U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

39–970 PDF 2008

WORKPLACE TRAGEDIES: EXAMINING

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN LINDEN, NJ, JANUARY 14, 2008

Serial No. 110–74

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

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

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

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

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California, Chairwoman

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Tom Price, Georgia 

John Kline, Minnesota 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on January 14, 2008 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

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

Protections ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

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

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Engler, Rick, director, New Jersey Work Environment Council (WEC) ...... 24

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

Frumin, Eric, director of occupational safety and health, UNITE HERE ... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Socolow, David J., Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development ................................................................................ 13

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

Stanley, James W., president, FDRsafety ...................................................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Wowkanech, Charles, president of the New Jersey State AFL–CIO ........... 18

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

(1)

WORKPLACE TRAGEDIES: EXAMINING 

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS 

Monday, January 14, 2008

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in the 

third floor courtroom, Linden City Hall, 301 North Wood Avenue, 

Linden, New Jersey, Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey [chairwoman of the 

subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Woolsey, Payne, and Wilson. 

Also Present: Representatives Andrews and Holt. 

Staff Present: Jordan Barab, Health/Safety Professional; Lynn 

Dondis, Senior Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Workforce Protection; Sara Lonardo, Staff Assistant, Labor; and Richard Hoar, Minority Professional Staff Member. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. A quorum is present. The hearing of the 

Workforce Protection Subcommittee on Workforce Tragedies: Examining Protections and Problems and Solutions will come to 

order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12A any Member may submit an 

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

I now recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member Joe Wilson 

and Congressman Payne for opening statements. 

I want to say good afternoon to all of you. Thank you for being 

here. Thank you, Mayor Gerbounka and staff for making us so 

comfortable and for hosting us today. My staff tells me his staff has 

been a joy to work with. So thank you very much. 

It is a pleasure to be in Linden today and I want to welcome our 

witnesses. Thank you for being here with us. Thank you attendees 

for being in the audience and caring about what we care about. 

I want to particularly thank Congressman Donald Payne for not 

only suggesting, but pushing and encouraging this hearing for us 

today and thank him for all of his great work on behalf of working 

people. Thank you, Congressman Payne. 

I am delighted that Representative Wilson, Ranking Member of 

the subcommittee is present to be with us today. And I also want 

to welcome Representatives Rob Andrews and Rush Holt who are 

Members of the Full Education and Labor Committee for being 

with us. 

2

While it’s very nice to visit the Garden State of New Jersey, I 

wish this hearing was not necessary, especially when these workplace deaths could have been avoided. On December 1, Victor Diaz 

and Carlos Diaz, employees of North East Linen Company were 

killed as they were power washing a 20,000 gallon dilution tank in 

an industrial laundry facility located right here in Linden. They 

were working in a confined space, but they were working without 

the protective gear and precautions required by OSHA’s confined 

space standard. There was no attendant present to ensure their 

safety and no harnesses to haul them to safety when they got into 

trouble. And so Victor and Carlos Dias suffocated from exposure to 

toxic chemicals. 

Like many workers in this country, Victor and Carlos worked in 

the industrial laundry industry where employees have been largely 

forgotten and the hazards of that industry go unnoticed. Yet, these 

workers who clean the linens and the uniforms for hospitals and 

other institutions face serious hazards, deadly chemicals, machinery that can kill and maim, carelessly discarded contaminated needles and painful back injuries. 

Unfortunately, what happened to Victor and Carlos was not an 

isolated incident in the laundry industry. For example, in March of 

last year, Eleazar Torres-Gomez, an employee at Cintas Corporation’s industrial laundry facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, died after 

being caught in machinery and dragged into a dryer where he was 

killed. In December, Victor and Carlos Diaz were also working in 

a confined space and they were right here in New Jersey where 

deaths and injuries in these conditions are all too common. 

In fact, this was the third multi-worker confined spaces fatality 

in the United States in the last four months. Here is another statistic: more than 5700 workers died in the workplace last year in 

the United States of America. This is the 21st century. These numbers are not acceptable. Sixteen deaths every day in the United 

States. But this number doesn’t even come close to accurately 

counting deaths resulting from work-related illnesses. In fact, the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates 

that between 50,000 and 60,000 workers die every year as a result 

of workplace illnesses. The sad fact is that most of these deaths 

and illnesses could have been prevented had OSHA standards and 

other well-recognized safe working procedures been followed. 

The Members of this subcommittee and the full Education and 

Labor Committee chaired by Representative George Miller from 

California, have made worker health and safety one of our top priorities this year. And this hearing will supplement our on-going investigation into why American workers in the 21st century in the 

wealthiest nation in the world are not protected. 

Unfortunately, what we have established thus far is that the current Administration has failed to keep America’s promise to send 

workers home at the end of each day alive and in good health. Instead, OSHA has bowed to the request of employers and has relied 

on companies’ voluntary compliance rather than enforcing existing 

laws and issuing new protective standards to address new and existing standards. This Congress has been forced to move forward 

to compel OSHA and other agencies at the Department of Labor to 

live up to the responsibility given them under the law. 

3

So Congressman Andrews and I have legislation pending to expand OSHA protections to the 8.6 million public employees who are 

currently without OSHA coverage. This legislation also raises civil 

penalties on employers and makes felony charges available against 

employers who commit willful violations. The House has also just 

about—I think it’s going to happen next week. We’re about to take 

up crucial mine legislation to force the Mine Safety and Health Administration to keep miners safe. 

Last fall, the House passed the bill that I had introduced, the 

Popcorn Lung Workers Disease Prevention Act that will require 

OSHA to develop standards to protect workers exposed to diacetyl. 

You may have never even heard of diacetyl. This legislation was 

necessary because popcorn and flavoring workers who work around 

the chemical are contacting popcorn lung, an irreversible lifethreatening respiratory disease, at an alarming rate. And OSHA 

has simply failed on a timely basis to protect these workers. And 

now we’re learning that grill cooks are also affected by this already 

deadly chemical. And you know what, we eat it. So we better start 

paying attention to this stuff. 

In addition and in response to the health and safety hazards of 

Cintas Corporation that have been killing and injuring its workers, 

we are examining why OSHA cannot or will not do corporate-wide 

investigations when a national company such as Cintas has a 

record of ignoring worker safety. 

The bottom line is that when OSHA fails to act, American workers pay the price, often with their lives. So today, with the tragic 

deaths of Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz, for the tragic consequences 

to their families, for the effect it’s had on their friends and co-workers and for their communities, we are going to review what went 

on. We’re going to learn some lessons, and possibly we can honor 

these fallen workers by preventing workplace injuries and deaths 

in the future. 

Thank you. And Ranking Member Wilson. 

[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

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

on Workforce Protections 

Good Afternoon. 

It is a pleasure to be in Linden today and I want to welcome all of our witnesses 

and attendees. 

In particular, I want to thank Representative Donald Payne for suggesting this 

hearing and for all of his great work on behalf of working people. 

I am delighted that Representative Wilson, the ranking member of the subcommittee is present today. 

And I also want to welcome Representatives Rob Andrews and Rush Holt, members of the full Education and Labor Committee, who are [or will be] joining us. 

While it is nice to visit the Garden State of New Jersey, I wish this hearing was 

not necessary, especially when these workplace deaths could have been avoided. 

On December 1, Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz—employees of North East Linen 

Company—were killed as they were power-washing a 20,000-gallon dilution tank at 

an industrial laundry facility located here in Linden. 

They were working in a confined space but without the protective gear and precautions required by OSHA’s confined space standard. 

There was no attendant present to ensure their safety and no harnesses to haul 

them to safety when they got in trouble. 

And so Victor and Carlos Diaz suffocated to death from exposure to toxic chemicals. 

4

Like many workers in this country, Victor and Carlos Diaz worked in the industrial laundry industry where employees are largely forgotten and the hazards of 

that industry go unnoticed. 

Yet these workers who clean the linens and uniforms for hospitals and other institutions face serious hazards: deadly chemicals, machinery that can kill and maim, 

carelessly discarded contaminated needles and painful back injuries. 

Unfortunately, what happened to Victor and Carlos Diaz was not an isolated incident in the laundry industry. 

For example, in March of last year, Eleazar [Al-a-zar] Torres-Gomez, an employee 

at Cintas Corporation’s industrial laundry facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma died after 

being caught in machinery and dragged into a dryer, where he was killed. 

Victor and Carlos Diaz were also working in a confined space, and deaths and injuries in these conditions are all too common as well. 

In fact, this was the third multi-worker confined space fatality in the U.S. in the 

last 4 months. 

More than 5,700 workers died in the workplace last year. 

This amounts to almost sixteen deaths every day. 

But this number doesn’t even come close to accurately counting deaths resulting 

from work-related illnesses. 

In fact, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates that 

between 50,000 to 60,000 workers die every year as a result of workplace illnesses. 

And the sad fact is that most of these deaths and illnesses could have been prevented had OSHA standards and other well-recognized safe working procedures 

been followed. 

The members of this subcommittee, and the full Education and Labor Committee 

chaired by Representative George Miller, have made worker health and safety one 

of our top priorities, and this hearing will supplement our ongoing investigations 

into why American workers today are not protected. 

Unfortunately, what we have established thus far is that the current Administration has failed to keep the promise to send workers home at the end of each day 

alive and in good health. 

Instead, OSHA has bowed to the requests of employers and has relied on companies’ voluntary compliance, when it should have been enforcing the law and issuing 

new, protective standards to address new and old hazards. 

This Congress has been forced to move forward to compel OSHA and other agencies at the Department of Labor to live up to the responsibility given them under 

the law. 

So, Mr. Andrews and I have legislation pending to protect the 8.6 million public 

employees who are currently without OSHA coverage. 

This legislation also raises civil penalties on employees and makes felony charges 

available against employers who commit willful violations. 

And the House is about to take up crucial mine legislation to force the Mine Safety and Health Administration to keep miners safe. 

Last fall, the House passed a bill I had introduced—the Popcorn Lung Workers 

Disease Prevention Act—that would require OSHA to develop standards to protect 

workers exposed to diacetyl [die-ass-a-teal]. 

This legislation was necessary because popcorn and flavoring workers who work 

around the chemical are contracting ‘‘popcorn lung’’—a irreversible and life-threatening respiratory disease—at an alarming rate, and OSHA has simply failed on a 

timely basis to protect them. 

In addition, and in response to the health and safety hazards at Cintas Corporation that have been killing and injuring its workers, we are examining why OSHA 

cannot or will not do corporate-wide investigations when a national company such 

as Cintas has a record of ignoring worker safety. 

The bottom line is that when OSHA fails to act, it is American workers who pay 

the price, often with their lives. 

This hearing will look at a tragedy that occurred in this City, taking the lives of 

two innocent workers, Victor and Carlos Diaz. 

And what I want to hear from all of our these heartbreaking events from happening. 

How do we ensure that OSHA fulfills its mission to protect workers from unsafe 

and unhealthful workplaces? 

The deaths of Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz were a tragedy—for their families, for 

their friends and co-workers and for their communities. 

What we must do is learn from this tragedy so that we honor these fallen workers 

by preventing workplace injury and death in the future. 

5

Mr. WILSON. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman 

Woolsey, and thank you, Mr. Payne, for hosting us in your congressional district today. At the outset, I would like to express my 

deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of Mr. Carlos 

Diaz and Mr. Victor Diaz, in the loss of their loved ones. I know 

that the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, OSHA, is 

investigating this accident to determine the cause. I am confident 

that the investigation will be thorough. Because there’s an on-going 

investigation, this is a preliminary hearing and I look forward to 

a report on the completed investigation. 

While congressional oversight is important, without a completed 

investigation there is little factual evidence to determine what potential changes are needed to existing OSHA regulations. More 

broadly, safety regulations already address many of the concerns to 

be examined today. For example, there are regulations addressing 

confined space and lockout/tagout issues. Can these regulations be 

improved? What other regulations are at issue? Currently, there 

are no clear answers. 

While I believe more could be learned when the investigation is 

completed, I am hopeful that today’s hearing takes full advantage 

of this opportunity by focusing clearly on workplace safety and the 

related laws and regulations. 

Today’s testimony will demonstrate that no one is sitting idly by 

when it comes to safety. This field hearing will give us a unique 

perspective on what New Jersey is doing cooperatively with industry and labor to cement safety as a cornerstone of every working 

day. I look forward to the discussion. 

On a personal note, I am grateful to be in the home region of my 

daughter-in-law who is a proud native of North Jersey. I can report 

that the ties and friendships between the people of New Jersey and 

South Carolina are stronger every day. Additionally, I represent 

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, where a huge number of energetic constituents are welcome transplants from New Jersey. And 

of course, you don’t have to just, you don’t need to relocate, just 

come and spend vacation at the shore and then the beach. 

Again, I want to thank my New Jersey colleagues and we’ve got 

three very fine persons here today. I want to thank them for providing this opportunity to visit the Garden State. 

[The statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

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

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Payne for hosting us in your Congressional District today. At the outset, I would like to express my condolences to the families affected by the accident in Linden. I know that the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) is investigating this accident to determine the cause and I 

am confident that the investigation will be thorough. 

Because there is an ongoing investigation, however, I am concerned that this 

hearing may be premature. While Congressional oversight is important, without a 

completed investigation there is little factual evidence to determine what potential 

changes are needed to existing OSHA regulations. More broadly, safety regulations 

already address many of the concerns to be examined today. For example, there are 

regulations addressing confined space and lockout/tagout issues. Can these regulations be improved? Are other regulations at issue? Currently, there are no clear answers. Might there be other goals or objectives, then, in holding this hearing? While 

I believe more could be learned when the investigation is complete, I am hopeful 

6

that today’s hearing takes full advantage of this opportunity by focusing clearly on 

workplace safety and the related laws and regulations. 

Today’s testimony will demonstrate that no one is sitting idly by when it comes 

to safety. This field hearing will give us a unique perspective on what New Jersey 

is doing to work cooperatively with industry and labor to cement safety as a cornerstone of every working day. I look forward to the discussion. 

Again, I thank my New Jersey colleagues for providing an opportunity to visit the 

Garden State. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I think he’s trying to say he wants you to bring your tax dollars down to South 

Carolina. 

Now I’m honored to yield time, as much time as he may consume 

to Congressman Donald Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman for taking the time to come from sunny California to the 

Garden State. Of course, we told the weather to cooperate with us. 

You know, we’re supposed to have a foot of snow or a half a foot, 

whatever. And I am pleased that that did not happen. I think because you were coming, they gave us a little slack. So it’s good to 

have you here and certainly commend you for the work that you’ve 

done on this Committee that you chair and the previous hearings 

that you had regarding this same issue shows that you’re on top 

of the matter. Also, I commend you for your co-chairing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. 

Let me also thank my good friend Congressman Wilson. You’re 

right, every day I’m getting someone sending me a farewell letter, 

saying they’re moving to South Carolina, but up here in New Jersey, you know, you can still vote up here. 

