, I want to 

remind all in attendance that we should focus on ensuring safe 

workplaces for those we represent. Our constituents have families. 

They have loved ones. They deserve our efforts to come together as 

the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections to promote and protect 

safe and healthy workplaces for all Americans. 

I also want to welcome visiting with me today, Paridas Gouba, 

from Burkina Faso, West Africa. Paridas, raise your hand so they 

can see you. She is shadowing me today from West Africa. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Wilson follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Frederica S. Wilson, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Mr. Chairman, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was established ‘‘to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation 

safe and healthful working conditions.’’ 

Sadly, every year, tens of thousands of Americans are severely injured on the job, 

with significant, sometimes permanent, impact to self and family. Until last year, 

OSHA lacked information vital for effectively responding to these workplace injuries. 

In its ongoing efforts to improve workplace safety, OSHA has issued two rules to 

provide greater transparency about injury and illness rates and to ensure disclosed 

information is accurate. 

First, as of January 2015, OSHA requires employers to report work-related amputations, inpatient hospitalizations or loss of eye within 24 hours. This severe injury 

reporting requirement is in addition to OSHA’s pre-existing requirement to report 

fatalities within 8 hours. 

In the year since this requirement took effect, over 10,000 incidents were reported 

to federal OSHA alone—including 2,644 amputations and 7,636 in-patient hospitalizations. 

Ideally, OSHA would inspect each workplace where a severe injury occurs, but because Congress has starved OSHA of much-needed resources, the federal agency 

lacks a sufficient number of facility inspectors. For example, with only 63 inspectors 

in my home state of Florida, it would take 266 years for OSHA to inspect each 

workplace. 

Despite its limited resources, with 24 hour reporting of severe injuries, OSHA was 

able to work with employers, asking them to conduct their own incident investigations, report their findings to OSHA, and implement remedies to eliminate hazards 

and prevent recurrence. 

For example, while a worker at a Missouri meat processing plant was cleaning 

a blender, it started up suddenly, amputating both of the worker’s lower arms. The 

employer immediately re-engineered the blender’s computer control system, changed 

safety interlocks, and enhanced worker training and supervision, significantly reducing the risk of amputation. According to OSHA, the worker’s arms were surgically reattached, and he is undergoing rehabilitation. 

Under its more recent efforts to protect worker safety, OSHA issued a final rule 

on May 12, 2016 requiring large employers and those in high hazard industries to 

electronically transmit to OSHA injury logs and annual summaries employers are 

already required to maintain and make available to their employees. OSHA will 

make this information publically available on its website. OSHA will not collect personal identifiers. 

Prior to this new rule, most workplace injury and illness logs were only available 

at the workplace, making it impossible for OSHA, other employers, prospective employees, investors and public health researchers to know which employers have bad 

or good injury records. 

Some object to posting this data to OSHA’s web site, claiming it could harm reputations and damage businesses. 

However, under OSHA’s 1995 Data Initiative, 80,000 establishments in high risk 

industries were required to provide OSHA with annual summaries. Since 2004, 

OSHA posted this data to its website and used it to target its inspections to the 

most hazardous worksites. Under this new rule, however, the universe is expanded 

to approximately 460,000 establishments. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

Furthermore, for the past 15 years, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

has posted injury and illness rates, allowing mine operators, prospective employees, 

and current workers to access the information. Indeed, MSHA posts even more information to its website than required under OSHA’s new rule. 

I would also argue that responsible employers want to demonstrate to their employees, investors, and the public that they are committed to workplace safety. Public disclosure can help nudge employers towards improved safety outcomes. 

DOL’s reporting rule also seeks to ensure injury and illness reports and records 

are accurate. 

This means addressing the major problem of underreporting of injuries, as recommended by two GAO reports for this committee. These GAO reports document 

how employer policies, such as rate based safety incentive programs, discourage 

workers from reporting injuries. One can easily imagine how programs that cut potential employee bonuses when the worksite injury rate goes up can have a chilling 

effect on reporting. In addition, the committee will be releasing a new GAO report 

examining underreporting of injuries in the poultry and meat process industries. 

To further ensure accuracy of data, OSHA’s rule also makes it clear employers 

may not discriminate against workers for reporting injuries or establish policies discouraging them from doing so. We know that the accuracy of reporting rests on employees’ confidence that reporting injuries will not lead to job loss. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter these three GAO reports into 

the record. 

Mr. Chairman, as we begin this hearing, I want to remind all in attendance that 

we should focus on ensuring safe workplaces for those we represent. Our constituents have families. They have loved ones. They deserve our efforts to come together 

as the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections to promote and protect safe and 

healthy workplaces for all Americans. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady, and having been to 

Burkina Faso a number of times, welcome, good to see you here. 

Pursuant to Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will 

remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses beginning 

with Mr. David Sarvadi, who is a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP here in Washington, D.C., and will testify on behalf of 

the Coalition for Workplace Safety. 

Mr. Sarvadi represents clients before a variety of Federal and 

State enforcement agencies in legal proceedings involving OSHA citations, EPA notices of violation, and EEOC charges of discrimination. He works with clients in developing, reviewing, and auditing 

compliance programs in all of these areas, and in obtaining agency 

rulings on proposed activities and questions. Welcome. 

Ms. Lisa Sprick is president of Sprick Roofing in Corvallis, Oregon, a great place for fly fishing as well, and will testify on behalf 

of the National Roofing Contractors Association. Sprick Roofing, a 

family-owned business established in 1952, installs low and steep 

slope roof systems on both commercial and residential buildings. 

Welcome. 

Dr. Rosemary Sokas is chair of the Department of Human 

Science at the Georgetown University School of Nursing and 

Health Studies here in Washington, D.C., and will testify on behalf 

of the American Public Health Association. Dr. Sokas has more 

than 30 years of experience in the field of occupational and environmental medicine and public health. Welcome. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

12 

Finally, Mr. Arthur G. Sapper, is a partner with McDermott Will 

& Emery LLP here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Sapper practices administrative and regulatory law, focusing on all areas of occupational safety and health law, and mine safety and health law, regularly litigating before the Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Federal appellate courts, and various administrative bodies. Welcome. 

I will now ask our witnesses to raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman WALBERG. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Before I recognize you to provide your 

testimony, let me briefly explain our lighting system, which is pretty self-explanatory. Green, your five minutes continue on until you 

see yellow, which is a caution light that says you have one minute 

remaining, and when red hits, please do your best to finish up your 

statement in the next paragraph or so. We would appreciate that, 

and we will hold our Committee to that standard as well. 

Let me now ask Mr. Sarvadi to lead us in his five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SARVADI, PARTNER, KELLER AND 

HECKMAN LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C., TESTIFYING ON BEHALF 

OF THE COALITION FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY 

Mr. SARVADI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Wilson, members, honored guests, and fellow panelists, I 

am honored to be asked to participate in this important hearing. 

Looking back on now the long history of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, I have concluded that workplace safety 

and health efforts in the United States have been a great success. 

I actually started my career prior to the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and I spent 15 years as 

an industrial hygienist in the real world dealing with these kinds 

of problems before I came to Washington. 

From 1970 to 2014, the overall case rate has declined by more 

than five times, and fatalities from 14,000 to 4,800. Of the fatalities, roadway accidents represent 36 percent of the total, homicides, 

9 percent, and aircraft incidents, 17 percent, which means that 

more than half of all fatalities are related to transportation. 

Those are areas that most employers do not normally involve 

themselves in. Obviously, there are employers who do, and those 

employers have in many cases robust programs to address those 

kinds of hazards. 

What I am pointing out here is the focus of our attention on 

workplace incidents and injuries needs to be focused on things that 

we can actually control and correct. 

While my remarks will be critical of the path OSHA has taken 

in recent years, I do not want to be misinterpreted. Workplace safety and health is a very important topic, and I am not suggesting 

in any way that our efforts should be lessened, but I am challenging the mindset that suggests it is best seen as a competition 

between management and labor, more characteristic of 1930s’ 

thinking. In 2016, we should be looking at ways to cooperate rather 

than to be at loggerheads. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

The Bush administration, in my view, made significant progress 

in that area, but I think OSHA has gotten off track. The emphasis 

on enforcement has been overwhelming while the results have been 

less than impressive. The rate for both fatalities and total cases 

has stagnated. 

Worse, OSHA’s reputation has reverted to be a poster child of 

government high-handedness. Only the IRS is likely to have a 

worse and perhaps well-deserved reputation among the citizens. 

OSHA’s direction needs to be changed. They are exceeding limits 

of congressional authority repeatedly and ignoring administrative 

law guardrails that help preserve our tripartite system of government. Its purpose is to assure that liberty is preserved and government is focused on things it can control. 

OSHA has moved far beyond merely establishing reasonably necessary and appropriate standards and regulations to achieve Congress’ goal of safe and healthy workplaces. OSHA’s job is not to 

save lives, contrary to its relentless propaganda. Congress placed 

the responsibility for protecting employees on employers, not 

OSHA. OSHA’s job is to make the rules, provide education and 

support to employers and employees, and for those who fail to do 

so, surely to enforce to the full extent of the law. The current administration’s emphasis on enforcement is misplaced and training 

and supporting have been given short shrift. 

The proposals and regulations discussed in my written testimony 

wrongly focus on the details of paperwork, distracting both OSHA 

and employers from the real task at hand. We have a pretty good 

handle on the trends in workplace safety statistics. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does a good job of surveying employees using widely accepted statistical techniques, about which I 

was privileged to be educated as part of a National Academy of 

Sciences’ committee. The BLS approach is sound and is constantly 

being improved by its staff. 

Unless there is something really wrong with the BLS approach 

or statistical theory, the trends are well known and will not be affected by OSHA’s obsession with counting cases. 

I wish I could be optimistic in this field, that we could have a 

real conversation about why things have stalled and what can be 

done about it. I see no evidence that the current administration is 

interested in doing so. 

As evidence of that fact, I would point to the advisory committees 

that OSHA uses. Few, if any, of the people on the committees depart from the current orthodoxy, technological change long ago 

overtook practices that have been entrenched only due to intellectual inertia. 

Here is what I think should be done. The recently adopted proposals should be shelved until the details of the program can be developed in conjunction with employers who will have to use the system. OSHA should be prohibited from publishing specific case data 

on injuries and illnesses and the regulation allowing OSHA to issue 

citations for retaliation should be rejected by Congress and the 

courts as usurpation of congressional legislative authority. 

For those in favor of these approaches, I remind them eventually 

people with different viewpoints will be in charge and they may not 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

like what is then permitted under the loose interpretation of their 

authority. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for the 

opportunity to participate in this hearing, and for your interest in 

workplace safety and health. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Sarvadi follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 20235.011
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 20235.012
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 20235.013
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 20235.014
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 20235.015
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 20235.016
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 20235.017
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 20235.018
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 20235.019
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 20235.020
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 20235.021
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 20235.022
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 20235.023
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 20235.024
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 20235.025
30 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Ms. Sprick, we recognize you 

now for five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA SPRICK, PRESIDENT, SPRICK ROOFING 

CO., INC., CORVALLIS, OR, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SPRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Lisa Sprick, and I am president of Sprick 

Roofing in Corvallis, Oregon. I am testifying today on behalf of the 

National Roofing Contractors Association, and appreciate the opportunity to provide the perspective of professional roofing contractors on workplace safety regulations. 

Sprick Roofing was founded in 1952 and currently has 25 employees. To date, we have worked 1,360 work days or more than 

five years without a time loss accident, and I believe this speaks 

to my company’s exceptional commitment to safety. 

There is concern within our industry regarding OSHA regulations and impacts they will have on worker safety and businesses 

like mine. I believe these regulations will do little to promote safer 

workplaces and could prove to be counterproductive to this goal. 

OSHA’s overreaching regulatory approach seems to be stuck in 

a ‘‘Washington, D.C. knows best’’ mode of regulating our industry, 

and I do not believe that Washington always knows best. 

The first concern I will discuss is OSHA’s regulation to require 

companies to submit their injury and illness records electronically 

to the agency. OSHA states that posting these records online will 

provide employees and others with information that will enhance 

workplace safety. However, the data as included in the reports lack 

meaningful context, which is critical to understanding the information properly. Without context, it is unclear how the information 

being made public will improve workplace safety. 

Also, misuse of the information by third parties could be harmful 

to employers. It is not hard to imagine one of my competitors gathering this information and using it to sell against me. 

Another concern is possible inadvertent public disclosure of private employee information that could cause harm to my workers. 

Our company goes to great lengths to protect sensitive employee 

data. As a small business owner, I have many questions about 

what would happen if this information was inadvertently disclosed. 

It is also unclear to me what impact the rule will have on employee incentive programs designed to promote workplace safety. I 

share OSHA’s intent to ensure employees must not be deterred 

from reporting injuries, and our program provides incentives to employees to follow the rules that meet or exceed OSHA standards. 

We take a proactive approach to safety and even encourage our 

employees to report near misses so we can identify problems and 

prevent injuries from occurring. 

This regulation and the other OSHA actions have produced much 

ambiguity with respect to how OSHA views incentive programs. 

The expanded authority in this regulation may remove a key tool 

that employers use to ensure safe workplaces. 

Another concern with this regulation is adding unnecessary 

costs, which is always a concern to small businesses that operate 

on a thin margin. This is especially true for responsible employers, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

like my company, which comply and often exceed government regulations, when competing against contractors who do not always 

work under the same compliance with laws and regulations. 

I feel that adding new reporting burdens that promise unspecified benefits merely diverts valuable resources from risk management strategies that truly protect workers. Efforts to improve 

workplace safety could be more effective if OSHA worked with employers on such strategies. 

Another very serious concern I have is OSHA’s recent efforts to 

impose Federal fall protection regulations on States like Oregon. 

This could jeopardize the safety of workers in Oregon and other 

States like California and Michigan. 

I recently learned that Oregon will adopt Federal fall protection 

rules after OSHA demanded our State change its rules or be faced 

with losing its State plan status. This will limit fall protection options which may be the most effective in preventing falls in many 

situations. 

Oregon rules now allow for more fall protection options, including 

the use of slide guards installed at the roof edge to prevent falls. 

My company has been using this option for 63 years and we have 

never had a fatality or serious accident related to their use. We believe that under many circumstances, slide guards are the most effective option for preventing injuries. 

It is disturbing that OSHA will impose Federal rules on our 

State given that Oregon’s record in preventing falls is better than 

other States operating under Federal rules. I do not understand 

why OSHA would insist on imposing changes without having empirical evidence that the Federal rules are more effective than the 

State rules. 