Let me say that I appreciate your coming. We’ve traveled together to Iraq, actually, and I know your son is in the armed services that we had a chance to visit with when we went there and 

so we appreciate what you and your family are doing for our country. Of course, it’s great to see my two colleagues, Congressman 

Rob Andrews, who as you know also chairs one of the labor subcommittees; and Rush Holt, who also is a Member of the Education 

and Labor Committee. So we’re very pleased that we have such 

outstanding Congressmen who have decided that education and 

labor issues are so important to our country that they’ve elected to 

be on this very important Committee. So thank you both for coming. You didn’t have to come as far as the others, but I’ll thank you 

anyway. 

Let me say that I certainly want to welcome the other persons 

here, friends, and colleagues to this important hearing which will 

examine the circumstances surrounding the deaths of two workers 

at the North East Linen Laundry facility here in Linden, and workplace facilities, in general. As I mentioned, we’ve had a hearing on 

this same issue in Washington several months ago and so it’s just 

timely that we are staying on this key issue. It makes no sense 

that in 2008 people are still dying from preventable circumstances. 

It must stop. 

It is also with a sense of sadness and anger that we hold this 

hearing today in my Congressional District. Let me be very clear 

about this. Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz should be alive today. 

While OSHA has not yet issued a report, it is clear that they were 

7

not provided with the training or protection they needed, the training and protection that the laws require them to have before being 

sent to their deaths in that tank. While we don’t know everything 

about this case yet, as it’s been mentioned by Mr. Wilson, they’re 

still investigating the case, we do know a few troubling things and 

we have a number of questions about this tragedy that I hope our 

witnesses will be able to answer here today. 

We know that North East Linen recently requested and was provided a free safety and health consultation from the State of New 

Jersey under a federally-funded consultation program. But the 

company inexplicitly limited this consultation to its hazard communications or chemical training program instead of asking the consultants to look at the entire operation. I want to know why companies are allowed to earn the public relations benefit of receiving a 

voluntary safety consultation without ensuring the entire operation 

is looked at. 

I also do not understand how this company could receive a passing grade on its hazardous communication program when clearly 

the chemical hazards of entering this tank were ignored. Had Victor and Carlos Diaz received this training? One article about this 

tragedy called it a freak accident. That sounds like it was out of 

the ordinary like no one could have predicted it. It was something 

that was totally unimaginable. But it is my understanding that the 

hazards of confined spaces where these workers were killed are 

well known. We talk about confined spaces all the time. There are 

regulations about confined spaces. So how could this be a freak accident when we know what should have been done. None of it was 

done. In fact, my staff informed me today that on January 14, 

2008, is the fifteenth anniversary of the publication of OSHA’s confined spaces standard. So it’s not something new. Wasn’t just 

around the corner. It was on January 14th, 15 years ago that these 

regulations were confirmed. 

Although we will have to wait a few more months for OSHA’s 

final verdict, it certainly appears that this standard was grossly 

violated and Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz paid the ultimate price 

because North East Linen apparently did not comply with the wellknown OSHA standard. The deaths of Victor and Carlos were not 

the only tragedies to strike this city in my District or this State at 

the beginning of the holiday season. On December 7th, less than 

a week after the tragedy at North East Linen, two brothers, residents of Linden, window washers, Edgar Moreno, 30; and Alcides 

Moreno, 37; fell 47 stories off a building on Manhattan’s east side 

when their platform collapsed. They lived right here in Linden. Our 

staff talked to the family just in the last few days and invited them 

to come, but she’s of course, attending the hospital every day. But 

it’s miraculous that he’s still alive. Forty-seven stories off a building. Edgar Moreno was killed, but miraculously, his brother, 

Alcides, survives and is still in the hospital, as I mentioned undergoing several surgeries. 

Elsewhere in New Jersey, more workers were dying. On December 3rd, a warehouse worker in Huntington County died after he 

struck his head twice in a fall near a loading dock. On December 

5th, Arthur Crane, a 45-year-old lineman contracting for JBL Electric in Totowa was killed after falling 60 feet off a tower. Five dead 

8

and one seriously injured in less than a week right here, practically 

in my District. 

Like Victor and Carlos, three of these other four victims were immigrants. The Moreno brothers were from Ecuador. The warehouse 

worker who died in Huntington County was from El Salvador. This 

is especially troubling because official statistics show that while the 

number of deaths among white workers have remained relatively 

stable over the past several years, the number of deaths among immigrant workers continue to climb and climb and climb. There are 

reasons for this in my opinion. First of all, in addition to language 

barriers, they do more dangerous work and they’re often less willing to complain about recognized hazards. In fact, according to a 

family member, Edgar and Alcides Moreno, the ones who fell off—

fell down 47 stories, knew their scaffold had a mechanical problem 

before they climbed the tower, but they were assured by a boss 

that it had been fixed. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. 

In all, December was not a good month for New Jersey workers. 

However, I am also proud of this State. New Jersey is one of the 

24 States that provide federally-approved OSHA coverage for its 

public employees and one of only three States that runs its own 

public employee-only OSHA plans. We should be proud of that. 

We’re proud of the Governor and his Department of Labor, and the 

Commissioner who we’ll hear from in a few minutes. 

We lead the country with progressive, effective, chemical plant 

security regulations that encourage refineries and chemical plants 

to use inherently safer technologies and provide workers with significant input into chemical plant security programs. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and I hope 

that we can move forward to ensure that we find a way to prevent 

any more of these tragedies. Let me thank you once again for calling this very important hearing. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you for encouraging it, Congressman. 

Now I have the privilege of introducing our distinguished panel 

of witnesses and in the order that they will be speaking. Eric 

Frumin is Director of the Health and Safety Program for UNITE 

HERE, which represents about 450,000 textile, laundry, and hospitality workers in the United States and Canada. Mr. Frumin has 

been with UNITE HERE since 1980. He also serves as the health 

and safety coordinator for Change to Win. Mr. Frumin has also advised trade unions and governments in Asia, Africa, and Central 

and South America, as well as the United Nations Commission on 

Sustainable Development. Mr. Frumin served as chair of the Labor 

Advisory Committee on OSHA Statistics to the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics from 1983 to 2003. He received his B.A. from the 

State University of New York in 1979 and his master’s from New 

York University in 1981. I’m going to introduce all of the witnesses 

and then we’re going to hear from them. 

David Socolow, welcome. It’s nice to see your nice face, David. 

We’ve missed it around the Congress. David is the Commissioner 

of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. He was appointed Acting Commissioner on January 17, 2006 

and confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on June 30 of that same 

year. Before his appointment, Mr. Socolow had served as the DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
9

partment’s Director of Unemployment Insurance. He previously 

worked as a senior advisor to the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Labor and as Chief of Staff to our fellow Committee 

Member Rob Andrews of New Jersey. Mr. Socolow earned his bachelor’s from Harvard University and his master’s in public administration from Rutgers. 

Charles Wowkanech has been president of the New Jersey State 

AFL-CIO since January 5, 1997. Prior to that he served two terms 

as State Secretary-Treasurer and six years as Assistant to the 

President. He is second generation member of Local 68 of the Operating Engineers and was the youngest member ever named to the 

Local’s Executive Board. Mr. Wowkanech also serves on the Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Advisory Council 

on Workers Compensation, Prevailing Wages and the Rutgers 

School of Management and Labor Relations State Advisory Council. 

He currently lives in Ocean City, New Jersey. 

James Stanley is president of FDRsafety, a position he has held 

since March 2004. He is here today representing the Uniform and 

Textile Service Association. Previous to 2004, he was vice president 

of Safety and Health for AK Steel and worked at the Occupational 

Health and Safety Administration for almost 25 years. Mr. Stanley 

has also sat on the National Safety Council’s Board of Directors 

and served as the National Safety Council’s chairman of the trustees. He is a member of the Association of Iron and Steel Engineers 

and is chair of that organization’s safety and health committee. Mr. 

Stanley earned his bachelor of science from Elizabethtown College. 

Rick Engler is director of the Work Environment Council of the 

State of New Jersey. He is the author of Action Steps for Chemical 

Safety and Hometown Security in New Jersey. Last November, Mr. 

Engler was honored by the National Council on Occupational Safety and Health for his role in developing public policy. Mr. Engler 

served as legislative and program director of the New Jersey Industrial Union, an AFL-CIO affiliate for 11 years. He is also founder 

of the Philadelphia-Area Project on Occupational Safety and Health 

and served on then Governor-elect John Corzine’s Environmental 

Policy Transition Committee. Mr. Engler received his B.A. from 

Antioch College. 

Now we need you to know that you need to talk into the microphones and you will each have five minutes. We won’t bat you 

down right away, but finish your thoughts when you see that the 

five minute—yellow will say you’ve got a minute left and then red 

will say time to quit. And then there will be time for questions and 

answers for you to I believe finish thoughts if we haven’t gotten to 

all of your thoughts. So we will begin with and we’re delighted to 

have Mr. Frumin. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC FRUMIN, DIRECTOR, OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM, UNITE HERE 

Mr. FRUMIN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Woolsey, Mr. 

Payne, other Members of the Committee. 

UNITE HERE greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify 

about the terrible tragedy at the North East Linen that killed Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz on December 1st and also appreciate your 

10

interest in holding this hearing to bring the facts to the public’s attention. 

For too long, when dangerous conditions and bad management 

result in workers’ deaths, the workers die alone. Few people pay 

any attention other than their families, their co-workers and the 

crew on the ambulance or in the emergency room. 

The situation at North East Linen was different, at least because 

some people in the news media paid a lot of attention for a few 

days. And because you are here today to focus your own attention 

on these events. 

But that does not make this tragedy any easier for the families 

of Victor and Carlos Diaz, no matter how much attention anyone 

pays today or tomorrow. They are gone. Ripped from their families 

in a sudden and brutal moment. 

We do not know exactly how this brutality came about. We do 

not know who at North East Linen gave an order for Victor or Carlos to go into that tank. We do not know who among the managers 

told them anything, or nothing at all, about the extreme dangers 

from entering tanks like the one at the laundry in Linden. 

We don’t know whether anyone in a position of authority at 

North East Linen took any of the strict measures which OSHA requires to protect people assigned to jobs inside these tanks. But we 

do know something about the laundry industry. We know enough 

about this industry to believe that managers in this industry are 

keenly aware of the dangers of so-called confined spaces like water 

tanks. 

We have laundry workers who are here with us today. Every 

day, workers like these confront equipment that is considered confined spaces: huge washers, especially huge dryers. 

Equally indeed at North East Linen’s sister plant in New Haven, 

Connecticut, called New England Linen and both run by the same 

president, John Ryan, workers filed a complaint with OSHA’s 

Bridgeport office in January 2006. OSHA’s inspectors found dozens 

of violations and cited the company for violating the standard on 

confined spaces. 

In addition to the confined space violation, OSHA also found 

other potentially life-threatening violations, some of which were 

considered bad enough to cause death or serious physical harm 

with total penalties amounting to $25,000. So it should have been 

clear to the owners and managers at New England Linen, the same 

ones who run the New Haven plant, that OSHA rules are serious 

obligations for employers. More important, it should have been 

crystal clear to the owners and managers that the OSHA standard 

on confined spaces was important. In New Haven, OSHA required 

the company to do the kind of survey which had they done here in 

Linden, might have saved the lives, would have saved the lives of 

Victor and Carlos Diaz. 

So what’s the lesson here? From our experience, as Mr. Payne 

has always said, this is not a freak accident. The hazard from confined spaces is so well understood in this industry and generally. 

It’s no surprise that these conditions would kill people. It was really more just a matter of time. In my opinion, it was no accident 

at all. 

11

What we have learned from the news reports is these deaths 

were preventable. They would be alive today. What do the standards require? It’s a long list to save time. I’ll skip it. But they are 

very important protections for people. Mr. Socolaw can tell us 

more. 

These are the requirements of the law of our land. This is the 

OSHA Act. It says that Congress shall set standards. It says the 

Secretary of Labor shall set standards. It says the Secretary shall 

enforce them, that employers will comply with those standards. 

They put the requirements on the employer, not just on the Government, on the employer. Not just on workers, on the employer. 

And instead of receiving the protection from the managers that the 

law requires, the workers didn’t get that protection. All they got 

was some plastic wrapped around their legs. 

So at times like this, as painful as it is, workers want to ask 

themselves whose fault was it? Should they have trusted their 

managers? Too often workers trust their managers. They think it 

was their fault, that they did something wrong. Not so. 

Workers don’t feel free to complain as Mr. Payne has said. Employers like it that way, many of them, unfortunately. No trouble 

makers. No one complaining. Our experience is workers need to be 

able to speak out and to really speak out they need to have a 

union. Workers here do not have a union. With a union, they can 

find out how to protect themselves. They can find out—they can 

know what it means not to be a troublemaker, but to be a responsible worker. And until workers have unions and are free to speak 

out, they need a strong OSHA with enough resources to do the 

right thing to protect workers, not just in this industry, but in all 

industry, armed with the strongest standards we can design. 

On behalf of the 150,000 workers in this industry, in the laundry 

industry, we again thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing, for recognizing the importance of supporting workers who 

speak up, who protest dangerous conditions. We urge you to take 

immediate action to get OSHA the tools and resources it needs. 

I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the time. 

[The statement of Mr. Frumin follows:]

Prepared Statement of Eric Frumin, Director of Occupational Safety and 

Health, UNITE HERE 

Mme. Chairwoman, Mr. Payne, other members of the Committee: UNITE HERE 

greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify about the terrible tragedy at the North 

East Linen Co. that killed Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz on December 1, 2007. We 

also appreciate your interest in holding this hearing to bring the facts to the public’s 

attention. 

For too long, when dangerous conditions and bad management result in workers’ 

deaths, the workers die alone. Few people pay any attention other than their families, their co-workers and the crew on the ambulance or in the emergency room. 

The situation at North East Linen was different, at least because some people in 

the news media paid a lot of attention for a few days. And because you are here 

today focusing your own attention on these events. 

But that does not make this tragedy any less terrible for the families of Victor 

Diaz and Carlos Diaz. No matter how much attention anyone pays today and tomorrow, they are gone—ripped from their families in a sudden, brutal moment. 

We do not know exactly how this brutality came about. 

We do not know who at North East Linen gave an order for Victor or Carlos to 

go into the tank. 

12

1Other ‘‘serious’’ violations in New Haven included fire and electrical hazards, storage of flammable or combustible liquids, and employee training. See OSHA inspections #123161820 and 

309375582. 2OSHA Standard: 29 CFR 1910.146

We do not know who among the managers told them anything, or nothing at all, 

about the extreme dangers from entering tanks like the one at the laundry in Linden. 

We do not know whether anyone in a position of authority at North East Linen 

took any of the strict measures which OSHA requires to protect people assigned to 

jobs inside tanks. 

But we do know something about the laundry industry. 

We know enough about this industry to believe that managers in this industry 

are keenly aware of the dangers of so-called ‘‘confined spaces’’—like water tanks. 

We have laundry workers here with us today. Every day, workers like them confront equipment that is considered confined spaces: huge washers, and equally huge 

dryers. 

Indeed, at North East Linen’s sister plant in New Haven, CT—called New England Linen and both run by President John Ryan—workers filed a complaint with 

OSHA’s Bridgeport office in January, 2006. OSHA’s inspectors found dozens of violations, and cited the company for violation of the standard on confined spaces. 

In addition to the confined space violation, OSHA also found potentially lifethreatening violations of OSHA’s standards on safe equipment maintenance, machine guarding, and chemical hazard training.1

OSHA considered those hazards bad enough to cause ‘‘death or serious physical harm.’’ Total penalties amounted initially to nearly $25,000. 

So it should have been crystal clear to the owners and managers of New England 

Linen—the same owners who run North East Linen—that OSHA rules are serious 

obligations for employers. 

More important, it should have been crystal clear to the owners and managers 

that OSHA’s standard on confined spaces was important. In New Haven, OSHA required the company to do the kind of survey of possible confined space hazards that 

trigger all the protective requirements that would have saved the lives of Victor 

Diaz and Carlos Diaz. 

What’s the lesson here? Based on our years of experience in this industry, we believe that this was not just a so-called ‘‘freak accident.’’

The hazard from confined spaces is so well-understood and predictable that it was 

no surprise that these conditions would kill these workers—it was only a matter of 

time before the dangers killed them. 

So in my opinion, this was no accident at all. From what we have learned from 

the news reports, these deaths were completely preventable. Victor Diaz and Carlos 

Diaz would probably be alive if the company had complied with the law and given 

these workers all the protections that OSHA’s standard requires:2

The standards require: 

• A careful survey of the workplace to determine where these hazards are lurking—the very survey that OSHA required from New England Linen after the workers complained there in 2006. • A strict permitting system to prevent anyone from even starting a tank entry 

without a complete set of protective measures. • Careful tests on the air inside the tank, and proper ventilation to make sure 

that enough clean air was present. 

• Strict rescue procedures, including full body harnesses and lifelines, as well as 

proper standby hoist equipment and fully-trained stand-by rescue personnel who 

know how to use it. 

• Full necessary protective equipment and communication equipment 

• Proper breathing apparatus in case of problems with the available air supply. 

Compliance with these standards would have assured that Victor Diaz could do 

this job safely, and that Carlos Diaz or anyone else helping him would know exactly 

how to rescue him in case of a problem. 

These are the requirements that the law of our land clearly imposes on the company—not on the workers, or the government, but squarely on the shoulders of the 

managers of plants like North East Linen. 

Sadly, according to press reports, instead of receiving the protection from their 

managers that these detailed rules require, the only so-called ‘‘protection’’ they had 

was plastic wrapped around their legs. 

At times like this, as painful as it is, some people will speculate about whose fault 

this is. 

Many workers want to trust in their managers to protect them. 

13

And when workers suffer injuries—or even death—because they do not receive the 

legal minimum protection, workers sometimes ask whether the workers themselves 

were at fault. 

Despite tragedies like this, many workers will continue to trust their employers 

to protect them. They are especially vulnerable, because they trust the wrong people. 

They are vulnerable because they simply don’t know how dangerous the work 

really is. 

And worst of all, many workers who know about the dangers believe they have 

no choice but to accept these hazardous assignments. 

And many managers like it that way. No problems from troublemakers. 

But the experience here in Linden proves one more time that dangers on the job 

are is too important and widespread to leave it up to individual workers to object, 

or to complain to OSHA. 

Because despite what many of us want to believe, employers who should be responsible are not responsible, and we can’t trust them to protect us. 

That’s why these workers need a union—OSHA’s not enough. 

Union members can find out how to deal with these kinds of employers—and get 

the support they need to protect themselves. 

But at the same time, we also know that until every worker has a voice, until 

every worker is free to be a ‘‘troublemaker,’’ we know that the only protection they 

have is a strong and vigilant OSHA. 

An OSHA armed with plenty of resources, and the strongest standards we can design. 

Standards like the one on confined spaces that would have protected the lives of 

workers here in Linden, if only their managers had done the right thing. 

On behalf of the 150,000 workers in the laundry industry, we again thank the 

subcommittee for holding this hearing, and for recognizing the importance of supporting workers who speak up, who protest dangerous conditions. 

We urge the subcommittee to take immediate action to help OSHA get the tools 

and resources it needs to protect workers. I will be happy to answer any questions 

you have. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. We’re going to go through 

the whole witness panel and then we will ask questions in order 

up here. 

Okay, David Socolow. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SOCOLOW, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. SOCOLOW. Chairwoman Woolsey, thank you very much for 

the opportunity. Thank you for holding this vitally important hearing in New Jersey; Congressman Payne, Ranking Member Wilson, 

other distinguished Members of the Panel. I’m delighted you’re 

here and a special warm welcome from Governor Corzine to you, 

Ms. Woolsey, and to you, Mr. Wilson, to our Garden State, along 

with our profound thanks for your leadership and dedication to the 

life and health of America’s workers. 

Governor Corzine has established promotion of workplace safety 

as a top priority for state government and we subscribe to the comment as made earlier in this hearing that every worker and his or 

her family has the right to expect to arrive home at the end of the 

day safe and whole after that day’s work. And we do have a long 

history in New Jersey as a pioneer in improving worker safety and 

health. I will only summarize it, but I will remind the Committee 

that, in fact, in 1965 before OSHA’s inception, New Jersey enacted 

a comprehensive State Worker and Safety Health Act which really 

was the pattern for the federal OSHA Act led by our Senator Harrison Williams in 1970. And in 1983, as Congressman Payne menVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
14

tioned, our State established safety and health protections for New 

Jersey’s more than half a million public employees. In 2001, our 

State PEOSHA program, Public Employee OSHA program was recognized by federal OSHA as one of only three certified public-sector 

only state plans in the nation. So we’re doing a lot to try to protect 

workers. 

The other two major things that we do that I want to briefly 

touch on are safety and health training initiatives. We provide significant state-funded support to train workers in occupational safety and health curricula. We’ve committed millions of dollars of New 

Jersey State funds to provide comprehensive safety and health 

training, to assist employers to protect their workers and to emphasize the importance of robust worker involvement in workplace 

safety and to demonstrate to employers the value of well-trained 

workers and safety worksites. I know that President Wowkanech 

will touch on one of this initiatives. New Jersey sponsors the highly 

effective Occupational Safety and Health Education Project which 

is a partnership between our department and the New Jersey State 

AFL-CIO that targets high hazard industries, teaches occupational 

safety and health curricula to worker trainers so that they can 

then act as force multipliers and go out and train their fellow 

workers in the skills they have learned. 

Again, we believe that this involvement, when managers directly 

and meaningfully involve unions and the workers that they represent in the development of comprehensive safety and health programs, that that significantly improves workplace safety. 

And the other major thing that our department is involved in is 

the safety and health consultation service which is a service offered 

to employers free of charge and we encourage every employer in 

the Garden State to take advantage of this service so that they 

may understand the importance of safe and healthy workplaces, receive assessments of their working conditions, hazards, and potential hazards of their workplace and worksites, and obtain training 

to help ensure that workers know how to reduce the risks of particular jobs that inherently pose hazards to the safety and health. 

I know that we’ll get into some questions about that consultation 

program, but we believe it does serve a valuable role. 

But as the recent tragic events here in Linden and elsewhere as 

Congressman Payne so heartbrokenly laid out for us, we’ve had 

some real tragic deaths in workplace locations that are inherently 

hazardous. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Diaz families 

and to the families of all the other workers who have had this kind 

of terrible event in their lives. 

We believe that the confined spaces standard that Mr. Frumin 

just touched on is a vital component of a safety program to protect 

employees who work in a space such as a tank, a storage bin, a 

silo that is large enough for an employee to enter and work which 

has restricted means of entry and which is not designed for continuous occupancy. 

Let me just emphasize one aspect of that confined space standard 

with the time I have left. Again, it requires for permit-required 

confined space settings, effective communication and consultation 

with the affected employees and their authorized representatives 

on the development and implementation of all aspects of the perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
15

mit-required confined space program. It requires as already has 

been said an in-house rescue team, or arranging for an outside rescue service. It requires a number of specific things which are laid 

out in my full-written testimony and the specific confined space 

training is recommended as part of the comprehensive 30-hour 

OSHA training course. Any business where confined space entry is 

even an issue ought to be training its workers on the OSHA 30-

hour training course and as I said, our state government, together 

with our partners, plays a role in getting that vital training out so 

that employers need only ask and we’ll provide that training. 

However, while our state government can provide and sponsor 

training and consultation, we need robust enforcement from federal 

OSHA. And we also need development, continuous development of 

new occupational safety and health standards that reflect up-todate knowledge of workplace standards. Unfortunately, under the 

Bush Administration federal OSHA has focused their attention on 

voluntary partnerships and alliances with unproven effectiveness. 

And also has completely stopped issuing new or improved health 

and safety standards during the past seven years. So I hope that 

this hearing will bring greater attention to those issues and I 

thank the Members of the subcommittee for taking the lead in protecting workers. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Socolow follows:]

Prepared Statement of David J. Socolow, Commissioner, New Jersey 

Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

State initiatives for safer workplaces 

Chairwoman Woolsey, Congressman Payne, Members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for holding this vitally important hearing in New Jersey. I am David Socolow, 

Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

I join Governor Jon S. Corzine in offering a warm welcome to you, Madame Chairwoman, as you visit the Garden State, along with our profound thanks for your 

leadership and dedication to the lives and health of America’s workers. I appreciate 

this opportunity to discuss what our state is doing to protect workers through safer 

and healthier jobsites. 

Governor Corzine has established the promotion of workplace safety as a top priority for state government. Every worker and his or her family has the right to expect when he or she arrives at work each day that he or she will be able to return 

home safe and whole at the end of a day’s work. We strive for this goal each day, 

reflecting a commitment to occupational health and safety in New Jersey going back 

for more than a century. 

New Jersey’s historic commitment to safer workplaces 

Governor Corzine is building on New Jersey’s long history as a pioneer in improving worker safety and health. We are proud of the efforts of labor, business and government in the Garden State to foster a culture of safety. Our state has been a leader in protecting our greatest assets, the working men and women of New Jersey, 

and communicating this commonsense value to an expanding number of our state’s 

employers. 

As far back as 1904, New Jersey’s Factory Act sought to guard the safety of industrial workers and to ‘‘surround the workman with more protection than the common 

law gave him.’’ Established in 1920, the New Jersey State Industrial Safety Committee remains active today, promoting cooperative approaches between management and labor to eliminate workplace accidents and injuries. The New Jersey State 

Industrial Safety Committee is the longest-running organization of its kind in our 

nation; it provides our state government with valuable advice and insight on issues 

of workplace health and safety today, as it has for state Labor Commissioners 

throughout more than eight decades. 

In partnership with the Industrial Safety Committee, we sponsor annual awards 

to recognize the cooperative efforts of exemplary New Jersey businesses and their 

16

workers to maintain jobsites free of lost-time accidents, some with zero-incident 

records that have stretched for more than a decade. From the past 80 years of New 

Jersey’s Governor’s Annual Occupational Safety and Health Awards Program, we’ve 

seen that when a jobsite logs millions of consecutive hours without a single lostwork-time incident, it’s not simply good luck—such an achievement reflects a true 

culture of safety with buy-in from management and real involvement by workers 

and their representatives. 

New Jersey’s path-breaking commitment to workplace safety and health was also 

an inspiration for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. In 1965, before 

OSHA’s inception, New Jersey enacted a comprehensive state Worker Safety and 

Health Act, which provided that ‘‘every employer shall furnish a place of employment which shall be reasonably safe and healthful for employees.’’ In the late 1960s, 

U.S. Senator Harrison Williams of New Jersey took this concept to the halls of Congress, sponsoring workplace health and safety legislation to protect workers on the 

job. The Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, largely based 

on the 1965 New Jersey law, created today’s OSHA to assure the health and safety 

of workers across America. 

While the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act preempted state enforcement of New Jersey’s earlier law, since the early 1970s, our state government has 

worked in close partnership with the federal OSHA agency to help protect workers. 

And while New Jersey’s state government does not have jurisdiction for occupational 

safety and health enforcement in private sector workplaces, we continue to work 

with OSHA and the unions and businesses of the Garden State to educate, train 

and build stronger and coordinated labor-management approaches to making workplaces healthy and safe. In 1983, our state established safety and health protections 

for New Jersey’s more than 500,000 public employees—and in 2001, our state 

PEOSHA program was recognized by federal OSHA as one of only three certified 

public-sector-only state plans in the nation. 

The latest data show that New Jersey’s private sector continues to have some of 

the safest worksites in the nation. Our most recent accident and illness rate, at 3.6 

incidents per 100 full-time workers, remains well below the national average of 4.4. 

Any workplace injury is devastating to the worker and his loved ones—but we believe that we can continue to reduce the number and severity of these terrible 

events, save workers’ lives and protect their health, by continuing our focused efforts to foster a culture of safety. 

Occupational safety and health training initiatives 

New Jersey provides significant state support to train workers in occupational 

safety and health curricula. We have committed millions of dollars of New Jersey 

state funds to provide comprehensive safety and health training to assist employers 

to protect their workers, to emphasize the importance of robust worker involvement 

in workplace safety, and to demonstrate to employers the value of well-trained 

workers and safer worksites. 

In 1992, New Jersey enacted the Workforce Development Partnership (WDP) Act 

to provide a dedicated state funding source for job training, including incumbent 

worker training. Three percent of the money raised through the dedicated WDP payroll tax is allocated to support occupational safety and health training, and today, 

the state invests nearly $1.5 million annually in WDP funding to bring training 

about safety and health protections to the workers who need it most. These state 

funds help provide a range of training and educational programs that reach workplaces across our state, providing thousands of workers with training that could 

make the difference between working safely or risking injury or death. 

New Jersey’s WDP program sponsors the highly-effective Occupational Safety and 

Health Education Project (OSHEP), a vital partnership between the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the State AFL-CIO. Targeting 

high-hazard industries, OSHEP provides health and safety training programs, including the OSHA 10-Hour General Industry Training Course and other customized 

occupational safety training, to workers at jobsites across the state. OSHEP expands 

its reach by teaching occupational safety and health curricula to worker-trainers 

who act as force-multipliers, by then training their fellow workers in the skills they 

have learned. 

OSHEP has also developed and delivered truly critical and timely Security Awareness and Preparedness courses for workers in New Jersey’s chemical and petroleum 

sector, pharmaceutical companies, water treatment facilities and hospitals. This 

training has helped to raise worker awareness and knowledge about maintaining security at these vital facilities. This innovative curriculum explicitly draws parallels 

among the systems required to promote worker safety, to prevent accidents, and to 

guard against deliberate terrorist attacks in high-hazard sites. More than 150 faciliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
17

ties have taken part in the training, with thousands of workers trained to improve 

security at their facilities. 

State OSHA consultation service 

New Jersey’s continuing partnership with federal OSHA enables the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development to provide important knowledge, training and assessments to employers and their employees through our Safety and 

Health Consultation Service. This service is offered to employers free of charge, and 

last year, New Jersey’s Safety and Health Consultation Service provided services to 

nearly 500 public and private sector employers and their 38,000 workers. I encourage every employer in the Garden State to take advantage of the service so that 

they may: 

• Understand the importance of safe and healthy workplaces, both for their employees’ lives and well-being, and for efficiency and productivity; 

• Receive assessments of the working conditions, hazards and potential hazards 

in their particular workplace or sites; and 

• Obtain training to help ensure that workers know how to reduce the risks of 

particular jobs that inherently pose hazards to their safety and health. 