I would urge Congress to prevent OSHA from imposing its rules 

on State plans like Oregon’s and similar States unless the agency 

has data to clearly demonstrate that its rules produce better results that actually protect workers. 

To conclude, I want to reiterate that there is great concern within the roofing industry with respect to OSHA’s overreaching approach to regulation. It is vital that employers, workers, government agencies, and other stakeholders work together to craft effective safety policies based on sound risk management principles and 

reliable data. 

NRCA and its members stand ready to work with Congress and 

OSHA on efforts to improve workplace safety in the future. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome any questions 

you may have. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Sprick follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 20235.004
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 20235.005
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 20235.006
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 20235.007
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 20235.008
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 20235.009
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 20235.010
39 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Dr. Sokas, we welcome you and 

recognize you for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF ROSEMARY SOKAS, M.D., PROFESSOR AND 

CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SCIENCE, GEORGETOWN 

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING AND HEALTH STUDIES, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC 

HEALTH ASSOCIATION 

Dr. SOKAS. Thank you. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member 

Wilson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this invitation. My name is Rosemary Sokas, and I am providing these remarks on behalf of the American Public Health Association. 

My testimony will cover three areas. First, OSHA’s recordkeeping rule and its severe injury reporting rule will help prevent 

workplace illness and injury and improve transparency. Second, 

there is a need to improve accuracy of information by addressing 

the problem of underreporting. And third, APHA supports OSHA’s 

efforts to protect vulnerable workers from retaliation for reporting 

workplace illness or injury. 

OSHA’s new recordkeeping rule will bring injury and illness reporting into the 21st century through an efficient Web-based mechanism that allows employers to upload information they are already collecting. This rule does not impose any new recordkeeping 

responsibilities, but rather requires the information to be electronically transmitted. 

Personally identifiable information will not be collected by 

OSHA, so that should alleviate most of the privacy concerns. 

Accurate and timely information is important not only to identify 

problems but to make sure that solutions work. With OSHA’s severe injury reporting program, as you have heard already, the employers are now reporting hospitalization, amputations, and loss of 

an eye, and OSHA has had the chance to investigate and to encourage the employers to investigate over 10,000 severe injury cases. 

One example of immediate benefit is that grocery stores, which 

are only rarely investigated by OSHA, turned out to be a leading 

locust for amputations. This information helped pinpoint problems 

with food slicing and allowed OSHA to provide outreach and compliance assistance. In some cases, a single sentinel event may serve 

to alert the industry to an unrecognized hazard. 

Public health agencies at the State and local levels will now have 

worksite data to evaluate the impact of their policies by comparing 

baseline and follow-up data across a particular industry as well as 

by conducting comparisons with States that have different programs or regulations. 

Industry associations and academics will have access to information across a large enough population to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. 

OSHA’s rule takes needed steps to address underreporting, a 

problem that has been well reported by GAO investigations, as well 

as BLS, as well as academics. 

NIOSH has conducted a series of health hazard evaluations in 

poultry processing where in one plant, fully 34 percent of the workforce, 64 out of 191 people, met strict case definitions for carpal 

tunnel syndrome while only four cases had been reported on the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

OSHA logs during the previous four years. When surveyed, 20 

workers described work-related illness or injury meeting OSHA’s 

criteria for recordkeeping, but only one of these incidents was recorded in the log for that year. 

Aggressive return-to-work policies can suppress reporting. I have 

reviewed cases in which workers were driven to work on the day 

of the surgery or the day after while still on narcotic medication 

in order to reduce the days away rate. 

The OSHA record is full of reports from workers in a variety of 

industries who received demerits when they suffered an injury or 

go through safety and health investigations that focus on punishing 

the worker, including threats of firing. 

As OSHA’s chief medical officer, I interviewed poultry workers 

who impressed on me the widespread fear of job loss and a sense 

of fatalism among many that they had grown used to living with 

pain and disability from their jobs. The particular corporation not 

only failed to protect its workers but failed to protect its products, 

and was subject to then the largest beef recall in U.S. history and 

went bankrupt. 

High-performing organizations, on the other hand, will encourage 

the reporting of hazards and near-miss events and reward rather 

than discipline workers for identifying hazards and solutions. 

Data collection is not a paperwork exercise. It is a tool to identify 

problems and ensure that solutions work. 

I worked in a hospital that tried to reduce needle stick injuries 

by installing boxes to dispose of the sharps in crowded rooms, 

where they put the boxes too high and the nurses got stuck when 

they went to put the sharps in. Had those nurses been prevented 

from reporting by being shamed or criticized, we would never have 

found out that in fact the boxes were a problem and been able to 

fix the problem. 

During OSHA’s comment period, APHA urged OSHA to recognize 

and discourage attempts to systematically suppress illness and injury reporting, and even carpenters have expressed concerns about 

loss of jobs from reporting. 

I am going to close with two quotes from a researcher at Duke 

who found carpenters saying things like, ‘‘With my company, people are afraid to report injuries even when they get hurt because 

they will lose their jobs, not immediately, but in like two or three 

months when it blows over, you are fired.’’ That is the concern we 

are grateful to OSHA for addressing. 

[The statement of Dr. Sokas follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 20235.026
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 20235.027
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 20235.028
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 20235.029
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 20235.030
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 20235.031
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 20235.032
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 20235.033
49 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 20235.034
50 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 20235.035
51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 20235.036
52 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Dr. Sokas. I will now recognize 

Mr. Sapper for your five minutes of testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. SAPPER, PARTNER, McDERMOTT 

WILL & EMERY LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. SAPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am testifying here about a concern of 

the rule of law. OSHA is behaving like an imperial bureaucracy. 

It is trying to do what simple logic indicates is impossible, to extend the statute of limitations by merely amending regulations. 

In the Volks case, which I had the privilege of appearing in, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the statute of 

limitations in the Occupational Safety and Health Act means what 

it says, that no citation may be issued following the expiration of 

six months after the occurrence of a violation. OSHA had been 

issuing citations against employers alleging violations as old as five 

years. The D.C. Circuit said OSHA could not do that, and it spoke 

unanimously on that point. 

Nevertheless, OSHA is trying to get around that court decision 

by merely changing its regulations to state that an employer is 

under a continuing obligation when the Court of Appeals said there 

is no continuing obligation, you cannot do that. 

The court specifically told OSHA that the idea of extending the 

statute of limitations by merely amending its regulations is absurd 

and madness, ‘‘There is truly no end to such madness.’’ 

Not only that, but the United States Supreme Court in the 

Toussie case held that questions of the statute of limitations are 

matters of legislative, not administrative decision. The statute 

itself, apart from the regulations, must justify what the agency is 

doing. 

Most troubling of all, OSHA’s proposal, which it has published in 

the Federal Register, would defeat the core purpose of the statute 

of limitations, to prevent the bringing of stale charges. Here, the 

charges would be as stale as five years. 

By the way, in the Volks case, in the years since the alleged violations occurred, one of the recordkeepers had died, crippling the 

employer’s ability to defend. OSHA’s proposal ignores the effect of 

staleness. 

The Committee should make clear to the administration that it 

may not do this. It is also troubling that OSHA has ignored the literal effect of its proposal. As Judge Garland’s concurring opinion 

in the Volks case points out, it would ‘‘obligate an employer to constantly reexamine unrecorded injuries and illnesses.’’ 