Our approach in these consultations encourages the development of robust labormanagement safety and health committees to maintain a consistent focus on these 

important issues and the involvement of both workers and management in keeping 

safety a priority. When managers directly and meaningfully involve workers and 

their union representatives, they can significantly improve workplace safety. 

With each interaction between our consultation service and New Jersey employers 

and workers, we strengthen our statewide commitment to safer workplaces. By enhancing workers’ knowledge and ability to recognize hazards, and by helping employers to recognize the value of communication in reducing hazards, we foster 

workplaces where labor and management cooperate to correct dangerous situations 

and to implement policies and procedures for safe work practices. 

OSHA’s confined-space standards 

As the recent tragic events here in Linden have reminded us, some workplace locations are particularly hazardous. We were heartbroken to learn of the deaths of 

two industrial laundry workers last month who were assigned to clean a chemical 

storage tank, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the Diaz families. This senseless tragedy underscores how important it is for employers to comply with the 

OSHA standards for working safely in confined spaces. 

Based on our Department’s experience, these standards are a vital component of 

a safety program at a business with employees working in confined spaces. Confined-space entry standards are designed to protect employees working in a space 

such as a tank, storage bin or silo that is large enough for an employee to enter 

and work; which has restricted means of entry; and which is not designed for continuous occupancy. 

The OSHA standards also differentiate higher-hazard, or permit-required, confined spaces. These are confined spaces with recognized serious safety or health hazards including the potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere or a material that 

could engulf anyone entering the space. These spaces also include those configured 

in such a way that an entrant could be trapped or asphyxiated by a downward sloping floor tapering to a smaller cross-section or by walls that converge inward. 

One of the most crucial steps to ensuring worker safety involves determining if 

the worksite includes confined spaces and permit-required confined spaces. Effective 

communication is also a key element in this process and an employer must consult 

with the affected employees and their authorized representatives on the development and implementation of all aspects of the permit-required, confined-space program. 

If the job site has permit-required confined spaces and if the employer decides 

that its employees will enter these spaces, the employer must develop and implement a proper written confined-space program and prepare an entry permit. 

The employer also needs to clearly establish the duties of all authorized entrants, 

attendants, and supervisors. It is critical, too, that an employer provides comprehensive training so that employees working in confined spaces acquire the understanding, knowledge, and skills necessary for the safe performance of their duties. 

Finally, an employer whose employees work in confined spaces must designate an 

in-house rescue team, or must arrange for an outside rescue service that can respond to a rescue summons in a timely manner. This approach, with its well-defined 

policy and worker training, is vital to providing consistent protection for workers 

when they are required to work in confined spaces. 

18

Many of the businesses in New Jersey do not have workers involved in confinedspace entry. However, the specific confined space training, particularly for permitrequired entry, is recommended as part of the comprehensive 30-hour OSHA training course, and it certainly must be presented to businesses where confined-space 

entry is an issue. It is vital that all employers with workers engaging in confinedspace entry commit to providing this specific training to their employees, in addition 

to other occupational safety and health course components. 

Conclusion 

The dedicated staff at the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development will continue to work with our many partners to maintain and build upon 

our existing culture of safety in New Jersey’s workplaces. However, while our state 

government can provide and sponsor crucial training and consultation to employers 

and workers, as I noted earlier, the state of New Jersey does not have jurisdiction 

over occupational safety and health enforcement in the private sector. Robust enforcement by federal OSHA, and development of new national occupational health 

and safety standards reflecting up-to-date knowledge of workplace hazards, are the 

bedrock foundation on which our state programs depend. Yet under the Bush Administration, federal OSHA has focused attention on voluntary partnerships and alliances with unproven effectiveness, at the expense of vigorous and meaningful enforcement that actually changes employer behavior. OSHA has also almost completely stopped issuing new or improved safety and health standards during the 

past seven years. 

I hope this hearing in New Jersey today will bring greater attention to this urgent 

priority—a matter of life and death for countless workers—and I urge the members 

of this subcommittee to take the lead in Congress in promoting stronger OSHA enforcement. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you. I will be pleased to 

answer questions you may have. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Charles Wowkanech. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES WOWKANECH, PRESIDENT OF THE 

NEW JERSEY STATE AFL–CIO 

Mr. WOWKANECH. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman Woolsey, 

Members of the subcommittee. I, too, would like to join my colleagues and welcome you all to New Jersey. 

As Congressman Payne had indicated in the month of December, 

there were five fatalities here in our State alone. Two of these happened at the North East Linen plant in Linden when Victor Diaz 

and Carlos Diaz were asked by their employer to perform job functions that they were not trained or evaluated for. 

I believe that it is crucial to the success of this subcommittee’s 

mission to speak to the workplace safety and health solutions that 

are practiced and promoted by labor unions and advocates of 

proactive workplace safety and health solutions that receive little 

attention from most employers simply because they are not required by any rule of law. 

Educating rank-and-file union members ensures that we support 

OSHA in protecting our State’s workforce from harm and we empower these workers to be active participants in developing workplace policies. It’s no great secret that labor unions have played a 

key role in empowerment and that a unionized workforce is a safer, 

smarter, stronger workforce. 

Sixty-three percent of a poll that was taken by the Employment 

Law Alliance said the top reason to join organized labor is to have 

workplace safety at the workplace. More than 40 percent of those 

polls believe that unions have a substantial impact on improving 

the working conditions of an average American worker. This is the 

19

solution that I’m talking about here today as the Commissioner alluded to. 

One of the hallmarks of our health and safety project here in 

New Jersey is the fact that we have a Joint Labor and Management Committee through our state university, Rutgers, where we 

bring middle management, top management of companies along 

with workers, along with federal OSHA, along with many other 

agencies to discuss how we can make this program better. 

We have trained hundreds of workers in confined spaces, lockout, 

markout, those kind of things we do routinely. We have been working closely with unions that represent commercial laundry workers 

to provide customized training to their employees at laundry facilities. And we have seen the difference that this makes. 

There has been a 40 percent reduction based on the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, a 40 percent reduction in injuries and a 20 percent increase in production when Joint Labor and Management 

Safety Committees are formed. So it is sort of beyond me that if 

these statistics justify that not only are we going to have less loss 

of time, less fatalities and a higher productivity, it’s beside me why 

these companies won’t sign on to this kind of policy. 

Besides direct savings in compensation costs, companies that implement these labor-management cooperative programs see an increase in worker productivity and moral as well as a decrease in 

equipment and process breakdown and failures. We have seen the 

positive impact of Joint Labor-Management Committees in other 

industries. Now is the time to make these committees the standard 

in the commercial laundry industry. 

Today, I challenge the North East Linen Company to empower 

and educate its workforce by establishing a Joint Labor-Management Committee and utilizing the free resources provided by the 

State’s Occupational Safety and Health Education Program, 

OSHEP, led by Rutgers University. I appreciate and applaud the 

commitment of this subcommittee to investigate these workplace 

tragedies and respectfully request that this subcommittee in its 

findings require the establishment of a Joint Labor-Management 

Committee at the North East Linen and require that the company 

offer safety and health training to all its employees through the 

services offered by the state-funded and approved training program. 

There will be no greater tribute to Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz 

than establishing a Joint Labor-Management Committee and educating employees at the North East Linen Company to implement 

safer working practices. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wowkanech follows:]

20


wowk-1.eps
21

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Stanley. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STANLEY, PRESIDENT, FDRsafety 

Mr. STANLEY. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking 

Minority Member Wilson, Members of the subcommittee, and all 

assembled. I’m Jim Stanley and I am pleased to appear before you 

today on behalf of the Uniform and Textile Service Association or 

UTSA which I am guiding as a safety advisory group member. I 

was an OSHA employee for 25 years, including serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor in Washington for OSHA. 

UTSA represents 44 member companies, all across the United 

States and Canada who provide uniforms and textile service prodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

wowk-2.eps
22

ucts to a wide variety of businesses. The Association’s membership 

represents just a portion of the 1200 or so similar companies in the 

U.S. Most importantly, before I begin, I would like to express my 

and the Association’s deepest sympathies and condolences to the 

Diaz families. Tragedy at the North East Linen plant here in Linden has been a devastating loss to them and their friends and colleagues. The accident has had a major impact on the entire industry. No words can properly express the deep sadness and sympathy 

we all feel. 

As UTSA’s representative, my role today is to offer my opinions 

on OSHA and safety issues based on my experience in the safety 

field, as well as my 25 years with OSHA. Accordingly, I’m not in 

a position to speak for North East Linen nor am I able to comment 

on the practices of individual UTSA member companies. However, 

I and the Association believe that every company has a duty to its 

employees to ensure a safe and healthful workplace. 

All agree that safety should be a top priority. But in UTSA’s 

view, safety should be more than a priority. Priorities do change. 

It should be a core value, a value integrated into the business operations of all Association members. 

I think this sentiment is echoed through UTSA, regardless of the 

size of our members. This is certainly a message that the Association has conveyed for many years and we will continue our drive 

to improve safety and health efforts with increased intensity in the 

coming months and years. 

I recently partnered with UTSA to enhance the industry’s safety 

program and drive for continuous improvement. Historically, the 

safety record of the Association’s member companies has been good 

and with about 140,000 workers there have been a few—there have 

been a few plant fatalities in the industry over the past decade, yet 

the Association recognizes that additional steps must be taken to 

assure the proper commitment, systems, and practices are in place 

at every facility so that every worker is properly protected. We are 

taking numerous steps that are proactive and substantive and we 

are confident we’ll make a marked improvement in our industry’s 

injury and illness performance. Indeed, UTSA’s over-reaching safety goal is zero injuries and illnesses, and of course, zero fatalities 

every single day. 

Additionally, UTSA’s board is driving the future of UTSA’s safety 

program. To that end, the Association has assembled an advisory 

group of outside safety and health experts to guide the Association 

as it puts its comprehensive workplace safety plan in action. 

I am proud to serve on this group, along with my esteemed colleagues, Mr. Wayne Punch, Safety and Health Director of Milliken; 

and Mr. John Henshaw, a former OSHA Assistant Secretary of 

Labor. I can safely say that all three of us would not participate 

if we didn’t believe the industry is serious about making measurable improvements. 

UTSA is taking swift action to implement its plan for improvement. I took part in a meeting two weeks ago with the UTSA’s 

President and staff in which we outlined a comprehensive voluntary safety plan that goes above and beyond OSHA rules and 

regulations. UTSA’s plan will make a difference across the industry 

and simply stated, its goal is to significantly reduce the number of 

23

injuries and illnesses. The plan will include goal setting, best practices, sharing, training, performance tracking, third party audits, 

and industry-specific on-site training, safety tools and programs. 

Another action that the Association is taking is establishing an 

Association-wide baseline numbers related to workplace illnesses 

and injuries. This is especially significant since BLS currently combines dry cleaning businesses and possibly others with our industry’s illness and injury data. We believe this doesn’t currently accurately reflect the uniform and textile service industry performance. 

Once assembled, this data will be shared with OSHA. 

Perhaps the most important aspect of the plan will be the integration of the OSHA Challenge Program into our efforts. Our goal 

is to assist every member company, improving workplace safety 

and health programs and to prepare each to qualify to participate 

in OSHA’s VPP Program. 

World class performance doesn’t just meet compliance with 

OSHA standards. It means leading the industry and attaining injury and illness rates well below industry averages and continually 

improving to create a safer workplace. 

This concludes my remarks. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today and I welcome any questions you 

may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Stanley follows:]

Prepared Statement of James W. Stanley, President, FDRsafety 

Good Afternoon Chairwoman Woolsey, Ranking Minority member Wilson, members of the subcommittee, and all assembled. 

I am Jim Stanley and I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the 

Uniform and Textile Service Association or UTSA, which I am guiding as a safety 

advisory group member. I was an OSHA executive for 25 years, including serving 

as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor. 

UTSA represents 44 member companies all across the United States and Canada 

who provide uniforms and textile service products to a wide variety of businesses. 

The association’s membership represents just a portion of the 1,200 or so similar 

companies in the U.S. 

Most importantly, before I begin, I would like to express my and the association’s 

deepest sympathies and condolences to the Diaz families. The tragedy at the North 

East Linen plant here in Linden has been a devastating loss to them and their 

friends and colleagues. The accident has had a major impact on the entire industry. 

No words can properly express the deep sadness and sympathy we all feel. 

As UTSA’s representative, my role today is to offer my opinion on OSHA and safety issues, based on my experience in the safety field, as well as my 25 years at 

OSHA. Accordingly, I am not in a position to speak for North East Linen nor am 

I able to comment on the practices of individual UTSA member companies. However, I and the association believe that every company has a duty to its employees 

to ensure a safe and healthful workplace. 

All agree that safety should be a top priority, but in UTSA’s view, safety should 

be more than a priority—it should be a core value—a value integrated into the business operations of all association members. 

I think this sentiment is echoed throughout UTSA, regardless of the size of our 

members. This is certainly a message that the association has conveyed for many 

years and we will continue our drive to improve safety and health efforts with increased intensity in the coming months and years. 

I have recently partnered with UTSA to enhance the industry’s safety program 

and drive for continuous improvement. Historically the safety record of the association’s member companies has been good and with about 140,000 workers there have 

been very few plant fatalities in the industry over the past decade. Yet the association recognizes that additional steps must be taken to ensure the proper commitment, systems, and practices are in place at every facility so that every worker is 

properly protected. We are taking numerous steps that are proactive and substantive, and we are confident will make a marked improvement in our industry’s 

24

injury and illness performance. Indeed, UTSA’s overarching safety goal is zero injuries and illnesses and of course zero fatalities. 

Additionally, UTSA’s Board is driving the future of UTSA’s safety program. To 

that end, the association has assembled an Advisory Group of outside safety and 

health experts to guide the association as it puts its comprehensive workplace safety 

plan into action. I am proud to serve on this group along with my esteemed colleagues Mr. Wayne Punch, Safety and Health Director of Milliken and Company, 

and Mr. John Henshaw, the former OSHA administrator. I can safely say that all 

three of us would not participate if we did not believe the industry is serious about 

making measurable improvements. 

UTSA is taking swift action to implement its plan for improvement. I took part 

in a meeting two weeks ago with the UTSA president and staff in which we outlined 

a comprehensive voluntary safety plan that goes above and beyond OSHA compliance. UTSA’s plan will make a difference across the industry, and simply stated its 

goal is to: Significantly reduce the number of OSHA Recordable Rates and Dart 

Rates. The plan will include goal setting, best practices sharing, training, performance tracking, third-party audits, and industry-specific on-site training, safety tools, 

and programs. 

Another action that the association is taking is establishing association-wide baseline numbers related to workplace injury and illness. This is especially significant 

since the Bureau of Labor Statistics current combines dry-cleaning businesses and 

possibly others with our industry’s illness and injury data. We believe this does not 

accurately reflect the uniform and textile service industry’s performance. Once assembled, the data will be shared with OSHA and the industry in order to set a foundation on which to build and track continuous improvement. 

Perhaps the most important aspect of the plan will be the integration of the 

OSHA ‘‘Challenge’’ program into our efforts. Our goal is to assist every member 

company in improving workplace safety and health and to prepare each to qualify 

to participate in OSHA’s VPP program. 