The cost of constant reexamination of unrecorded cases, of every 

day reexamining whether or not an unrecorded wound should have 

been recorded would be staggering, $2 billion I estimate for just a 

single unrecorded case. Yet OSHA itself estimates that the benefit 

of its proposed regulation would merely be a 1 percent increase in 

the compliance rate. 

The Committee may ask why OSHA thinks it may do such questionable things. There are two basic reasons, in my view. First, the 

Federal courts under the Chevron and Auer doctrines have told 

agencies that they, not the courts, are the authoritative interpreter 

of statutes and regulations. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

This doctrine gives agencies enormous power, and in my experience, contributes to their sense of arrogance, for agencies almost 

never think they are unreasonable and they will not get deference. 

Second, the Office of Management and Budget has an office 

called Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA. That office has 

been reluctant to question OSHA’s representations that their proposed regulations are not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. 

That reluctance was particularly striking in this case because 

OSHA’s reasoning on costs made no sense. It completely ignored 

the cost of what Judge Garland called ‘‘constant reexamination.’’ 

OSHA’s proposal clearly met another criterion for examination 

under the executive order, that the proposal ‘‘raises novel legal 

issues.’’ I submit that whether a mere regulation can effectively 

override a statute of limitations is certainly a ‘‘novel legal issue.’’ 

I thank the Committee, and I would be happy to answer your 

questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Sapper follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 20235.037
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 20235.038
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 20235.039
57 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 20235.040
58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 20235.041
59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 20235.042
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 20235.043
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 20235.044
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 20235.045
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 20235.046
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 20235.047
65 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Sapper, for your testimony. 

Now, I recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chairman of 

the full Committee, Mr. Kline, for his five minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here, excellent testimony. 

Ms. Sprick, you have a fascinating story, a very successful business. I have a note here that says Sprick Roofing has worked for 

more than five years without a time loss accident. You tell us you 

have a safety incentive program, and I would assume that this program is contributing to your company’s really successful safety 

record. 

Could you expand for us on how you think OSHA’s actions would 

hinder your efforts to continue to implement this successful safety 

program? 

Ms. SPRICK. Thank you. Our safety program, safety incentive 

program, is based on following the rules and regulations OSHA has 

outlined, as well as beyond that, things that we have identified 

through our internal incident reports, to track and look at trends 

of potential injuries that could occur. 

I am afraid that if OSHA takes away those incentives, then my 

employees will not—incentivizing positive behavior is basically 

what we are doing. I am afraid taking that away will just give our 

employees the impression that it is not as important. 

Not only do we do safety incentives, we do quality control incentives, we do all across the board. We do several different things to 

incentivize our employees to do the right thing and reward their 

positive behavior. 

I am afraid since safety is probably the most important of anything we do, taking away that incentive and that impression that 

it is not important is concerning to me. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of 

my time to you. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 

that. I certainly have plenty of questions I could ask, so thank you. 

Let me follow on that, Ms. Sprick. Recording an injury is not preventing an injury. I think we could agree on that. 

Ms. SPRICK. Yes. 

Chairman WALBERG. Can you explain the safety protocols your 

company employs to prevent workplace injuries for us? 

Ms. SPRICK. What we do to prevent injuries? 

Chairman WALBERG. Yes, the protocols that you have in place, 

what are those? 

Ms. SPRICK. Well, we do a safety orientation. Every job has a 

particular safety plan that we analyze on every job before we go 

out, so we can be sure we have all our bases covered. We do safety 

meetings daily, and also for each job, and then we also have job 

site inspections. Our safety director goes out and does our own internal inspections during the course of the work that is being done 

to check and make sure that everything we discussed to be done 

is happening according to plan. 

Chairman WALBERG. This is done daily with the employees on 

the site or back at the office? 

Ms. SPRICK. The job site inspections or the safety plan? 

Chairman WALBERG. The safety plan, the safety instructions. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

Ms. SPRICK. It starts at our office. It actually starts at the bidding process when we look at a job and we look at the particulars 

of a job, look at what needs to be done, and then from there once 

we get the job, it starts at the office with the crew before they go 

out. Once they go out, they are inspected on the job as well. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Mr. Sapper, your testimony 

highlights the Volks decision, overturning OSHA’s attempt to issue 

citations for an alleged violation of Occupational Safety and Health 

Act more than six months old, as you indicated. 

Does OSHA have the authority to overturn a court ruling 

through a rulemaking? 

Mr. SAPPER. No, Mr. Chairman, it does not, and I will be happy 

to explain why. The Supreme Court has already said in the Toussie 

case that questions of limitations are statutory questions, not regulatory ones. As I said before, the D.C. Circuit in the Volks case said 

that OSHA’s attempt to manipulate the result by merely changing 

its regulations would be ‘‘madness’’ and ‘‘absurd.’’ OSHA— 

Chairman WALBERG. Madness and absurd? 

Mr. SAPPER. Madness and absurd. Now, in fairness to OSHA, the 

court was talking about a slightly different amendment to the regulations, but these two amendments would have the same effect. 

Chairman WALBERG. Same principle. 

Mr. SAPPER. Yes, they would have the exact same effect. In principle, they would still be absurd and madness. 

Chairman WALBERG. Let me ask, why do you believe OSHA is 

relying on the concurring decision rather than majority opinion in 

the rulemaking process? Does holding of the case come from majority opinion or concurrence? 

Mr. SAPPER. I think the agency understands that the majority 

opinion of the court is against its position, but it is using the concurring opinion or it is using what it thinks the concurring opinion 

says. 

The concurring opinion said regulations do not permit OSHA to 

do what it is doing. OSHA thinks, okay, then we will just change 

the regulations. What OSHA ignores is Judge Garland’s very astute observation that if OSHA tried to do that, it would be imposing a duty of constant reexamination, and OSHA has refused to 

own up to that effect. 

In fact, before the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety 

and Health, when that very question was asked, OSHA said no, no, 

no, there is no duty of constant reexamination. Well, I am afraid 

the agency is being inconsistent on this point. It is not owning up 

to the actual effect of what its proposal would mean. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. That was Judge Garland’s opinion. I need to move on. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sarvadi, you indicated in your testimony on page 11 that nothing in the OSH Act 

gives OSHA the authority to publish workplace injury and illness 

data, is that right? Is that your testimony? 

Mr. SARVADI. I do not believe I quoted that section but, yes, it 

does give OSHA the authority to publish data on workplace injuries and accidents in aggregate form. It does not address the question of disclosing individual employee conditions. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

Mr. SCOTT. You say it is a clear usurpation of legislative power. 

The act in Section 8(g) says, ‘‘The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services are authorized to compile, 

analyze, and publish either in summary or detailed form, all reports or information obtained under this section. 

The Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

shall each prescribe such rules and regulations as he may deem 

necessary to carry out their responsibilities under this act, including rules and regulations dealing with inspection of employer’s establishment.’’ 

The language is ‘‘publish either in summary or detailed form,’’ 

what does that mean? 

Mr. SARVADI. To me it means summary form, meaning total accident statistics or whatever the statistics they collect. I believe it refers to the BLS survey, and it reflected at the time the system that 

was in place that was operated by the National Safety Council. 

There was some criticism of it by members of Congress at the time, 

but what Congress was trying to do was improve on what had been 

the system in place. Nowhere were individual company or establishment data being published by the National Safety Council— 

Mr. SCOTT. Just to remind you, the words are ‘‘in summary or 

detailed form, all reports or information obtained under this section.’’ 

Is there any information that is required to be published under 

this rule that is not already being collected? 

Mr. SARVADI. I do not believe it is, but it is not being provided 

to OSHA in the detail they are talking about. It is available to 

OSHA in an inspection, and it is the first thing that inspectors look 

at when they come through the door. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the information is already being collected. Let 

me ask another question. Ms. Sokas, can you indicate why it is important to collect this data and what data is not being reported because of threats? 

Dr. SOKAS. I am glad to answer that question. I would just like 

to briefly state— 

Chairman WALBERG. Use your microphone. 

Dr. SOKAS. I would just briefly like to say, if I might, that the 

proactive program that Ms. Sprick discussed is actually the kind of 

incentive programs that the GAO report was positive about in 

2012. The kind that it was criticizing were the ones where people 

got bonuses based on not reporting illnesses, that kind of thing. 

This is exactly the kind of thing that is supposed to happen. 

The question about the suppression of information through punitive responses to reporting a hazard or reporting an injury shows 

that—as an example, when I did chart review of people who had, 

unfortunately, died from being in a confined space with solvents or 

some other kind of chemical exposures where they were overcome. 

Almost inevitably we would find examples in that person’s life 

where they had previously either passed out at work or complained 

at work, and the early adverse information was not taken seriously, was not acted upon. People were just kind of revived and resuscitated and sent back into the same location, and that is when 

they died. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

This is the kind of thing that we hope to prevent by having the 

information acted upon as opposed to suppressed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is this level of information disclosed now under the 

mine safety laws? 

Dr. SOKAS. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have there been any frivolous lawsuits or any adverse effects? 

Dr. SOKAS. Not to my knowledge. You can go online for MSHA 

and find all kinds of detailed information equivalent to or more 

than what OSHA is now going to be publishing. That information 

is readily available and has been used by MSHA, which is trying 

to deal with—as you can imagine, the mining industry is among 

the most hazardous—they are able to actually target effectively 

and work with employers. They have had substantial success with 

that. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony today. Data, as we know, has become increasingly present in our everyday lives, from data at worksites to 

Fitbits, which I happen to not be wearing mine today. We are exposed to endless quantifications of what we do on a daily basis. 

This expansive collection of data can be extremely helpful when 

it is utilized with purpose and context to achieve a needed goal. We 

must carefully consider the implications on our Nation’s small businesses when this collection solves no particular problem. 

As we know, it serves no purpose to collect the data just for the 

collection sake, when we should be focusing our efforts on preventing workplace accidents in the first place. 

Ms. Sprick, in your testimony you indicate that the data the department is requiring from you lacks important context and, therefore, will not help you as an employer improve worker safety. 

Do you have suggestions for improving the department’s data collection practices, and how might the Federal Government better 

collect context along with the data? 

Ms. SPRICK. Well, if they are just collecting the injury and illness 

side of things, it is just telling one side of the story, and they are 

posting that information, and it gives absolutely no context or information about how it occurred, the circumstances, the size of 

business, the number of hours worked, the part that will give 

meaning to that information. 

If they are just posting that information only and you are comparing company A to company B and they each have 2 injuries reported, the exact same injuries, you do not know that company A 

has 100 employees and company B has 2. Company B is the worse 

company of the two, but you do not have that context to be able 

to evaluate that. 

To me, that is, one, unfair, and it is not showing the real story, 

and the other part of it is that I will have to be trying to defend 

that if I am even given the opportunity, if it would go that far. 

They may just look at that information and say okay, that is all 

I need to know and move on. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thanks for the comments. I think continuing to 

get feedback on the context, to make sure this data is viewed, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

whether it is the size of the business, whether it is the hours 

worked, is extremely important. Data is one thing, but the context 

in which the data exists is extremely important. 

Ms. SPRICK. The circumstances as well. If one of my employees 

slips and falls on a sidewalk, it will be listed as a fall. The assumption will be made because I am a roofing contractor that person fell 

off the roof. That kind of information would be helpful. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thanks for those comments. I yield back. I yield 

to Mr. Walberg. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. I see good time on the board. 

Thank you. Ms. Sprick, let me go on with some practical examples 

coming from your experience. What are some specific actions that 

OSHA could undertake if they were willing to help your company 

further improve on its safety program? The program you defined a 

bit, how could they help? 

Ms. SPRICK. I can use the example just in Oregon. We have a 

very good and collaborative relationship with the Oregon compliance officers in our area. We work with them continually. 

Sometimes there is a difficult building configuration that we 

want to make sure we are following procedures and we are interpreting the regulations appropriately. We bring them in. We set up 

a safety plan and get their suggestions and work with them. 

It is more of a collaborative effort that I feel in the big picture 

will help everyone in the long run. What I think really should happen is they should set up a task force with the stakeholders that 

are involved, having to deal with these regulations, bring in the 

trades, bring in the government, National Safety Council. 

People that have real life experience and know what it is like out 

in the real world, they are just not sitting around a table and coming up with these ideas and thinking this is a good one on paper, 

when in reality, there is no reality. 

I think that is the place they really need to put their efforts, and 

also look at employers and incentivize and reward those companies 

that are doing the right thing versus being punitive and punishing 

the good ones for the few bad apples that are out there. 

Chairman WALBERG. Mr. Sarvadi, OSHA’s public reporting regulation also appears to create new whistleblower protections. Did 

OSHA publish this in the proposed regulatory text, and were stakeholders given an opportunity to evaluate and comment on this provision? 

Mr. SARVADI. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, they did not. It was 

added as a supplemental proposal, but they did not include anything about the language that would be used or give people an adequate opportunity to reflect on it. 

I would point out that they already have sufficient authority 

under section 11(c). The difference is under 11(c), a complaint initiates the investigation and OSHA’s actions. What OSHA is trying 

to do is create an opportunity for them to issue a citation when 

they think they have a retaliation claim without waiting for the 

complaint. 

I do not know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, I think that 

is what the hearings and comments would have addressed if we 

had the opportunity to do so. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

70 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I now 

recognize Ms. Wilson, Ranking Member, for her five minutes of 

questioning. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. First of all, let me thank you, Dr. 

Sokas, for wearing red today. This is our ‘‘Wear Red’’ Wednesday. 

Thank you so much. 

Your testimony noted that the Government Accountability Office 

has issued several reports exploring the issue of under-recording of 

workplace injuries and illnesses. One GAO report examined employer and worker pressure on health care providers to downgrade 

severity of injuries in order to ensure that the injury would not be 

classified as an OSHA recordable incident. 

What did GAO find, and is this something you have encountered? 

Dr. SOKAS. Thank you. Yes, I am an active member of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. It has 

been on the radar screen for our members for years. 

The GAO found that over half of the healthcare professionals 

who were surveyed had experienced some pressure from management to downgrade the treatment being offered in a particular instance in order to make it not recordable, use Steri-Strips, not sutures, that kind of thing, to the point where they felt uncomfortable. Almost half felt the same pressure from the employees. 

As a practicing physician, I felt the same thing, where the workers are too afraid to have either a workers’ comp case filed or to 

have anybody call their worksite, because they are afraid of being 

fired, of punitive responses. 