World-class performance does not just mean compliance with OSHA standards. It 

means leading the industry in attaining injury and illness rates well below industry 

averages and continually improving, to create a safer workplace. Let me summarize 

by noting that UTSA’s member companies are committed to providing a safe workplace for their employees. The association recognizes that not all facilities are the 

same and there is room for improvement. That is why the association is moving forward with a major safety and health improvement effort with the ultimate goal of 

improving workplace safety industry-wide. 

This concludes my remarks, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak 

to you today and I welcome any questions you may have. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Engler. 

STATEMENT OF RICK ENGLER, DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY WORK 

ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL (WEC) 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify 

today. Thank you, Committeewoman Woolsey and Representatives 

Payne, Andrews and Wilson for inviting us here today to make 

some remarks. As the last person to testify I will abbreviate my remarks to keep them on point and to allow time for questions. 

The Work Environment Council is an alliance of 70 labor, community, and environmental organizations working together for safe 

jobs and a healthy, sustainable environment. In the immediate Linden area, our members include affiliates of UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Steelworkers, Communication Workers, Auto Workers, and 

other unions as well as environmental organizations and if you 

came off at Exit 13A of the turnpike, you came down—as you came 

down Route 1, you went by the largest oil refinery on the East 

Coast, the Teamsters Local that’s in the forefront of fighting for 

safety and health and accomplishing things through contracts and 

through staying vigilant, not only for its own members, but for the 

25

communities of Linden and Elizabeth that surround this giant facility. 

We also extend our heartfelt sympathy to Carlos and Victor Diaz. 

We think that these deaths were clearly preventable, that they 

were possibly criminal, and that they cry out for justice. It is also 

absolutely crystal clear to us after looking at the situation for many 

years, that until there is a President of the United States that 

cares about working people this problem will go on and on and on. 

And I’m not going to talk at length the failures of the Bush Administration. This Committee has certainly looked into them and more 

needs to be done to examine the sorry track record. But I will rather emphasize some of the deficiencies of the consultation program 

and in the OSHA statute, looking forward to a period, hopefully, 

where we can once again look to a major structural reform of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, as we have not done for over 

a decade. 

OSHA is now investigation the deaths at North East Linen, as 

has been point out. However, the only time OSHA examined this 

company at location until workers died, was when the State Consultation Program, federally funded, conducted a limited visit in 

January 2007 and found no hazards. The review of the employer’s 

injury and illness records showed none recorded. Workers were not 

included in the consultant’s visit’s opening or closing conference. 

Thirty-three workers received hazard communication training, but 

somehow the victims were not included. 

Although related to hazard communication, OSHA’s confined 

space entry standard meant to prevent exactly this type of tragedy 

was not addressed. Observedly, OSHA enforcement staff will not 

have access to the consultant’s report unless North East Linen voluntarily shares it with them. That’s within the policies and regulations under the Act. That’s not a particular problem associated 

with the leadership of our State Labor Department. It’s a structural problem built into the consultation program. 

Washington State has consulted several analyses of the association between the consultation and enforcement activity of their division of occupational safety and health and compensable claim 

rates. All three studies showed that enforcement inspections that 

were associated with a decline in workers compensation rates relative to businesses with no agency visits. No statistically significant change was found among businesses that received only consultation visits. 

A GAO report of a number of years ago in 2001 found that OSHA 

had no way to measure the effectiveness of the consultation program, and yet problems continue. We ask that as this Committee 

and Congress looks at OSHA reform for the following things to consider: one, employers should only be able to receive consultation 

services if they have a trained joint safety and health committee 

with meaningful worker rights and they allow a complete facility 

inspection for all potential hazards with committee participation. 

Employees and their unions should also be able to receive consultant inspections upon request. OSHA consultants should refer employers to OSHA enforcement if all hazards are not abated within 

a period appropriate to the seriousness of the hazard. And all inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
26

mation accessible to the employer should be accessible to employees 

and their union. 

OSHA requires fundamental structural reform in addition to 

changes that have to be made in the statutory language, the regulations and the administrative policies relating to the consultation 

program and I suppose the one I’d like to emphasize the most 

today in closing is the question of joint safety and health committees. Education is very important. Training is very important. And 

our organization and organizations that we’ve been involved with 

since the early 1970s have been involved with training initiatives 

that have trained thousands and thousands of workers. The problem is no amount of training is a substitute for power and we very 

much appreciate that Congress has passed the Employee-free 

Choice Act which would help to start level the playing field on 

issues of working conditions. We think a further reform that would 

be appropriate to adopt is mandatory by law occupational safety 

and health committees as they have in Western Europe, Canada 

and many parts of the world. 

In our State we have four OSHA offices with 56 inspectors. It 

would take 75 years at least and our estimates are even higher for 

all the workplaces to be inspected. One OSHA inspector for every 

60,000 employees. No matter if we had a President who was committed and a Congress and a budget that could provide many more 

resources for OSHA, we can’t ever provide enough and that’s why 

workers and committed management in the workplace have to be 

the eyes and the ears for safety and health. And that’s why the 

OSHA Act itself as was proposed over a decade ago should be 

amended to require employers to establish joint safety and we 

would add now security committees. These committees should have 

clearly-defined rights and responsibilities including the right to 

survey the workplace on a regular basis, training, and to investigate accidents, near accidents and exposures. A number of states 

already require such committees and we do propose some draft 

statutory language attached to the written testimony. 

More than 50 labor organizations in our State support mandatory safety and health committees. John Corzine last summer 

pledged to our organization that he has supported their establishment as well. And so we think that this is one appropriate aspect 

of OSHA reform. OSHA Act clearly requires reform. It’s time. We 

appreciate that Representative Woolsey and I’m sure other Committee Members and Senator Kennedy have sponsored the Protecting America Workers Act which incorporates some, not all, but 

some of the needed changes. We ask this Committee to continue to 

prepare in 2008 the major OSHA reform in 2009. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Engler follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rick Engler, Director, New Jersey Work 

Environment Council (WEC) 

Chairwoman Woolsey, Representatives Payne, Andrews, Holt, and Wilson, witnesses and guests, my name is Rick Engler. I am the Director of the New Jersey 

Work Environment Council. WEC is an alliance of 70 labor, community, and environmental organizations working together for safe, secure jobs and a healthy, sustainable environment. WEC provides training, technical, and organizational assistance to workers and unions and links workers, communities, and environmentalists 

through campaigns to promote dialogue, collaboration, and joint action. Our memVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
27

bers in the Linden area include affiliates of UNITE-HERE, Teamsters, Steelworkers, Communications Workers, Auto Workers, and other unions, as well as environmental organizations. 

WEC extends our heartfelt sympathy to the family, friends, and co-workers of 

Carlos and Victor Diaz. Their horrible, clearly preventable, and possibly criminal 

deaths at North East Linen on December 1, 2007 cry out for justice. 

Our testimony addresses three problems: 1) the Bush Administration favors ineffective, voluntary efforts and superficial partnerships with employers over mandatory standards and enforcement initiatives; 2) OSHA’s consultation program has serious deficiencies; and 3) OSHA requires major statutory reforms. 

The Bush Administration has made insuring friendly relationships with corporations a higher priority than protecting worker health. 

Major workplace hazards such as repetitive motion injuries, airborne infectious 

diseases, and violence remain unaddressed. The first act of the Bush Administration 

in 2001 was to revoke OSHA’s new ergonomic standard. Musculoskeletal disorders 

caused by ergonomic hazards continue to be the largest source of job injuries in New 

Jersey and the nation. Yet the only significant rules that have been issued by the 

Bush administration concerning any hazard are ones that have been mandated by 

law or required by court order. 

OSHA should issue new standards to address present day hazards. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was landmark legislation enacted 

by the Congress with the goal of assuring ‘‘so far as possible every working man 

and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.’’ Since that time, 

progress has been made. Job fatalities and injuries have declined and exposures to 

many toxic substances have been substantially reduced. However, in recent years, 

progress has slowed and the death rate has been largely unchanged. In New Jersey, 

between 115 and 129 workers have died on the job every year between 2000 and 

2005.1 Moreover, new groups of workers are at risk. Latino and immigrant workers 

have a high fatality rate. They work in dangerous jobs and dangerous industries. 

Many of these workers are unorganized. They do not know or are unable to exercise 

their legal rights. Those who are undocumented are particularly vulnerable and 

fearful. 

OSHA should conduct enforcement initiatives on the hazards that are causing 

deaths. These include confined space entry, machine lockout-tagout, falls, and highway work zones, as well as in other industries employing immigrant workers with 

high fatality rates. 

At workplaces that use extremely hazardous substances and that could endanger 

surrounding communities in the event of an accident or terrorist attack, OSHA has 

conducted few inspections, even with increased public attention to these facilities 

since September 11, 2001. Of the 21 facilities in New Jersey that could each potentially harm up to 15,000 people, according to employer data collected by the US Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA has inspected just eight since 9/11. For example, OSHA has never inspected Kuehne Chemical in South Kearny, a plant where 

a ‘‘worst case’’ release of deadly chlorine could kill thousands. This facility is arguably the most potentially dangerous plant in our state to workers and communities. 

This is an outrage. 

OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard (PSM) requires facilities with extremely hazardous substances to review what could go wrong in the event of a release and to ensure safeguards.2 OSHA should aggressively enforce this standard. 

The number of workers and workplaces covered by OSHA today is double what 

is was in 1970.3 In New Jersey, there are four OSHA offices with a total of just 

56 inspectors, one for roughly every 60,000 employees. It will take 75 years for 

OSHA to inspect all jobsites in our state just once. And we are one of the better 

states. The national average is 133 years.4

OSHA needs more staff to issue standards and conduct inspections. 

OSHA should abolish the silly partnerships, the superficial alliances, and other 

voluntary compliance efforts that are about PR, not worker safety. 

A Congress and President that care about working people can require OSHA to 

issue standards, conduct basic law enforcement, and can focus and increase OSHA’s 

staff resources to ensure safety and health. 

OSHA’s Consultation Program has serious deficiencies. 

OSHA is now investigating the deaths at North East Linen. However, the only 

time OSHA examined this company location until workers died was when the 

State’s federally funded consultation program conducted a limited visit in January 

2007 and found no hazards. Their review of the employer’s injury and illness records 

showed none recorded. Workers were not included in the consultant’s visits opening 

or closing conference. Thirty-three workers received Hazard Communication training, but somehow the victims were not included. Although related to Hazard ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
28

munication, OSHA’s confined space entry standard, meant to prevent exactly this 

type of tragedy, was not addressed. We know that commercial laundries often have 

hazards from excessive heat and repetitive work—but these were not addressed either. Absurdly, OSHA enforcement staff will not have access to the consultant’s report unless North East Linen voluntarily shares it with them.5

Washington State has conducted several analyses of the association between the 

consultation and enforcement inspection activity of their Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health (DOSH) and compensable claims rates. All three studies show 

that enforcement inspections were associated with a decline in workers’ compensation rates relative to businesses that had no DOSH visits. No statistically significant 

change was found among businesses receiving only consultation visits.6

Therefore, WEC calls for the following changes to OSHA’s consultation program: 

• Employers should only be able to receive consultation services if they have a 

trained joint safety and health committee with meaningful worker rights and they 

allow a complete facility inspection for all potential hazards with committee participation. 

• Employees and their unions should also be able to receive consultant inspections upon request. 

• OSHA consultation should refer employers to OSHA enforcement if all hazards 

are not abated within a period appropriate to the seriousness of the hazard. 

• All consultation information provided to the employer should also be provided 

to employees and their union. 

Other problems, however, require statutory changes to the Act. 

• Unlike in New Jersey, where the Work Environment Council and public sector 

unions led a successful 2001 campaign for a public employee OSHA state plan, 8.6 

million workers facing hazards everyday in 21 states are not covered by the 

OSHAct. The Act should be amended to cover all public employees nationwide as 

well as millions who work in the transportation and agriculture industries and at 

Department of Energy contract facilities who lack full protection under the Act. 

• The current national system for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses 

markedly underestimates the magnitude of these conditions. A recent study that examined injury and illness reporting found that the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Annual Survey missed more than two-thirds of occupational injuries and illnesses.7

The Act should be amended to establish a more comprehensive injury and illness 

surveillance system, such as the one developed for traumatic workplace fatalities, 

a program that does not rely on employer based data sources. 

• Even with significantly more staff, OSHA would not have enough personnel to 

regularly inspect every worksite. Yet workers remain largely an untapped source of 

expertise about the dangers they face everyday and can offer practical solutions to 

prevent those hazards. As Governor Jon Corzine has said, ‘‘Who knows better than 

workers about the hazards they face on the job.’’ Therefore, workers and unions 

need to be empowered by a reformed OSHA to have meaningful participation rights. 

The Act should be amended to require employers to establish joint safety, health, 

and security committees. These committees should have clearly defined rights and 

responsibilities, including the right to survey the workplace on a regular basis, to 

training, and to investigate accidents, near-accidents, and exposures. A number of 

states already require joint safety and health committees. (Proposed statutory language is provided at the end of this testimony.) 

• OSHA whistleblower provisions have not been updated since their adoption in 

1970. Experience has shown them to be woefully inadequate. The Act should be 

amended to give real whistleblower protection to employees so they will be able to 

use their participation rights without putting their jobs on the line. 

• Finally, the civil and criminal penalty structure for violations needs to be reformed to provide meaningful incentives for employers to comply. Currently an employer may only be charged with a misdemeanor when a willful violation leads to 

a worker’s death. This should be a felony. All penalty money should be set aside 

for health and safety training, education, and research. 

Cleary, the OSHAct requires major reforms. It is time. We appreciate that Representative Woolsey and Senator Kennedy have introduced the Protecting America’s 

Workers Act, which incorporates some of the needed changes.8

WEC asks Congress to prepare in 2008 to make OSHA reform a priority in 2009. 

We request that this subcommittee hold additional hearings to address the Bush 

Administration’s weakening of OSHA enforcement and the statutory deficiencies of 

the OSHA Act that have become evident since its passage in 1970. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing and for providing the Work Environment Council the opportunity to testify. 

29

PROPOSED DRAFT LANGUAGE ON SAFETY, HEALTH, AND SECURITY COMMITTEES

Prepared by the New Jersey Work Environment Council, January 11, 2008

Within three months following the effective date of this rule, the owner or operator of the facility must establish a Safety, Health, and Security Committee for that 

facility. 

Existing safety and health, environmental, or similar committees that meet all of 

the requirements of this section may be used in lieu of establishing a new Committee by written agreement of the owner or operator and the employee representative(s), if any. 

The Committee shall be composed of employees and management, with at least 

an equal number of employees to management representatives. 

The total number of Committee members to be selected shall be determined by 

the number of employees at the facility as follows: 

10-19 employees—2 members 

20-99 employees—4 members 

100-299 employees—6 members 

300-499 employees—8 members 

500-999 employees—10 members 

1,000 or more employees—12 members 

Alternate members may be designated if members are temporarily unavailable. 

All committee members shall be employed at the facility. 