The pressure from both the workers and from the employers has 

impacted the practice of occupational medicine and occupational 

health nursing and other people as well, clinicians in general. 

I did also want to mention that I think the detailed information 

on context for reporting is available already in the OSHA Form 

301, and that is what the larger companies are now being required 

to submit. The fact that the smaller ones are not being required to 

submit it, I do not think it would be difficult to submit it voluntarily if people wanted to do that, to address that one concern that 

was raised. 

Ms. WILSON. GAO issued a report in April 2012 and called upon 

OSHA to clarify its guidance on safety incentive programs. Did 

GAO find that safety incentive programs that are tied to low injury 

and illness rate may lead to underreporting, and how has OSHA 

accomplished this in its rule? 

Dr. SOKAS. Exactly. That is exactly the distinction between the 

good incentive programs that encourage people to recognize hazards and do something about them and give training, and the bad 

programs that are based on a single number that encourages people not to report the injury, not to report the illness because somebody is going to lose money in their bonus or somebody will lose 

the ability to participate in a positive manner. 

OSHA in this report, in this rule, is very carefully making the 

distinction between those two kinds of incentive programs and saying the ones that have the effect of chilling, of reducing people’s 

willingness to report, are the ones that they are going to look at 

carefully. The other incentive programs that promote healthy recCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

71 

ognition of hazards and solutions to them, they obviously encourage. 

Ms. WILSON. It appears as if opponents of this rule contend that 

underreporting is not systemic, it is not a systemic problem in 

American workplaces. 

They also claim OSHA has been unable to establish that employer policies, such as safety incentive policies, drug testing, or 

disciplinary policies in any way discourage employees from reporting injuries and illnesses. Is OSHA chasing a non-existent problem? What do credible studies tell us about this? 

Dr. SOKAS. There are numbers of studies from the academic literature and from the GAO reports that you mentioned, from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics itself, that show that systematically 

there is underreporting in OSHA illness and injury logs and in 

BLS data itself. 

It varies depending on the methods that are used, but if you go 

to a workplace and interview workers, or if you take any survey 

where you interview people and ask the questions, you will always 

find under-recording in the OSHA logs for a variety of reasons. Either people do not want to report to their supervisors or the supervisors do not want to record it, for many different motivations, but 

the information—there is always a difference there in all of the 

studies. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Now, I 

recognize Mr. Pocan for your five minutes. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and thank 

you to the witnesses. I am usually not too much at a loss of words 

at a hearing, but this one, I have to admit, I am a little surprised 

that there is opposition to this rule specifically. I know it was mentioned we feel like we are back to the 1930s. I was thinking more 

a little before that, the turn of a century, when workers had absolutely no rights and we did not record these sort of things, and 

there was no recognition whatsoever. 

When I hear people talking about OSHA and the ‘‘madness’’ and 

the ‘‘arrogance,’’ and how after six months something is stale—losing a limb is not stale after six months, losing a family member 

is not stale. Those words seem to drip in a little bit of arrogance. 

I do have a little bit of non-understanding on that. 

I do have one question, Mr. Sarvadi. I know your association is 

largely funded by the U.S. Chamber and NAM, and both of those 

organizations opposed the creation of OSHA in the early 1970s. Do 

those organizations still oppose the creation of OSHA? 

Mr. SARVADI. I do not recall they opposed it, and I do not know 

what their position is— 

Mr. POCAN. They did. No problem, thank you. I will reclaim my 

time. 

Mr. SARVADI. I would say— 

Mr. POCAN. I reclaim my time, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. SARVADI. If I could— 

Mr. POCAN. No, no. Actually, I am reclaiming my time, thank 

you. The problem is both those organizations did. I understand 

they have a beef with the overall concept. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

72 

You said it is not their job to save lives. I looked at the mission 

of OSHA very clearly. I think the public expects—if you read the 

mission, it is to make sure you are saving lives. Of course, that 

does happen to the employer, and I am most sympathetic to Ms. 

Sprick, because you list your concerns. I am a small business 

owner as well. 

I look at the things you brought up, and I think what came out 

of the hearing—sometimes people like to create fear among small 

business owners, and they come here—I am just really glad we 

have a small business owner. Usually, they just bring us lawyers, 

and they all get paid to say stuff. You and I are just trying to make 

sure we are employing people and doing a business. 

Some of the things you brought up, I think, did come out around 

the inadvertent public disclosure for individuals, that information 

will not be collected, so we do not have to worry directly on that. 

On the context of information, if you are over 250 employees, you 

are going to have that incident where you write down if it was a 

fall but there is going to be more written about it, so you are going 

to have the broader context. If you are under 250, which I would 

assume are most of the roofing association’s members, at least in 

my district, they are not 250 employees or more, it is not even 

mentioned, a fall. It is very much days loss data, a simple line listing that is published. 

I do not think you are going to have that problem that is out 

there. For the bigger employers, they will have the rest of the context of information put there, and I think that is going to be very 

helpful. 

I believe there was a concern about the misuse, harmful to employers. I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, 

I look at the comments from the former head of Alcoa, who talked 

about why this has been good for his business. 

In fact, he said when they had someone who passed away, that 

made them really look at what they did, and during a period of 13 

years that he was there, they dropped the rate from 1.86 to .20 loss 

rate, and their market value jumped from $3 billion to $27 billion, 

and their net income went from $200 million to $1.48 billion. I 

think the context of the person’s comment is it actually made them 

focus on things. 

If I go to New York City and I want to have Thai food, I see two 

Thai restaurants, one has an A and one has a C, unless they have 

really, really good Thai iced tea that I know is worldwide at the 

C, I am probably going to the A. That is part of why we collect that 

information. 

I think many of your concerns will probably be more addressed, 

and I think the fear factor is out there. 

I do have a very specific question for Dr. Sokas. You started talking about the one example with the nurses. This has been collected 

now for a year. Can you provide how this rule is having a difference? Do you have some examples that you can offer? I think 

that might be helpful in the full context. 

Dr. SOKAS. There is a great report that OSHA put out, David Michaels wrote, about what has happened with the 10,000 serious 

cases that the Ranking Member already alluded to. One of the companies, for example, had hospitalization for a heat stress injury, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

73 

and then they went back and they decided to change their rest 

breaks. They had water available. They started installing fans. It 

was a waste company. Another company had the problem with the 

amputations, as you heard. What they did was they went back and 

installed guards. 

The goal of all of this is to find the problems, have the employer, 

wherever possible, find and fix them, and then share the information across the industry so other people do not have to wait and 

experience their own tragedies before they can identify a problem 

and then fix it. 

The report is full of those kinds of examples. I think OSHA used 

its scarce resources to go out to maybe 40 percent of the locations 

reporting, but fully 60 percent or more wound up having the employers themselves respond and fix it before the next person could 

lose an arm. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now, I recognize 

the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

witnesses, too. Like my colleague from Wisconsin, having owned 

small businesses, restaurants, for many years, I always struggled 

with my aversion for unnecessary regulation and the overhead that 

caused versus what Mr. Pocan said, if you do the right thing, you 

do not have these problems. 

I had a bigger problem with competitors, usually larger food and 

restaurant companies, that clearly were run on a path to the bottom. 

Ms. Sprick, my sort of frustration is if you do the right thing, as 

you do, in your industry, and certainly in California, we have a lot 

of evidence that in the roofing industry there are a lot of non-licensed contractors who were not paying workers’ compensation, 

were not paying payroll taxes, and you are doing the right thing. 

Certainly, there is a general conveyance or confluence of interest 

where in your interest for your company and other companies like 

this, you want to get rid of those people who are non-licensed and 

are not doing workers’ compensation much less reporting those incidents. 

Could you just comment on that? 

Ms. SPRICK. We have the same problem in Oregon, unfortunately, of unlicensed contractors. It is not only the reporting part 

but the non-context. If they are unscrupulous in business practices, 

they are going to be unscrupulous in how they are going to use that 

information and how they are going to take that information out 

of context and use it however they see fit. That is my concern. 

The concern is not only the accident itself but the context to size 

of business, how long they have been in business. You are just 

looking at one side of the story, and as we all know, how one side 

of the story can be swayed in any way, shape, or form that you see 

fit. That is my concern. 

My greater concern is the electronic reporting of this is going to 

provide another conduit for breach of potential privacy that I protect fervently in my company to protect my workers, so you are exposing me to another way that I, myself, could be held up for liability but more so, that my workers’ private information could be 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

74 

accessed either inadvertentedly—the rule that I saw, it said the information will be redacted. It does not say it will not be collected. 

That is where my concern is as well. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. If I could just interrupt, Dr. Sokas, can you respond to that? There are contentions, not just as has just been expressed, but that there will be frivolous lawsuits because of this information. I understand the Department has for 10 years gotten information from 80,000 employers. I am just wondering if you could 

respond to both the concern, but also the fact that we have already 

been doing this for some period of time and it does not seem to 

have led to frivolous lawsuits. 

Dr. SOKAS. Two things. One is that my understanding of the 

rule—I think there is a little confusion because there is this one 

page that I think says it differently. My understanding of the rule 

itself is that they are not going to collect those pieces of information, worker’s name, address, all those pieces of information would 

not be collected, and certainly not from small businesses—they are 

not collected by anybody, even the large businesses. That is not 

really—should not be a problem at all. 

The issue with MSHA is even when they do present information, 

that is available, you can go online. I am unaware of any time 

when they have been sued or one mining company has gone after 

another. There is a lot of other stuff that goes on in mining, but 

that is not one of them. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Dr. Sokas, maybe you can explain, is there 

anything else, that this information will help in terms of research 

for prevention? 

Dr. SOKAS. There is a ton of stuff. For example— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. What are a few of the things? 

Dr. SOKAS. One, for example, there is a lot of places that are 

going to green cleaners for schools, for hospitals, all kinds of places, 

to be more sustainable environmentally, and the problem is you do 

not really know if the new procedures are better or worse for the 

people who are doing the cleaning. There are microfiber mops that 

use less water. 

Does that reduce musculoskeletal problems or does it increase 

them? Unfortunately, we do not have a musculoskeletal column, 

but nevertheless, you could do total injury to see across this whole 

industry, all these people are using green cleaners, do they have 

fewer respiratory complaints? Do they have fewer skin complaints? 

Those kinds of things. 

Currently, you have to have a research assistant or a student or 

you have to kind of traipse out to the place, talk to the people, get 

the information, and it is virtually impossible to do it on a scale 

that would allow you to get meaningful statistics. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I recognize myself 

for five minutes of questioning. Mr. Sarvadi, safety experts discussed the difference between leading indicators, such as preventative risk management tools, lagging indicators, such as injury and 

illness rates, leading/lagging, which indicate when a worker has 

not been protected. 

Do you agree injury and illness records are lagging indicators? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

Mr. SARVADI. They are, certainly. We are looking in the rearview 

mirror because we are only looking at what happened in the past. 

Chairman WALBERG. Should OSHA be relying on lagging indicators? 

Mr. SARVADI. I would say OSHA probably ought to listen to its 

own advice. They have been telling employers for more than 10 

years that employers should be providing and looking for leading 

indicators and should be focused on the leading indicators. I think 

they might take their own advice. 

Chairman WALBERG. Hard message but an appropriate message. 

For calendar year 2015, I was struck with the fact that OSHA received fewer than 11,000 reports of hospitalizations and amputations, significant problems. 

While the regulatory proposal suggests that OSHA would receive 

117,000, OSHA believes fiscal year 2015 reports represent only 50 

percent of annual occupational injuries. That is a lot of cover, if 

that is true. 

Have you seen any evidence from OSHA or other studies that 

would justify OSHA’s assumption? 

Mr. SARVADI. I have not. I think the numbers that they are seeing are probably realistic based on my experience over the years 

and in paying attention to the trade press and that sort of thing. 

I think the numbers that we are seeing are probably very realistic 

in terms of what is actually happening. 

Chairman WALBERG. We would certainly conclude there might be 

some out there—there are construction workers under union representation who indicated they held back reporting because of fear 

of being hurt on the job or being fired, and yet they had union representation to protect them from that, so that seems a little bit 

strange, that would be an actual experience, that would be something OSHA was hiding. 

Mr. SARVADI. I think the point that I was trying to make in the 

testimony is we are focusing an awful lot on keeping track of 

things that happened in the past and not taking advantage of what 

we know already to make corrections in the future. 

The anecdotes that we have heard about these things being 

underreported, misreported, certainly, those kinds of things happen, given the number of questions that we get in our office from 

people in the employment community who are asking is this case 

recordable, how do I record it, suggests there are bound to be some 

errors. 

My point is if the BLS approach is correct, and it is statistically 

reliable, then all this effort to generate more information about 

underreported or misreported cases is not going to change the outcome. It is not going to change the understanding of what the real 

significant problems are. 

What I would suggest is OSHA take advantage of what it has 

right now and refocus its efforts to begin looking at ways for employers to work together with their employees to come up with better systems, like the one Ms. Sprick has talked about. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. Ms. Sprick, can you tell what 

you do to protect your employees’ personal health information? 

Ms. SPRICK. Can I? I am sorry, I did not hear what you said. Yes. 

For hard copy, they have separate medical files that are stored in 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

separate locked filing cabinets in a separate locked fireproof room 

within our office that has security cameras and is also monitored 

with security systems. 

Our electronic data, our firewalls are continually tested for hacking, which is my other concern, not only inadvertent disclosure but 

intentional hacking is a very large concern of mine, as it should be 

all of ours. We hear it in the news almost daily. 

My IT guy is a former professional hacker, so companies actually 

hired him to sit outside their office and see how long it took him 

to get into their system. That is my guy that protects my electronic 

data from anyone being able to access it. 

Chairman WALBERG. This would cause you some concern going 

the direction—it is going away from the protection that you are 

providing, including using a professional hacker? 

Ms. SPRICK. Absolutely, yes. For me, it is one more conduit for 

somebody to be able to access information that is private. Also, the 

concern about the information being redacted. I am a small company. If one of my guys breaks their ankle and it is posted on a 

Web site saying this person broke this ankle, it is pretty easy to 

figure out which guy that is. Their personal health and privacy has 

been breached, in my opinion. That is another way that I am concerned. 

Chairman WALBERG. Thank you. I want to thank each of the witnesses for your time and attention. You have been a valuable reference tool and experienced tool for us today in developing our context and understanding of what is going on. 

Our time has expired, so now I recognize my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Wilson, for her closing comments. 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the law is clear: Section 8(c)(2), Section 8(g), and Section 24(a) of the OSH Act expressly tasks the Secretary of Labor with, one, requiring reporting and recordkeeping on 

serious workplace injuries; two, ensuring this information is accurate; three, compiling, analyzing, and publishing either in summary or detailed form, all reports or information obtained under 

this authority. 