In workplaces with an employee representative, the employee representative shall 

select employee members. In workplaces without an employee representative, management shall actively solicit volunteers among employees potentially exposed to 

hazardous substances. If there are no volunteers to serve as committee members at 

a facility where there are no employee representatives, the owner or operator shall 

select employee members. 

The owner or operator shall prominently post at each process a current list of the 

names and work location of all committee members, which shall specify whether 

they are employee or management members. 

The Committee shall be co-chaired by an employee committee member and a management committee member. 

The Committee shall meet at least monthly at a time, date, and location agreed 

to by the committee. 

A majority of committee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction 

of committee business. 

Actions by the committee shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the 

members present. 

The Committee shall have authority to: 

a) identify, discuss, and make recommendations to management concerning potential hazards and risks relevant to security, safety, health, and the environment and 

potential responses; 

b) survey the workplace for potential security, safety, health, and environmental 

vulnerabilities and determine a schedule to survey all or part of the facility monthly; 

c) assist in the investigation of, as soon as practicable, accidents, releases, fires, 

explosions, and near-miss incidents; and 

d) participate in the initial and ongoing development, review, and revision of any 

Risk Management Plan, Facility Vulnerability Assessment, Inherent Safety Options 

Analysis, Risk Reduction Plan, and emergency response plan, as required for that 

facility. 

The Committee shall ensure that its recommendations are reduced to writing and 

that the status of past recommendations is reviewed at the subsequent meeting. The 

owner or operator shall address each recommendation, accepting the recommendation, offering a revision, or denying the recommendation and providing justification 

for the denial. In the event of a disagreement within the Committee, such disagreements shall be documented and shall be retained by the owner or operator. 

ENDNOTES

1 NJ Dept. of Health and Senior Services, Occupational Health Service Annual Report, 

FY2007, July 2007. www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/odisweb/documents/annual—report—fy07.pdf 2WEC letter to OSHA dated February 20, 2007 and OSHA response of July 5, 2007. 

3Testimony of Peg Seminario, Director Safety and Health, AFL-CIO before the Senate Employment and Worker Safety Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing on ‘‘Is OSHA Working for Working People?’’ April 26, 2007. www.aflcio.org/

issues/safety/upload/SeminarioOSHA20070426.pdf 4 AFL-CIO, Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, April 2007, citing data from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/memorial/upload/doj—2007.pdf 

30

Data for number of OSHA inspections in New Jersey is from OSHA as of September 2007. 

5OSHA Regulation 1908.7(a)(3) says: ‘‘The identity of employers requesting onsite consultation, as well as the file of the consultant’s visit, shall not be provided to OSHA for use in any 

compliance activity, except as provided for in § 1908.6(f)(1) (failure to eliminate imminent danger,) § 1908.6(f)(4) (failure to eliminate serious hazards,) paragraph (b)(1) of this section (inspection deferral) and paragraph (b)(4) of this section (recognition and exemption program).’’ 6Z. J. Fan et al. The Effect of DOSH Enforcement Inspections and Consultation Visits on the 

Compensable Claims Rates in Washington State, 2004-2005, December 2006. http://lni.wa.gov/

Safety/Research/Files/Cne2006.pdf 7K.D. Rosenman et al. How Much Work-Related Injury and Illness is Missed by the Current 

National Surveillance System? Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 48, 

No. 4, April 2006. The study focused on Michigan. 8Press release from Senators Kennedy, Murray and Reps. Woolsey, April 26, 2007. http://

kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press—release.cfm?id=886469E3-04D2-4E72-B33A38A9A538CCCB 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. I thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I now recognize myself for five minutes and each of us will 

have five minutes to ask you questions. When the time is over we 

probably will do another round unless we’ve used up your whole 

day. 

Thank you so much. This was very good. I don’t know if any of 

you know, I was a human resources executive for 20 years in the 

high tech industry of telecommunications in California. We had 

CALOSHA and we had management, actually employee safety committees. I was the management member on there, so it was amazing in that safe industry what we would find when we would walk 

through our plant and how the workers then related to their responsibility to keep the plant, the doors open, you know, whatever. 

All the stuff they were supposed to do. It made all the difference 

in the world. And then they would feed back up to management 

what needed to happen. Management took it seriously. If there’s a 

will, there’s a way. So I’d like to start with that and using North 

East Linen as our example because that’s why we’re here today 

and I’d like to start with you, Mr. Stanley, with your OSHA background and I know you’re not going to speak for UTSA, but with 

your OSHA background, talk to us from your perspective, how different could this tragedy have turned out had North East Linen 

been—had to, not voluntarily, but had to have training, not ought 

to, but must have had training, how different would this have 

turned out and why aren’t—why isn’t business making that happen? I mean the resources are available to them through their very 

own State. 

And I’d like you, Mr. Socolow, Commissioner, to tell us how to 

go about promoting these programs and how you get there. 

So let’s start with you, please. 

Mr. ENGLER. Thank you. Obviously, I don’t know anything about 

what happened at North East Linen, but on a situation where you 

take a general company and we have let’s just say confined spaces, 

any company—in order to have an effective safety and health program there’s three major components. One is top management has 

to be totally and unwaivingly committed to the safety and health 

of their employees. And that’s just not a——

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. And what if they aren’t? 

Mr. ENGLER. If they aren’t, they’re not going to have an effective 

program. That’s number one. You have to have top management 

doing the right thing and the right thing isn’t just saying safety is 

our number one priority. The right thing is not only saying it, but 

31

doing something about it. And that’s giving the resources, allowing 

the resources for an effective safety and health program, allowing 

people to—and requiring people to go through the facilities, correct 

conditions and provide training. And secondly, you need an effective program and usually the emphasis on an effective program is 

your front line managers. Front line managers have to have the 

tools to manage safety and health in the workplace. So management has to give the front line managers the tools to do that. It’s 

not just production and it’s not just quality. It’s safety too. 

And finally, and to your point, the employees have to be involved 

whether it’s through a safety and health committee or through any 

other means that they’re involved in the safety and health process. 

All of those things have to happen. And in any case, and when you 

have those three elements, then the required training will be done. 

The enforcement of the rules will be done and both parties, both 

workers and management will stand up and do the right thing. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. All right, Mr. Wowkanech, what happened with North East Linen? 

Mr. WOWKANECH. I think you’d probably get a better answer 

from Eric Frumin, but I believe that they were not cooperative with 

the union and they didn’t want to engage in any of these type of 

practices and as a result their employees were not trained in these 

type of activities and should not have—weren’t familiar with the 

regulations or what they were entitled to in terms of protection or 

people outside the tank. They just went in there. But I wanted to 

point out to what my colleague, Mr. Stanley, said and I know the 

Commissioner will talk about it as well. We were just involved here 

in New Jersey in a very, very incredible project. As you know, New 

Jersey is also the home to many of toxic chemical companies as 

well as a very big petrochemical base and New Jersey proudly became the first State to mandate that all the workers in these facilities had to be trained in terms of security training. But it points 

to what this gentleman had said. I got involved in the project 

through Governor Corzine and Commissioner Socolow and we had 

over, and you’re in Washington with the various committees, so you 

know. We had over 28 different agencies involved in this project to 

design the curriculum that the workers in these plants would be 

taught and participated in designing the curriculum. That was the 

important part. They were at the table. But it was an incredible 

experience for me. It took almost nine months. I can’t tell you how 

many countless meetings I went to, Chairwoman, but the important fact is when we first started we had the workers. We had 

some companies that were some pretty bad players that didn’t 

want to play, okay? And we came into this conference room and 

people weren’t talking. At the end of nine months, after an exchange of ideas from management, from the workers, from federal 

OSHA, from Homeland Security, from the FBI and the New Jersey 

State Police, I mean it was an incredible experiment. People actually started contributing and developed something that I think is 

very special here. And the companies, the chemical companies and 

the petrochemical companies put some skin in the game by deciding to send workers, along with management to our state university to be trained and then allow the workers in the plant to be 

trained on company time. So it sort of was maybe a long descripVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
32

tion of what Mr. Stanley just tried to describe. The cooperation 

didn’t start at the beginning, but I think what we’re looking for 

here once the Governor established this regulation, and said this 

is what you’re going to have to do and the companies and the 

unions and everybody else realized that we’ve got to get together 

to do this or we can’t do business here any more, things happened. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. So how is this promoted and how is it enforced, Mr. Commissioner? 

Mr. SOCOLOW. So with respect to the chemical industry and petrochemical industry standard that was essentially done as a homeland security initiative and then recognizing that the key to homeland security is worker safety, that they actually go hand in hand. 

But I think—and so it was enforced and created through our 

State’s efforts to regulate those industries from the perspective of 

chemical and petrochemical security for homeland security, hometown security. 

That being said, I think President Wowkanech is exactly right. 

This is a good template for how an industry can be brought into 

a discussion with a whole host of agencies. It was alphabet soup 

putting this together with all the different acronyms and all the 

different agencies, government agencies, but all real, meaningful 

participation by workers, by unions, and by industry. And industry, 

I think, has to hear that when they have this kind of experience 

and they have this kind of bad worker safety record, that it’s time 

to do something different and to develop something that goes above 

and beyond anything that might be required by formal federal 

OSHA rules, to develop something in this kind of a partnership. I 

think it’s a very good idea and I certainly would support it. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Frumin? 

Mr. FRUMIN. I think the critical missing element in the laundry 

industry generally and at this company in particular, based upon 

the facts that are available to us is that the employers don’t worry 

about OSHA enforcement. They just don’t. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Why is that? 

Mr. FRUMIN. OSHA does not routinely as a matter of policy, as 

a matter of affirmative policy, does not initiate program comprehensive safety inspections at industrial laundries. It’s off their 

target list. It’s a high-risk industry. Wall Street Journal even 

blessed it as such last month. So that’s a critical problem and this 

industry has a lot to learn about what it means to function in a 

responsible way. This company, in particular, has a lot to learn. 

Their record of discouraging worker voices is very clear. The National Labor Relations Board, General Counsel just issued a complaint against this company for mistreating workers who were 

speaking up and that message would get out very clearly to any 

workers there who would speak up on any subject. What is stunning is that they continued to do so on the face of a worker complaint, again, no program inspections at the same company’s plant 

in New Haven in Connecticut a year ago that they would fly in the 

face of that experience and ignore it. So we have a problem with 

a mandate that’s not felt at the workplace in this industry. 

And the critical difference is is there a mandate? Is there a will 

to make that mandate felt. We have a failure of enforcement here 

that has just left us with horrible, horrible effects. Now I think Mr. 

33

Engler can tell you how that mandate can translate down in New 

Jersey in a variety of other industries as well in addition to the example you’ve heard about here which I think would be useful to 

put in context how stunning the bad behavior was at this one company in New Jersey because we have a lot of other companies who 

have the same kinds of problems, but the lack of enforcement here 

is just breathtaking. That it should happen as a matter of agency 

policy to exempt an industry from routine enforcement, leave it up 

to workers who are then are subject to that kind of abuse by an 

employer, it’s a prescription for disaster. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairwoman. I thank all of you for your 

presentations today. It’s been very instructive. 

Mr. Stanley, in one of the subcommittee hearings last spring, 

Secretary Ed Foulke made a statement that one fatality is one fatality too many. Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the sixth consecutive year of a reduction in worker-related 

deaths and injuries across America, yet fatal accidents occur in the 

laundry industry as well as others despite OSHA’s success. Based 

on your experience how can companies and individual workers best 

work together so that safety, as you identify, is a core value? 

Mr. STANLEY. Well, basically, the companies that I’ve been associated with that I recently retired from a company that has this 

year had a total reported rate of 0.2 and they have 6,000 employees 

and they are in heavy manufacturing, so it can be done. The goal 

in the companies—you can’t set a zero goal for—you can set a zero 

goal for a year, but you have to set your goals on a day-to-day 

basis. Every day, everybody should come into the facility and say 

today no one is going to get hurt in here. And so basically the answer to your question is it will never happen unless management 

and workers are cooperating and step up and both of them do the 

right thing. And do the right thing is following the rules of the 

road, training workers, correcting hazards and holding everybody, 

management, and workers, accountable to do that right thing. 

Mr. WILSON. And Mr. Stanley, I was encouraged to hear that the 

Uniform and Textile Service Association will be taking aggressive 

steps to improve health and safety of its workers. In fact, I was impressed by the formation of the Safety Advisory Group that you 

will be serving on. As a member of the Advisory Group, what guidance will you give UTSA in terms of how to instill safety as a core 

value throughout the industry? 

Mr. STANLEY. Well, we set forth five general areas and I’m not 

going to go through every one, but first of all, we’re going to survey 

every company in our association to determine what the actual recordable rate and dart rates is so that we can use that as a baseline to go forward. And we’re also going to develop an annual safety 

management institute for our front line foremen, bring them in and 

give them the tools to manage safety, how to conduct an audit, and 

how to do a toolbox talk and how to work with your employees for 

safety and health. 

And our audit team is going to be an independent audit team is 

going to be made available to all association members, either announced or unannounced, whatever way they want to do it, but to 

audit, get another set of eyes into our member companies’ estabVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
34

lishments and go through their safety and health program and give 

them recommendations in how to improve. And we’re also hoping 

to put every worker, every single worker that we can through an 

8-hour safety and health awareness program and maybe every employee in the facilities through an 8-hour safety and health awareness program which has been shown to be very, very successful in 

heavy manufacturing sector. As a matter of fact, it has been so successful that some companies have done it more than one time, two 

and three and four times. 

And then we’re going to—the association is going to become a 

certified OSHA challenge administrator and we’re going to take the 

VPP rules, not necessarily say that everybody is going to get into 

the voluntary protection program and I understand the feelings of 

some people in this room about VPP, but that aside, what is required under the voluntary protection program, the programs that 

are required, we’re going to initiate and look at every single one 

of our association members that steps up. We think that’s going to 

be truly rewarding. 

Mr. WILSON. And a final question, drawing upon your 25 years 

of promoting worker safety, what is your opinion regarding the 

premise that unionized plants are safer than similar, nonunionized 

plants? 

Mr. STANLEY. Well, actually it’s 40 years, Congressman, that I’ve 

been safety and health. I’ve been a safety and health guy for that 

long. I started on the Philadelphia waterfront in 1966 and——

Mr. WILSON. Well, you’re holding up well. 

Mr. STANLEY. I am holding up well. But I have—I really can’t 

put a figure on this. I’ve been asked this question a hundred times 

over the years. When I was with OSHA, when I was in the steel 

industry, and now that I’m a consultant. I have been in some facilities that have been union, that are the best run safety and health 

programs that anyone would ever want to see. I have been in similar facilities that have been nonunion and also have had an excellent, excellent program. And the opposite is also true. I have been 

in union facilities that scared me and I have been in nonunion facilities that were so hazardous that you wanted to turn and run. 

So I don’t think there’s any measure. I don’t think there’s any way 

to measure whether or not the organized labor facilities are any 

better than the unorganized, the ones that want to do the jobs, the 

companies that want to do it, I don’t think whether or not they 

have a union is the primary thing. If they want to become world 

class—all the information and all the help from everywhere is 

there to do it. It has to be the companies that want to do it. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me ask the same question 

perhaps to Mr. Frumin, Mr. Wowkanech, and Mr. Engler. What is 

your opinion from the industry association and we know we’re talking general and there’s no question that individual companies and 

leaders of companies make a difference, but just take in general, 

what do you believe with a unionized plant as opposed to nonunionized plant as relates to safety and other conditions? 

Mr. FRUMIN. To cut to the chase, this is at at-will employment 

country. Unless the law protects your job, they can fire you for anyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
35

thing or for nothing at all. And you on the Committee know this 

very well. So it doesn’t take much for an employer to send a clear 

message to a worker that if you speak up about any issue, you’re 

a troublemaker, we’re going to get rid of you one way or another. 

And that’s the message that New England Linen, North East Linen 

has the ability to send to workers here in Linden. And that’s what 

the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel themselves 

concluded. That’s a bad message to send out to a workforce in a 

dangerous industry because people are going to scared to speak up. 

And that’s before you deal with issues of literacy, about people with 

documentation problems, whatever, just in general. So if workers 

don’t have the ability to feel comfortable speaking up about workplace conditions and they’re on the wrong end of the power dynamic in that workplace, they’re not going to be able to do anything to protect themselves and we’re afraid that that’s what we’re 

dealing with here at North East Linen. 

Now having said that you also on the Committee know that the 

whistleblower protections under the OSHA Act are extremely 

weak. They’re extremely weak, worse, in fact, than under so many 

other laws and the work that you’ve done, Chairwoman Woolsey, 

to greatly improve those protections is vitally important, not only 

for people who are in all those other situations, but particularly for 

people concerned about safety. So I would say right now, in America, whether it’s in Linden, New Jersey or Linden, California, if 

there is such a place, workers have no real protection if they’re 

whistleblowers about health and safety. And they need that protection and they’re going to get it—if they’re going to get it at all, 

they’re going to get it because they’re a member of a union and 

they’ve got that protection. 

Short of that, they don’t have any protection at all. I’m curious 

what the others think. 

Mr. PAYNE. I just might comment that we tried to get it, employee, anyone from the plant, but no one volunteered, so you could 

almost assume that things aren’t so bad since nobody want to come 

forward, but maybe that would be a wrong assumption. Maybe 

that’s hard to prove a negative, I guess. 

Charlie? 

Mr. WOWKANECH. Congressman, I think the answer to that question is very simple. Victor Diaz and Carlos Diaz. I think if there 

was a union in that plant and they had another way to go to get—

rather than get in that tank that day or possibly they may have 

had some training, that this wouldn’t have happened. It’s been just 

my experience over the years that we try and operate in a cooperative spirit here, but when the companies don’t have any pressure 

or they don’t have any mandate, and there are some good companies. I don’t want to say that all corporate America is, but there 

are some good companies, but by and large, what makes these companies develop these programs and adhere to the program is when 

there is a union involved. It’s very, very simple. 

The other example, and it’s funny you talked about the whistleblower protection, but we had a situation in this State, not dealing 

with laundry workers, we had a situation in this State about three 

or four years ago with our nurses where because of HMO regulations and the reduction of staffing, nurses were starting to comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:18 Jun 23, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\WP\110-74\39970.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
36

plain about their workload and the amount of patients that they 

were handling. Well, what happened is they started getting removed from their positions, so the nurses’ unions in our State came 

to us. We drafted a piece of legislation. And now the law was 

passed and I think we became the fourth or fifth state in the nation here to enact that legislation. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, Charlie, it sounds like you’re wired or something. 

Mr. WOWKANECH. But now nurses, no different than these laundry workers, had a voice. They have a voice. If they see something 

wrong on the hospital floor or something that’s being done, they 

can now bring it to the hospital management without the fear of 

having their shift changed, having their days changed, or getting 

fired. And that’s why I think it’s incumbent upon this Committee 

in this town of Linden, New Jersey, to send a strong message to 

this company to say that you must, if you can do that, you must 

form this committee. I mean the State is going to give them the 

money. The State is going to send the people in there to train the 

workers. So after losing two employees, if they’re unwilling to do 

that, then they need more than a union. They need to be put in 

jail. 

Mr. ENGLER. I would like to add that there was an interesting 

subtlety to Jim Stanley’s comment earlier and as you know, Jim, 

you and I go back a ways and there’s often not subtlety to our 

interactions, but when it was discussed, when you brought forward 

the idea that there would be employee involvement through some 

means, there was a lack of specificity there. And that kind of a replay on the earlier debate we had during the OSHA reform over 

ten years ago where we said at least in a fixed workplace, not necessarily a mobile workplace, or building sites that move, there 

needs to be a mandatory safety and health committee with authority, with clear responsibilities, and clear worker rights. 

And management said well, maybe there could be other means 

to do that and then we said what are the other means? And there 

would be suggestion boxes or stuff, dialogues, tailgate sessions, I 

mean things that might have an interactive educational fuzzy and 

warm feel to them, but were not about what is a core element of 

OSHA reform, mandatory committees, with a series of rights, the 

right to inspect the workplace on a regular basis. The right to have 

that training that we’ve talked about a lot. the right to be able to 

investigate not only accidents, but near misses. And some in a 

state campaign that industry frankly defeated in the early 1990s, 

one of the initial part of a bill that we had was in eminent danger 

situations, there ought to be a clearer authority for trained members of joint safety and health committees to direct a particular operation, not a whole plant, but a particular operation to temporarily cease until the danger is corrected. All these things are part 

of OSHA reform that are necessary and having some kind of superficial pledge of employee involvement is not sufficient. 

And there is a challenge that we can put to trade associations 

on this question. I believe that I saw an interesting dialogue of 

your Committee on the Texas City, Texas disaster whether there 

was an interaction with the head of the American Petroleum Institute to the effect of how is API going to please its own members 

37

and that people were going to be kicked out if they didn’t comply. 

Well that would be an interesting thing for your trade association 

to adopt, for other trade associations to adopt, that if there are bad 

actors within the trade associations, they can’t be members. The 

American Chemistry Council has threatened this for years. I don’t 

know if they’ve implemented it. There’s other challenges for trade 

associations. For example, the Chemistry Council of New Jersey 

which boasts up the wazzoo about its wonderful illness and injury 

and environmental and security record, refuses to disclose its injury and illness rate by facility. If people are serious about this, 

what’s the big deal about saying okay, the form is already required, 

we’ll make a photocopy of the OSHA log and submit it to the 

Mayor or to people upon request who live in the community. The 

union has a right to it. Workers have a right to it, but it would 

be another spotlight on recalcitrant employers and their associations to make the log of injuries and illnesses essentially a public 

document. And the New Jersey Chemistry Council was given the 

opportunity to do that and they ignored us entirely. We thought it 

was a reasonable request. No additional paperwork. A few cents in 

xeroxing. We thought the chemical industry and the oil industry in 

the State could afford it and they said no. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank 

you for bringing your advocacy for this cause to our home state. It’s 

great to see you, great to welcome our friend from South Carolina. 

And Don Payne, thank you for having us in your District, and letting us see firsthand your usual thorough advocacy for the people 

of your District. I thank the witnesses also. 

I want to ask Mr. Stanley, there’s an ancient principle in our law 

that we draw distinction and penalties and remedies between those 

who carelessly commit a wrong versus those who commit a wrong 

knowing that they’ve done something wrong. 

OSHA law already understands and recognizes this distinction. 

There are differences in penalties and remedies between a knowing 

violation by an employer and a careless violation. Is that correct? 

Is that your understanding? 

Mr. STANLEY. A knowing violation that causes death. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. I wonder if we might extend that principle 

in a different way. What if we have an employer and I’m not speaking with direct reference to the case here because I know you’re not 

here to talk about that specific case, what if we have an employer 

that owns multiple plants and the employer is found to be in violation of a specific OSHA standard in Plant A. There’s no inspection 

at all of Plant B or Plant C. But a death results as a result of a 

failure of the same standard that the employer failed to meet in 

Plant A in Plant B. Do you think it is good public policy that the 

law should treat that violation in Plant B as a knowing—a violation where the employer had actual knowledge of a problem in this 

area of this standard? 

Mr. STANLEY. First of all, it is presently treated as a repeated 

violation which carries with it the maximum penalty of $70,000, 

similar to what you’re saying in knowing and I will categorize that 

as a wilful violation. 

38

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. 

Mr. STANLEY. If the investigation reveals that the violation in 

the second plant, repeated as it was, the employer knew or should 

have known to the degree of a wilful violation, then I believe that 

agency should, in fact, recommend that for criminal prosecution. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate that. I think Madam Chairman, 

there’s a point of some consensus right there. I think that if you 

have a situation where a single owner or single employer is responsible for a violation in one of his or her plants, has the same violation in another plant, it seems to me at the same presumption the 

employer knows what’s going on should apply and the higher penalties and more strict remedies ought to apply as well. 

Commissioner Socolow, you noted that your department does not 

have jurisdiction over violations of OSHA standards in the private 

sector. I know there are cooperative programs where states can 

have some of that jurisdiction. Can you identify for us what you 

think the weaknesses in those existing programs are and what improvements we might make so that more inspectors might be there 

and the context of that question is that my understanding is that 

for the nation if you add up the number of inspection personnel on 

the federal OSHA payroll, and the number of inspection personnel 

on state worker safety payrolls, it’s about 2,000 people in a nation 

of 200 million workers. It strike me that local police can write a 

speeding ticket on 287, not just the state police. Isn’t there some 

way we can get more enforcement from state and local enforcers? 

How would we do that? 

Mr. SOCOLOW. Well, certainly the federal OSHA Act gives states 

the option to become a state plan state and 24 states, including 

California, Madam Chairwoman, have taken that option and therefore they take control of all OSHA in their state. When you do that, 

you’re essentially going into a grant program with federal OSHA 

and I will say that all 24 of those state plan states have written 

to the Congress, specifically to the appropriators, noting that that 

line of the OSHA budget has been underfunded. The states are 

overmatching to use the language. We’re putting more money, state 

money into those programs than the rules say we should and so 

that would help those states that chosen to do that. 

That being said, you have either way, you’ve created a state program that’s supposed to be at least as good as federal OSHA and 

in fact, many of those states try to go above and beyond what federal OSHA is doing. But that’s as good as you’re going to get. 

You’re not going to see additional funding. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I guess I’m asking a slightly different question 

which is that even if New Jersey is not a state plan state, if one 

of your employees were to go in during one of these consultation 

sessions and find an egregious violation, do you think that he or 

she should have enforcement authority to either do something 

about it or at least have some recommendation to federal OSHA 

where they would have to do something about it? 

Mr. SOCOLOW. The rules now of that consultation program which 

is separate, are that if you see a hazard, you, in fact, tell the employer they have to comply, they have to come into compliance. 

They have to remedy that problem and then you—and I think it’s 

been recommended by Mr. Engler that the amount of time that 

39

then elapses to give the employer time to figure that out, trying to 

fix that problem ought to be shortened because right now under the 

federal consultation program the state consultant goes in. It is absolutely supposed to be a no gotcha consultation program. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Right. 

Mr. SOCOLOW. The whole purpose is to give them an opportunity 

to fix their problems. I think that it’s true that the way federal 

OSHA has that set up, that’s almost an endless process. But eventually, if they don’t correct it, yes, the state consultation program 

does refer that to OSHA. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I assume my time has expired. I think your testimony points out there is a difference between a safe harbor during 

which an employer is making a good faith effort to bring the plant 

into compliance which you want to encourage. 

Mr. SOCOLOW. Right. 

Mr. ANDREWS. And dilatory tactics that delay forever the repair 

or address of a problem identified during that process. My sense is 

that the great risk of those dilatory tactics is with us today. 

Mr. SOCOLOW. I think that’s right. And Congressman, federal 

OSHA could change that by regulation or certainly with the encouragement of the Congress. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I think the Committee with the Chairwoman’s indulgence would be interested in the panel’s views, each of the panelists’ views as to how that legal change might look. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Holt? 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. With the others here I’d 

like to join the family in mourning the deaths of each Mr. Diaz. I’d 

also like to join in thanking Mr. Wilson for coming to New Jersey, 

the Chair for holding this hearing, especially Mr. Payne for his assistance here in looking after the welfare of the folks here in his 

part of the State, and my friend, Mr. Andrews, for his perceptive 

questioning and legislation that’s in the works. I’m pleased to see 

UNITE HERE here. Here, here. I really do agree with the earlier 

comment that if they had been able to organize this site, we 

wouldn’t be holding this hearing here today because of these 

deaths. 

Mention was made earlier of Pete Williams. Workers never had 

a better friend than New Jersey Senator Pete Williams. And OSHA 

is certainly a case in point. From the time it was passed, the rate 

of workplace deaths has fallen to about a quarter of what it was. 

There are several hundred thousand, three or four hundred thousand people, at least, who lived because of what Pete Williams did. 

And they will never know who they are. Not to mention the many 

thousands who have their eyes, their arms, and they will never 

know who they are. OSHA has worked. It can work better. But it 

is worth underscoring that legislation can work. 

And there are some things that we need to do here. Certainly 

back in Washington we need to do mine safety. We need, as Mr. 

Andrews and Ms. Woolsey are about to do, we need to bring government workers under this coverage. But there are some things 

with the existing OSHA we need to work on. 

Let me run through several questions and you can answer them 

in turn as you see appropriate. First for Commissioner Socolow and 

Mr. Wowkanech, both of whom we’re very proud of here in New 

40

Jersey I must say, why do you think New Jersey has better statistics? Lower death rate, 2.6 instead of 4 per 100,000. Is it because 

we have organized unions? It’s not surely because we only have 

safer jobs here. I mean office work can be dangerous and deadly 

if there isn’t an eye towards safety. Is it because we have industrial 

committees or consultation services? 

I’d like to ask Mr. Frumin who knows a great deal about OSHA 

statistics, whether these claims that—just how good these statistics 

are and what can we do to include things that don’t make it into 

the statistics, the near misses, the musculo-skeletal, the MSDs, 

and minor injuries that actually terribly costly. I mean $1 billion 

a week estimated in direct costs of workplace injuries and four or 

five times that in indirect costs. So there are reasons to cut back 

on these minor injuries and to keep track of them so that we can 

keep cutting back, but also they are perhaps a measure of the safety of the workplace. 

And I would also like to ask Mr. Stanley, your website says that 

employees should avoid unsafe acts and risky decisions. Do you 

think that Mssrs. Diaz should have avoided those risky decisions? 

Could they have avoided those risky decisions? Were they in a position to do so? 

And finally, Mr. Stanley, what would be the harm in having 

mandatory joint worker-management safety committees? What is 

there to object to? Is it so costly? Why would a company object? 

So let me throw those questions. 

Mr. SOCOLOW. All right, I’ll start off, Congressman. I first wanted to say I think you’re right in one of your second questions that 

we shouldn’t crow too much about incident rates and accident 

rates. I think that there are some questions about the data, but I 

think that they do serve to provide at least relative data across 

time and across different industries. 

New Jersey does, in fact, have lower rates and I think that is, 

in part, because we do have more enforcement resources from the 

federal government than in some other places. We are blessed to 

have a slightly more robust enforcement presence, still not enough, 

but more from federal OSHA. I think we also have done a lot to 

try to create a culture of safety with our outreach and our efforts 

at the state government level with our partnerships. But I do think 

that there is a piece of that that is absolutely attributable to union 

density. New Jersey has one of the highest union densities in the 

country, almost one out of five workers in New Jersey belong to a 

union. And that’s one of the few states in which that number is actually going up. 

It’s been asked of a number of people do we think that a union 

helps make workers safe? I think it can’t help but be the case because even without an occupational safety and health joint labormanagement committee, there is at least that avenue for whistleblowing or for a voice. But I think that even more, unions have 

played a very constructive role in bringing management to the 

table and having this be one of the issues that workers and management agree on because safety and health actually is in the best 

interest of the business. It is good for the bottom line and it’s something that unions can bring management to the table on and make 

a real difference, to get them interested and involved, so that they 

41

can fight about other issues, but they can agree on safety and 

health. So I think that that plays a real role in New Jersey. 

Mr. HOLT. I think the Commissioner did a pretty good job at answering my question. 

Mr. ENGLER. Can I just add one thing here is that the other reason I think that we have lower injuries and illnesses, even though 

the surveillance system is very suspect. There’s a study we refer 

to in the testimony about that, is that there is a history here of 

unrelenting and aggressive advocacy by the labor movement and by 

allies among environmental and community organizations. In 1983, 

a coalition passed the right to work and community right to know 

law which was then expanded, sponsorship by Representative 

Florio and Senator Lautenberg to cover the whole United States 

and led to OSHA’s hazard communication rule. 

More recently, the public employees state plan in New Jersey is 

the most recent state to adopt such a plan. And today, even if it’s 

not that many people in this room know about it, the New Jersey 

Education Association has one of the most advanced programs for 

protecting its members on safety and health of any union in the 

United States. And when they protect their members, they’re also 

protecting our kids and the community as well. And so I think that 

when you look at the numbers and the charts and the graphs, it’s 

one thing, but when you look to the actual history of people fighting for safety and health and environmental protection in this 

State, it’s that rich history, that collaboration, those alliances that 

have made a substantial difference. 

Mr. FRUMIN. Well, I would second the comments from Mr. 

Socolow and the others. Rick’s point about the history and why 

things change is very important. 

Mr. Holt, specifically to your question about the injury and illness data, this deserves a very serious examination by this Committee and I would hope that Madam Chairwoman that you would 

give yourself and the other Members of the Committee the opportunity to do that, to bring in witnesses to go over in some considerable detail the weaknesses in our injury and illness recordkeeping 

system. One of the most glaring of those weaknesses, however, is 

well-known to us. It was a decision of the Administration to remove 

from the OSHA log the specific requirement to record what are 

called musculo-skeletal disorders or injuries related to bad 

ergonomics. And that was the fallout from the Congress’ horrific 

decision, not under your leadership, obviously, to repeal the 

ergonomics standard in 2001. That group of injuries are among the 

biggest single group of injuries in the entire economy and among 

the most preventable and among the most costly. 

I’m here in New Jersey, but I’m a resident of New York. I just 

spent nine months with the Labor Commissioner’s Advisory Council on return to work under the New York State Workers Comp. reform effort dealing with billion dollar consequences for decision 

making on workplace injury and workers compensation. The overwhelming number of long-term, long disabling injuries and this is 

true in every single state, New Jersey included, are musculo-skeletal disorders, typically lower back injuries, but others as well, 

which cost employers a lot of money and the decision by the Administration to specifically remove that category of injuries from 

42

our record keeping system in a very sort of a slick way, was really 

unfortunate. I don’t trust the statistics, even though I had a hand 

in helping to create the framework for them and I think if we look 

at what makes people speak up and complain about an injury on 

the job, we can address a range of issues here. Why does a worker 

complain that they’re injured on the job? Why do they complain 

about safety problems at all? Do they feel free to speak up? Those 

are vastly important issues. In our industries, we’ve looked at this 

in great detail. We’d be happy to bring more of this to your attention. We’ve seen rates of nonreporting of injuries by workers to the 

employers of over 50 percent, over 50 percent from California to 

New York to Boston to Las Vegas. This is rife in the hotel industry. 

These are workers who are being abused. It is highly unfortunate, 

totally distorts our understanding of the problem and our ability to 

make decent policy planning as a result. So I appreciate your asking the question. I urge you to look at it in more detail. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Mr. Holt, is that the end of your list of 

questions? 

Mr. HOLT. There are still two pending, actually. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. We’re going to let you have your two 

pending and you’re not going to get a closing statement, okay? Your 

choice. 

Mr. HOLT. Fair enough. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. All right. 

Mr. STANLEY. Congressman Holt, I’m excited that you looked at 

my website. My daughter put that together. It’s an age old question 

of unsafe conditions and unsafe acts and it’s been argued back and 

forth in the safety and health community for as long as I’ve been 

involved and as you know, that’s been a long time. I cannot comment on what North East Linen and their employees knew or 

didn’t know. On a general statement, all of us, everyone in this 

room deals with unsafe conditions and unsafe acts every day we 

get in our car and we go out on the highways. The fact is that all 

of us have been trained and think we’re good drivers, yet everyone 

in this room breaks the speed limit. That’s an unsafe act. We know 

better. We do it. We have all kind of reasons to do it. But we still 

do it. And for us to think that that doesn’t occur in our workplaces, 

people that know their job and take a shortcut for whatever reason, 

that goes on. That’s an unsafe act. 

There’s many other things on the website that—and that one little thing is in there as it should be, but creating a safer workplace 

through correcting conditions and training workers is also on the 

website. 

The second question was I believe on joint safety and health committees which I am an advocate. I hesitated a little bit in my testimony as Rick point out because I think you can go further than 

joint safety and health committees as far as employee involvement. 

And I don’t know what UTSA’s position is on joint safety and 

health committees, but on a personal level, as a safety and health 

professional, I believe we would be much better off in addition to 

committees if we had them is to go out into the workplace and 

identify those workers that have experienced on a day to day basis 

in the workplace and train them to a level of an OSHA compliance 

officer and allow them to be eyes and ears in the workplace. That’s 

43

real employee involvement. And that’s part of an effective safety 

and health program, along with a safety and health committee. So 

that’s my position personally. The Association, I don’t know what 

their position is since I’ve just been retained by them within the 

last month. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, and I thank the Chair and my colleagues 

for their time. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. So you’re yielding? 

Mr. HOLT. All done for the day. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. You’re yielding your overtime. We’re 

going to have a series of comments with Mr. Andrews, Mr. Payne, 

Mr. Wilson and myself, but we’re going to be quick, I promise. They 

promise. 

Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, 

again, thank you for this hearing. I wanted to also thank a longstanding friend of mine for her mentorship in the field of worker 

safety. Laurel Brennan who is here today from the AFL-CIO is 

someone I met before I became a public official. And she made sure 

in her wearing literally the hat of UNITE HERE when it was just 

called UNITE that she made sure that I became aware of these 

issues and has continued to educate me about them. I wanted to 

pay my respects for her and thank her for her work on my behalf 

and behalf of the people she advocates for. 

I would just—this is not a question, just a closing comment, 

Madam Chairwoman, with your indulgence, I think we’re lacking 

in three major areas and I think you can hear this as a consensus 

of the panel. The first is we have insufficient personnel enforcing 

the OSHA law and it is our responsibility as those who control the 

power of the purse to do something about that and put more inspectors and more enforcers on the job. 

The second is I think there is insufficient sanctions and there are 

insufficient remedies when we do find a problem. We’ve heard a 

discussion this afternoon of broadening the definition of a knowing 

or wilful violation to include a multiple plant violations by one employer which I think would go a long way. Another idea I think we 

should explore in remedies is the idea of quicker collection of that 

which is owed. You know sometimes when people don’t pay their 

debts to the federal government they’re withheld from their tax returns, from their refunds. That’s something we should strongly look 

at here. If we have an employer that is responsible for paying an 

OSHA fine, that fine should be withheld from any other payment 

to be made to that employer, including a tax refund. 

I think we should look at a stronger debarment remedy. If an 

employer is a consistent and chronic violator of worker safety 

standards, I don’t think that company should be getting a federal 

contract, whether it’s to build weapons for the military or to build 

a highway or do whatever else. I think a stronger debarment revenue would get people’s attention. 

And then finally, I think Mr. Engler’s point is very well taken. 

Good intentions are not good enough. You prevent worker safety by 

giving those who have the greatest stake in the prevention some 

power, some opportunity to do something about that. And I think 

the discussion that took place in the early 1990s about mandatory 

44

workers management safety committees needs to be regenerated 

and enacted into the law. 

We’re never going to have 15,000 OSHA inspectors out and even 

if we did, it wouldn’t make much of a dent. But if we have significant remedial improvement, if we have a stronger definition of 

what a wilful violation is, and if we empower those who are most 

at risk to do something about stopping the risk I think we’ll make 

the progress that we commendably have seen here in New Jersey. 

So Madam Chair, I appreciate the chance to hear these excellent 

witnesses today. I thank them for their participation and look forward to working with you and the Members of the Minority to pass 

a good law when we go back to the Capitol. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Congressman Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me also thank you for calling this very important 

hearing and for all of the Members of Congress who took time to 

be here today and of course, our panelists. I think Congressman 

Andrews said it right, they say that the road to, I’ll say purgatory, 

is paved with good intentions and we have to take it out of the 

good intention phase and put some teeth into our laws. You know, 

Congressman Holt mentioned Senator Pete Williams as one of the 

greatest labor advocates ever seen in this country. I knew Pete 

very well. I had him in my local headquarters in ’72 and ’78 kicking off his two senatorial campaigns and he started his work with 

migratory workers because they were being discriminated against. 

They couldn’t go to schools, here in New Jersey, they couldn’t have 

bank accounts and they were Hispanic people that came into the 

State in the late ’60s, early ’70s and it was Pete Williams that 

championed them. And once again I see the same thing creeping 

in again. We have Hispanic workers. We have people from Central 

and South America who are in these industries that are unprotected and once again we’re seeing continued advantage being 

taken of people who don’t have a strong voice. And so we have to 

be vigilant about what’s going on. We cannot continue to have exploitation of people who are trying to better themselves, but because they are sometimes intimidated by the law because of places 

they come from, the law is the last word. Many times they simply 

don’t speak out. And so we can’t let that continue. 

I’m pleased with Mr. Socolow and our Department of Labor in 

New Jersey. New Jersey will once again get back where it should 

have been. We had the highest minimum wage back in the ’60s and 

’70s, but we allowed the other states to catch up and even pass us, 

but I’m glad to say that New Jersey is back up to the $7.25. But 

Governor Corzine says that next year he wants to index it to $8.25 

minimum wage. It will be the highest in the country again. These 

are progressive steps going in the right direction, if it wasn’t for 

our labor leaders like Charlie Wowkanech and I didn’t know Ms. 

Brennan as long as Andrews, I mean she didn’t teach me anything 

but it is good to see you. 

Let me just also say that if you have the right, we hear a lot of 

negatives, but the right thing happened in a very potentially deadly situation about two months ago. I was here in Linden with the 

former Mayor and the current Mayor at a recreational event, the 

annual PAL boxing tournament. And that evening while we were 

there, a police officer from Linden, I forget his name, but I’m sure 

45

an officer knows his name, this police officer was shot point blank 

right in the chest, knocked him down, but it didn’t injure him seriously because he had a bullet proof vest on. Why am I bringing 

that up? Well, I bring it up because there was the proper protection 

that should have been there had he not had that on, it would have 

been a different outcome. 

So it shows that an ounce of prevention is much more than a 

pound of cure and if we would keep that same kind of philosophy 

as we move forward, many of these tragedies can be prevented. 

Just finally, just as we were having this meeting this afternoon, 

2:31 a construction worker was killed, falling from a scaffold at 

Trumps Solo Hotel and Condominium Towers on a construction in 

Manhattan, plunged 30 feet down and he’s dead. And the 46-story 

building has been a persistent source of controversy with community groups complaining about the size and the proposed use, and 

once again, today, as we sit here in 2008 in the new millennium, 

21st century, we’re still not taking—if you’re going to have people 

on high levels, then you should certainly ensure that these equipment and scaffolding, whatever, you can’t make—they’ve been scaffolding for a hundred years. And of course we had many, many 

more deaths then, but much of this is preventable. And so I think 

that we have a lot of work to do. Once again, let me just thank the 

Chairperson and the Ranking Member for calling this very important meeting. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Ranking Member Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and again, I want 

to thank the witnesses for your input today. It’s been very helpful 

to me. I also want to thank the staff persons who have assisted us 

today and in particular from our office, Legislative Assistant Melissa Chandler who has flown up for the event today. Additionally, 

I want to thank the Chairwoman for her courtesies today. I think 

she’s been very fair to everyone and allowed all of us the time that 

we could have and again I want to thank the Garden State Members of Congress, led by Don Payne with Rob Andrews and Rush 

Holt, again, your warm northern hospitality, thank you very much. 

Mr. PAYNE. That’s what Huckabee said up in New Hampshire. 

Mr. WILSON. I was not quoting him. 

Chairwoman WOOLSEY. Thank you all for coming. Thank you to 

the witnesses. This panel has been so informative to us. My colleagues, particularly Congressman Payne for insisting that we get 

here and get here as quickly as possible. The audience, thank you 

for being here and listening and caring. It makes such a difference 

to look out at you and know that this means something to you. And 

to our staffs for putting this together, we’re useless without them. 

You all know that. 

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that the information 

we’ve heard today about the state of the American workplace is 

deeply disturbing. I mean the very idea that we still ignore near 

misses, that the employer isn’t considered the ultimate responsible 

person in any industrial accident, excuse me, the employer is the 

parent in this situation. It isn’t looking for some irresponsible employee or an employer that doesn’t provide the right tools and 

equipment. The employer is the boss. When it goes wrong, they are 

46

responsible, and we have to make sure they know it and they cannot wiggle their way out of it because we must make changes. 

Today, we’ve focused on the deaths of Victor and Carlos Diaz. 

What happened to these workers, the impact it’s had on their families, their community, the rest of the workers in their companies 

could have been prevented, all of this, but we should not forget 

that these tragedies are repeated like Congressman Payne said just 

minutes, well, hours ago, in New York, at least 16 times a day, 

every single day of the year, this is the 2008. It’s the 21st century. 

We are going backwards, not forwards because we’re not keeping 

up with the times. And we should not forget that the rate of death 

for Hispanic workers is in this country is on the rise as well. 

These tragedies happen one at a time. We know that, but because of that they sometimes go unheard. The response and the 

changes are not always put in place as they should be, but they 

have a huge impact on everybody that’s related to the people who 

are either killed or injured or whose lives are changed forever and 

we must do something about it and that’s why we passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act 37 years ago and it’s why we must 

keep it modern, today. What happened 37 years ago is much different now and we’ve learned a lot from everybody today. 

Thank you very much. You’ve sent us off with quite a bit more 

to do. And we will do it. You can count on us. We’re not a very big 

Committee, but we’re a pretty powerful little Committee that has 

our hearts, every one of us in the right place on this. 

Thank you again, Joe, for being here. Any Member that has any 

other questions, we have 14 days to submit additional materials for 

the hearing record and any Member who wishes to submit followup questions and writing, they have 15 days to do that to the majority staff and without objection, the hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