OSHA’s recordkeeping rule is clearly grounded in this statutory 

duty and will promote safer workplaces. This rule will give OSHA 

the ability to more quickly identify hazards and target its limited 

funds to prevent injury reoccurrence. 

Publicly available injury data will also help workers that are advocates for improved safety conditions. It will allow responsible employers to better understand and develop ways to mitigate workplace hazards. 

We must reject arguments that workplace safety transparency is 

incompatible with good business. Nothing refutes this point more 

than the work and words of Paul O’Neill, former Secretary of 

Treasury under George W. Bush and former CEO of Alcoa, a global 

leader in aluminum manufacturing based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

In a recent op-ed, Mr. O’Neill wrote, ‘‘Don’t fear transparency, 

embrace it. A focus on safety, even in the glare of public scrutiny, 

will not only help your workers, but it will also improve your bottom line.’’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

Mr. O’Neill, upon taking the helm of Alcoa, made a now infamous inaugural speech declaring his commitment to worker safety 

that would catapult Alcoa’s profits. In the 13 years, Mr. O’Neill 

made worker safety and transparency mission one, Alcoa saw its 

market value climb from $3 billion to $27.53 billion, and net income soared from $200 million to $1.484 billion. Today, Alcoa’s corporate Web site publishes real time injury and illness rates. 

As Mr. O’Neill states, bottom lines and safety transparency are 

definitely compatible and sustainable. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer into the record 

an op-ed from Mr. O’Neill entitled, ‘‘Don’t Fear the Injury Data.’’ 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, it will be entered, and 

hearing no objection, it is done. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 20235.048
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 20235.049
80 

Ms. WILSON. The OSH Act clearly states that the Secretary has 

a duty to ensure the accuracy of workplace injury records and reports. This rule ensures accuracy by addressing underreporting 

that stems from fear of retaliation for reporting. 

As we have heard, workplace safety incentive programs, although 

sometimes well meaning, can actually undermine safety by discouraging employees from reporting injuries. More egregious policies 

and procedures punish workers instead of focusing on addressing 

workplace hazards. 

For example, I have a warning note sent to an employee after he 

sustained several injuries over a three-year period. This note chastises the employee and clearly discourages reporting. 

It states, ‘‘The worker demonstrates a serious lack of attention 

to the worker’s own safety. The employee was suspended for three 

days, stripped of operator classification, and warned he would be 

fired should he have another OSHA recordable injury.’’ 

There is no mention of working with the employee to better understand the cause of injuries or efforts to prevent injury reoccurrence. Just blame, blame, blame; blame for the worker. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter this warning notice into the 

record. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, it will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 20235.050
82 

Ms. WILSON. I applaud OSHA for finalizing rules to improve 

worker safety and increase transparency. No working American 

should head off to work wondering if today is the day she will sustain an injury that seriously impacts her life or takes her life. No 

mother, father, son, or daughter should dread getting a phone call 

informing them that their loved one has been seriously injured on 

the job. 

We should support OSHA in its efforts to promote the better injury and illness recording/reporting that leads to safer workplaces. 

Instead of holding hearings attacking OSHA’s efforts to promote 

worker safety, let’s hold hearings on ways we can support OSHA 

by increasing its budget for better enforcement, or passing H.R. 

2090, Protecting America’s Workers Act, to strengthen OSHA’s ability to protect workers. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place into 

the record letters in support of OSHA’s rule from the following organizations: Public Citizen, American Federation of State, County, 

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), United Steelworkers, Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and 

Innovation. 

I yield the remainder of my time. 

Chairman WALBERG. Without objection, they will be entered. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 20235.051
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 20235.052
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 20235.053
86 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 20235.054
87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 20235.055
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 20235.056
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 20235.057
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 20235.058
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 20235.059
92 

Chairman WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. I thank again the 

panel, as well as my colleagues, in taking action or taking part in 

this hearing. As we started out the hearing, I think we made it 

very clear, Democrat/Republican, employee/employer, bureaucrat, 

there is no one that I have met who wants an unsafe workplace. 

There is no one who wants to see employees injured in the workplace who wants to succeed in the workplace or as an employer. 

We are not, thankfully, in the 1920s and 1930s, or even in the 

1960s, as I remember working at U.S. Steel in a plant that had 

carried on for many, many years, but workplace conditions are not 

what I see now, at least from my perspective of taking 149 workplace visits this last year myself in my district, seeing workplace 

environments in steel mills, manufacturing sites, in small businesses, that do not compare to what went on in the past. 

They are clean. They are up-to-date. They are safe and, frankly, 

they are always in an effort of improving. 

We certainly do not fear transparency. We want transparency. 

We do not fear accuracy in reporting. We want accuracy in reporting. We also want our regulators to understand that there are best 

practices that are better than anything that are being offered, and 

there is a context that needs to be considered as well if you are 

going to have transparency and accuracy. 

When you refuse to take the advice or even offer the opportunity 

for people who live and work and provide jobs and do those jobs 

in the real world, you have a problem that has developed. 

We saw the ability, I believe three years ago, when we had a 

hearing in this subcommittee on fall protection, and we had real 

world testimony coming from some of our Committee members who 

were in the industry and knew what went on, and like Ms. Sprick, 

had an unbelievably good safety record, were able to instruct 

OSHA on the fact that they were going to hurt people if they took 

an one-size-fits-all plan on fall protection. We saw them thankfully 

back away. They heard good advice with context, with accuracy, 

with transparency. 

We are, however, in the twenty-first century, and there is something we did not have back in the 1920s and 1930s, and even to 

a great degree in the 1960s, and that is global competition, massive 

global competition, that do not deal with some of the things we put 

in the way of in certain cases success for our own industry. 

We saw last year $1.9 trillion annual costs to our employers simply for regulatory compliance costs. We need certain regulations, 

but we also need to understand that if we over regulate or we regulate without rationality and regulate even worse without context 

that promotes the value of that regulation, those costs will increase. Those costs are not found in our competitors. They have to 

come up to our standards. Right now, they are just trying to beat 

us. 

Partnership is what we are looking for. Best practices primarily 

developed by business and industry and leading the way for regulators to understand, pushing things like VPP. There is a partnership that allows both sides to learn from each other. 

Rather than going in that direction, we continue to push for more 

regulation for regulation sake, without consideration of context and 

reality. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

93 

To my colleagues and others in the room, that is what this hearing is about, not trying to make the workplace less safe or give special benefit to employers over employees, it is rather to make the 

workplace safe with rational, transparent, and accurate regulation 

that comes in. 

I, again, thank each one involved this morning in this hearing, 

and hopefully, OSHA and other regulators are listening to our concerns and the reality that comes in life itself. 

With no further business to be carried on by the subcommittee, 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Sapper follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 20235.061
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 20235.062
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 20235.063
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 20235.064
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 20235.065
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 20235.066
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 20235.067
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 20235.068
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 20235.069
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 20235.070
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 20235.071
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 20235.072
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 20235.073
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 20235.074
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 20235.075
109 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Walberg follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 20235.076
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 20235.077
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 20235.078
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 20235.079
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 20235.080
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 20235.081
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 20235.082
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 20235.083
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 20235.084
119 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER