THE KANSAS ST

'Y4

pi 146191)

GOVERNmExi

Storage

/c4t3

NOMINATIONS

JMENTS

MAY 25 190 NR_ HEARING

T BEFORE THE EH TY

COMMITTEE ON

AND PUBLIC WELFARE

NITED STATES SENATE

rg NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

GEORGE C. GUENTHER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF LABOR

IIORACE E. MENASCO, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE AD1VIINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR

APRIL 2, 1971

Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

59-915—B WASHINGTON : 1971

4
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

WALTER MONDALE, Minnesota

THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri

ALAN CRANSTON, California

HAROLD E. HUGHES, Iowa

ADLAI E. STEVENSON III, Illinois

STEWART E. MCCLURE, Staff Director

ROBERT E. NAGLE, Genera/ Counsel

ROY H. MILLENSON, Minority Staff Director

EUGENE MITTELMAN, Minority Counsel

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York

WINSTON PROUTY, Vermont

PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania

BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon

ROBERT TAFT, JR., Ohio

J. GLENN BEALL, JR., Maryland

II
NOMINATIONS

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1971

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.0 .

The committee met at 10:15 am., in room 4232, New Senate Office

Building, Senator Harrison A. Williams (chairman of the committee)

presiding.

Present: Senators Williams (presiding) , Randolph, Pell, Kennedy,

Mondale, Javits, Dominick, and Schweiker.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, staff director; Robert E. Nagle, general counsel; Eugene Mittelman, minority

counsel; and Peter Benedict, minority labor counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The Labor and Public Welfare Committee is meeting this morning

to hear from the men who have been nominated by the President for

positions as an Assistant Secretary of Labor and as Administrator of

the Wage and Hour Administrator in the Department of Labor.

First we will hear from Mr. George C. Guenther, of Pennsylvania,

who has been nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary of

Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

This is a new position created by section 29 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act, and its functions will involve the administration of that act as well as other workplace safety statutes which have

been assigned to the Department of Labor.

I will order placed in the record a copy of Mr. Guenther's biographical sketch.

(The biographical sketch of Mr. Guenther follows:)

GEORGE C. GUENTFIER, NOMINATED To BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR

George C. Guenther was appointed Director of the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Standards in September 1969. He has responsibility for occupational safety and health matters relating to Federal contracts programs, the

maritime industry, and the Federal employees occupational safety program.

Prior to joining the U.S. Department of Labor, Mr. Guenther served as Deputy

Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.

Prior to his State service in Pennsylvania, Mr. Guenther was for 12 years

President of the John H. Guenther Hosiery Company in Reading, Pa., his native

city.

Mr. Guenther is Chairman of the Federal Safety Council, a member of the

Board of Directors of the National Safety Council, a member of the American

Society of Safety Engineers, and has served on numerous boards and committees in the fields of occupatioial safety and workmen's compensation.

A Navy veteran, Mr. Guenther holds an A.B. degree in Psychology from

Amherst College.

He and his wife, the former Kathleen Coyle of Wyomissing, Pa., reside with

their three sons in Bethesda, Maryland.

(1)
2

The CHAIRMAN. The biographical material shows that Mr. Guenther

has been Director of the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Standards since September 1969, where he has been responsible for administering existing occupational safety programs.

Prior to that Mr. Guenther served as deputy secretary of the

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. Before that he

was president of a hosiery company in Reading, Pa.

Mr. Guenther.

Mr. GUENTHER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate having this opportunity to have you

before the committee this morning for consideration for this important pOst. You are going to play a key role in administering this

statute and program, which I am sure you know are very close to the

hearts of the members of this committee.

Do you have a statement?

Mr. GUENTHER. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you could give us in a few minutes

your own views and philosophy concerning the implementation of this

new act, the effective date of which is 

Mr. GUENTHER. The 28th.

The CHAIRMAN. It is very close upon us.

Mr. GUENTHER. Twenty-six days from today. We are at minus 26

and counting.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Williams-Steiger

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is viewed by the Department and by myself—am I audible?

The CHAIRMAN. Just turn the microphone on.

Mr. GUENTHER. The Department then placed the highest priority

on the implementation of the act. As Secretary Hodgson has observed

on a number of occasions, we consider the act to be comparable in its

broad scope and implications to the Fair Labor Standards Act and

to other significant labor legislation affecting the mass of American

employers and employees.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, we have taken this policy position on the act. We have during the past number of months, and even

years in certain cases, been acting to place ourselves in a position to

effectively implement the act on its effective date. Since the beginning

of this calendar year, since the President's signature of the act on the

29th of December we have organized a series of task forces within

the Department which have focused on what we consider to be the

key aspects of implementation, namely, in the areas of standards

setting and compliance, planning our relationships with the States,

putting together the volumes of basic issue papers and making the

policy judgments that are necessary to put us in a position to move

the act forward as soon as possible after its effective date.

With regard to specifics on these particular areas I would be willing

to comment generally, or if you wish to pose questions I will be happy

to respond to them.

I might say that we have already begun to recruit—happily in a

sense the employment situation in certain areas has made it possible

for us to receive applications from many qualified people for this

program, and we have already begun the hiring process for our first

key people who have started training, some of them, a small number
3

of tliem, who have already started training as far back as the second

week of March.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guenther, you are talking

now about the employment of approximately 2,000 persons, is that

correct?

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, that figure has been used, Senator Randolph.

One of the difficult parts of the planning ahead for the act is to estimate exactly how many people we are going to need. Secretary Hodgson has observed upon occasion that the possible size of the staff of

the program may somewhat approximate the present size of the Wage

Hour Division, which is approximately 2,000 people.

However, judgments on that depend to a great extent on the degree to which States involve themselves in the program. Obviously

where a State submits a plan which is acceptable to the Secretary,

why, we will not have to have the same kind of staff in that State as

we would if the plan were not acceptable. But that is a fair statement

from what we are able to tell at the present time.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that

during our hearings on this legislation in the subcommittee, and then

in consideration in full committee, that figure was generally used, plus

a budget figure of $11 million.

What is your feeling about the $11 million?

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, with respect to the $11 million, that is our

emergency supplemental budget request which was submitted to the

House beginning the early part of March which will be for operations for the balance of fiscal year 1971. So that would be the beginning of the program for all practical purposes, the last few months of

the current fiscal year.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have

included with my colloquy with Mr. Guenther an editorial appearing

in the Charleston, W. Va., Gazette of March 23, 1971.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

(The editorial referred to follows:)

[From The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette, March 23, 1971]

IN A STATE PRONE TO ACCIDENTS, LACK OF INSPECTOR UNBELIEVABLE

A new federal law, the Occupational Health and Safety Act on 1970, goes into

effect next month with the Secretary of Labor responsible for administration.

Already there are problems: The Labor Department says it will need 2,000

employees for enforcement and a budget of $11 million. Worst of all, it reports

that there are not enough trained safety inspectors available.

The greatest problem, however, appears to be with the Department of Labor

itself—and we have a case in point...

A Charleston man, a college graduate with eight years of broad experience in

safety programming to his credit, responded to the plight of the Labor Department by applying for appointment as a safety inspector.

He talked with his congressman and then with a high official in the Labor

Department. Everything seemed fine. He was well qualified in the kind of safety

expertise the department needed—with training and experience in a field where

available manpower was short.

There was a certain enthusiasm about the fact he had applied. He could go to

work in the city of his choice—in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, or Norfolk.

What about staying in Charleston? "Nil," said the Labor Department official.

"If you want to go with us, you'll have to move."

This is when the applicant learned that here will not be a single safety engineer or inspector located in West Virginia—even though records of the depart-
4

meat's Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the highest injury-frequency rate

is in coal mining, of which this state is the chief producer. Next in line in injuryfrequency rate are trucking and warehousing, and lumber and wool products—

also occupations found in abundance in West Virginia.

The applicant of whom we speak has home and family in Charleston—a state

capital in an accident-prone state where he could work closely with the state

labor department—but the federal people in charge of job safety and hurting for

competent personnel, tell him that "if you want to go with us, you'll have to

move." This makes no sense.

West Virginia has a senator who is majority whip and one who is chairman

of the Senate Public Works Committee; a representative who ranks high on the

House Appropriations Committee, which will be expected to approve the Labor

Department's $11 million budget for health and safety administration. Surely

they should be able to do something about this situation that is so unbelievable

in so many ways.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Guenther, I direct your attention to certain points that are stressed in• the editorial. I do not presume that

you will be acquainted with all of these situations, but you might want

to comment on perhaps some of the implications. The editorial is

headed "In a State Prone to Accidents, Lack of Inspector Unbelievable."

In West Virginia, as you know, we produce coal, and we produce

the largest tonnage of coal of any State on an annual basis. We have

approximately 36 to 40,000 coal miners employed. We appreciate

the Chairman's concern, and that of this committee and the Congress, with the miners and with the production of that fossil fuel.

Our labor statistics show the highest work-associated accident frequency rate to be in the coal mining industry. The injury frequency

rate is very high in lumber and wood products, and these are industries that are in abundance and employ hundreds of people in our

State.

Now I come to a point made by the editorial. An individual in

Charleston indicated that he had had broad experience in safety programing. He attended college and had 8 years of rather broad experience. Knowing that you were doing exactly what you have indicated to the committee that the Labor Department is doing, seeking

out people for this very important effort, he applied for a position

as a safety inspector. The Labor Department indicated that there

were choices of location for employment according to the editorial—

including Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, Norfolk.

There seemed to be an indication from the Labor Department that he

had the qualification and they were glad that he had applied.

Now he questioned the possible location if he were to be hired, indicating that he would like to be located, if his qualifications met employment standards and he was hired, in West Virginia. Let's say

preferably in Charleston, our capital city.

It was then that the applicant was told that there would not be—

and I quote the editorial— 'a single safety engineer inspector located

in West Virginia."

Now I am asking you whether, in a State engaged in mining and

manufacturing, and where the injury frequency rates are so high,

you think that there might be attention given to one safety inspector

m West Virginia; because you need trained personnel you have said,

and I know you do, but I doubt that we should have enforcement of

the law in West Virginia by inspectors from some of these other cities

or States that I have mentioned.
5

Would you comment on that ?

Mr. GUENTHER. I would be delighted to, Senator. First of all, I

would observe that whoever would make a statement that there will

not be one single safety engineer located in West Virginia made a

statement that went far beyond his authority for making such statements at this point in the program.

First of all, I would like to observe—and I know full well you are

aware of this inasmuch as you were very much involved in the passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969—that that

particular jurisdiction is one of those which section 4 of the Occupation Safety and Health Act •reserves for the Federal agency

to which it is assigned in this case, of course, the Department of the

Interior.

Secondly, I would observe that the reason why the applicant was

advised that positions were available in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and

other cities is that in what we hope was an Orderly planning process

for the program we took a hard look at existing facilities within the

Department of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Standards being the main

safety agency up until now. We took a look at our own regional cities,

we then took a hard look at the balance of the country in a regional

concept to determine what are the areas for starting purposes of greatest need for beginning the program in terms of field stations. We

selected in addition to our 10 regional offices 43 key cities around the

country in which will be located area offices of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration.

I couldn't say categorically at this point in time that Charleston,

W. Va., is not one of those cities, but I don't believe it is. I Could be

wrong about that.

However, I believe I explained the rationale we followed for starting purposes. Now, as the programs begin, as we begin to get a feel

for how the States are going to come into the program, and whether

or not they are in fact, we will obviously in order to meet the requirements of the act be broadening our program into those areas where

there will not be a State program.

In the case of West Virginia, should West Virginia not qualify

there quite obviously will be personnel in West Virginia, and I would

say at that time your applicant would have an opportunity for a position in that location.

We are trying, however, to be fiscally responsible in the starting

phase of the program, and we just could not place people in a hundred

cities or 75 even. We feel the 43 we have selected give us the kind of

national distribution we should have at this point in time.

If the applicant is not interested in one of the cities which we had

determined was a proper focus for starting, if his criteria are that

strong, then I would say the only choice would he to wait until we

further develop the program.

Senator RANDOLPH. I do not want to pursue the problem of the

applicant except to say that I am concerned about the overriding

issue raised in the editorial I had brought to my attention just in the

last few days—not so much the applicant, although the employment

of someone who is qualified is, of course, important—but I am asking

you Mr. Guenther, when you are in a position to do so to supply me

with; a communication in which you will state the situation, from the

standpoint of the operation of the act, with respect to the establish-
6

ment of personnel and possible offices in the State of West Virginia.

I am not being provincial in this matter. I am bringing to your

attention a State where the employment of the people is in a many

faceted industrial complex, where the high rate of injury is well

known would you do that?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir. Senator, I would be pleased to.

(The information subsequently supplied follows:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

OiTICH OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

April.-9, 1971

Honorable 'Jennings Randolph

United States Senate

Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Randolph:

1}444

gts's

At the confirmation hearing of the Committee on Labor and

Public Welfare on April 2, you requested information regarding

field activities under the Williams-Steiger Occupational. Safety

and Health Act of 1970, and in particular with regard to

personnelin'the State of West Virginia.

Developing further my comments at the hearing, perhaps the most

key aspect of the Act is its contemplation of a major role for

qualifying States in setting their own standards and carrying on

their own enforceMent programs. Consistent, with this intent,

we are making every effort to assist the States in developing

plans which will meet the criteria. of the Act and of the

Secretary..

With the key objective of 'State participation in mind, we have

created our initial organizational structure to provide us with

good national coverage in the areas of maximum concentration of

establishments and to enable us, in the start-up -phase, to deal

effectively with State governments. 'Accordingly, we have

selected our 10 regional offices and 43 area offices as shown on

the attached list.

As the intentions of the States clarify we will, of course, 'make

appropriate adjustments to enlarge our program where the States

will not,be involved and to contract it where they will be.

Initially, coverage of West Virginia will be conducted out of the

Pittsburgh area office. As I have stated, if developments in

West Virginia so require we will create new staff Which will most

likely operate out of Charleston.
7

-2-

In any. event, West Virginia will be covered during the initial

phase of the program.

'Should you desire further 'information on thii subject, it will

be my pleasure to prpvide it.

Very truly yours,

George C. Guenther

.Assistant 'Secretary of Labor-Designate

Attachment

59-915 B-71 2
8

REGIONAL OFFICES AREA OFFICES MARITIME

I Boston (3) Boston Providence

Hartford

Concord

'II New yceiv (4) New York

Newark

Syracuse

San Juan

III PhgadelphiA (5) Philadelphia

Baltimore

Richmond

Pittsburgh.

Norfolk

IV Atlanta (7) Atlanta Charleston and Savannah

Birmingham Mobile

Jacksonville

Charlotte

Fort Lauderdale

Louisville.

.Nashville

V Chicago

VI Dallas

(7) Chicago

Detroit

Cleveland

Minneapolis

Milwaukee

'Indianapolis

'Columbus

(5) Dallas

Houston

Tulsa

Lubbock

New Orleans

VII Kansas City (3) Kansas City

St: Louis

Omaha

VIII Denyer (3) Denver

Billings

Salt Lake City

IX San. Francisco () San Francisco

Los Angeles

Phoenix

'Honolulu

X' Seattle Seattle

Portland.

43

Galveston
9

Mr. GIIENTH.ER. May I comment further with regard to the other

industry that you mentioned, namely the lumbering industry, that

one of our program approaches at this point in time is what we call

the target industry approach. Secretary Hodgson has made it clear

that he wishes us to consider for immediate action the worst first, and

we have examined the existing statistical record which, as you have

pointed out, indicated underground coal mining to be the highest

frequency and the highest severity rate of major industry groupings,

and following shortly after underground coal mining is the lumber

industry. And it is our intention to—we have in the mill right now

a special program called the target industry program by which we

will be focusing on the lumber industry and a number of other industries in cooperation with them and with as great a coordination as

we can achieve, which will obviously apply to people in West Virginia, to attempt to get the highest frequency and severity rates down

just as quickly as we possible can, at the same time being responsive

to complaints and to handling the cross sectional responsibility that

we have under the general coverage of the act.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I would

wish to ask Mr. Guenther to respond to three questions that have to

do with matters of substance, and I believe they are of importance

in connection with the duties that he will carry forward.

Do you have plans, Mr. Guenther, that would involve heavy earthmoving equipment manufactured prior to January 1966 which, as

I am told, cannot possibly be retrofitted to meet the standards that

are proposed by the Labor Standards Bureau.? Now the industry asks

whether this type of equipment should be junked, and I would like

for you to give your comments as to whether the economic impact

would call for such action or not call for such action. I do not know

the amount of equipment involved. I am only asking you to comment

on what has been brought to my attention as a consideration.

Mr. GUENTHER. The matter of economic impact is a very crucial

part of the decisionrnaking process which we are now engaged in in

terms of setting construction safety standards under the Construction

Safety Act which, as you know, applies to Federal contractors, and

under the Williams-Steiger Act.

We have early in March conducted hearings around the country for

the purpose of considering the proposed standards for the Construction Safety Act which will carry forward into the initial standards

package under the Williams-Steiger Act. And one of the key issues

that emerged from that series of hearings was in the area of roll-over

protection systems to which you referred. We have given this matter

a great deal of consideration, recognizing that there is potentially

great economic impact involved in an arbitrary kind of a decision in

this area. And after this full consideration we have concluded that it

would not be at the present time advisable for us to take a hard position with respect to time limits for retrofitting such equipment.

We anticipate publication of the final construction safety standards which will reserve this particular section for further study and.

development. We fully intend to conduct that further study and development as rapidly as possible, utilizing expertise from all of the

various involved areas of construction economy from the contractor

himself to the equipment dealers, to the manufacturers, and so forth,
10

and of course, including representatives of labor who have to operate

this equipment.

So at the present time we do. not intend to take a firm position. We

are reserving that section for further study, and we will have q. more

fully developed position in the future. •

Senator. RANDOLPH. Mr. Guenther, I think that you have made a

reasonable assessment of the problem. There is the issue of the manufacturing of this heavy equipment .prior to January 1966, and then

the question of equipment that was .manufactured after that date.

Have you made an investigation of the machinery after the January

1966; date to .see whether that.equipment meets the safety standards,

and what is the. Labor Department doing in this field? .

I am not asking that you go into too much detail, but I think it is

important that we look into your plans for both types of equipment.

Mr.: GUENTHER. It is the opinion of the Department that both new

and used equipment should be, fitted with roll-over protection. I believe it is fair to say that this opinion is shared by responsible representatives of management, of labor, and of the equipment dealers.

The key question is how shall we go about accomplishing this with

a maximum safety effect and at the same time without creating such

an economic situation, and in fact there are purely mechanical considerations that are quite considerable in this area. Some of the frames

of the equipment were not manufactured to support the kind of weight

that the roll-over protection is manufactured for. Some of the equipment has been modified or changed in the course of use, so that it

would be very difficult in some cases to retrofit that equipment. And

there are a variety of other considerations.

It is fair to say that everyone agrees that this kind of protection

should be provided. Now our job is to determine the fairest way, the

most responsible way, and the safest way, the way that will provide

the maximum safety for the operator, to get this equipment installed.

And considering the wide diversity of opinions about this coming

from various sectors involved, we made a judgment that we should

reserve a final decision for further investigation.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the response by

Mr. Guenther. I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Javits,

that we have the problems of working constantly, as you know, with

the Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army on legislation that comes

before us in connection with flood control projects and navigation on

certain rivers, and also the problem of development of our harbors

for commerce. And we are told, Mr. Guenther, that the Corps of

Engineers at the present time is operating—I will not say it is—

with obsolete standards for what is called the roll-over protection

for this heavy equipment that we are speaking of. That is equipment

that is manufactured, as you know, to support two times the weight

of the prime mover. I will not geetechnical, but it is understood by

those in operation.

Now there has to be, as you have indicated, protection for the personnel who operate the equipment, is that right?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. That is one of the requirements.

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir.
11

Senator RANDOLPH. And do you believe that the tests that are being

conducted now will tend to give you further answers to the matters

that I have discussed with you today?

Mr. GUENTHER. I believe I can answer your question very simply

by saying yes.

I would like to comment with regard to the Corps of Engineers

criteria that I understand they are in the very final stages of revising

that criteria and should be publishing it in the very near future. I

don't want to make a commitment for the Corps of Engineers, but I

understand this to be their intention at the present time. So I would

hope that would overcome the criticisms that may have existed.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, our Committee on Public Works

and the Subcommittee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors are

checking these matters, but I felt because of the nature of the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary it would be appropriate to discuss

the impact of altering equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars to meet safety standards, the problem of the operation of the

equipment, and the safety of the personnel involved.It is for that reason that I asked you these last questions. I have been gratified by your

knowledge and response to these matters. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Could I inquire at that point whether many of the

factors relevant in heavy construction equipment would be applicable

to farm equipment, too?

Mr. GUENTHER. They would.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, findings either place might apply to standards for either of these operations.

Mr. GUENTHER. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Guenther, I would just like to say for myself

that I am very gratified that the Administration is going ahead to

implement this law which represented such tremendous labor by the

committee and the Congress and which Senator Williams and I had

very special interest in, as Senator Randolph has just expressed. We

had a lot to do with working it out in conference. I think the nominees

chosen are men of high level. I am glad that you have laid aside personal considerations in the public interest with respect to your stock

and other interests. And I think we had some questions raised about

one of the other members, which we think have been well dispelled, so

I think you can go forward auspiciously and do the job with tremendous satisfaction in our country.

I hope that you will remember one thing in functioning, and I say

this to all the nominees. My colleagues will speak for themselves, but

I know their answer. We have not finished with the occupational

safety law and you. We are here, and we want you to be courageous

and honest—you have the lives of millions of workers in your hands

and the morale of mililons of workers, and just don't be afraid of anybody who tries to intimidate you, whether it is business or labor or

politics. You have got friends here and advocates. Come to us. That

is what we are here for.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We, of course, are charged

with continuing review of the operation of this law. The legislative

Reorganization Act of 1970 reemphasizes that obligation.

I won't at this time go into your plans in the areas of setting of

standards or enforcement policy or acceptance of state plans. We
12

will, however, want to be kept continually advised on these matters.

We have had nothing but cooperation from the Secretary, and I would

assume that this cooperative attitude will continue with you in this

position, Mr. Guenther.

Mr. GITENTHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say it has reached me from the staff level

there was some question about your planning to give advance notice

to employers of inspections. It was our congressional intent, of course,

that this would not be the general situation, and in fact, that only in

the exceptional situation would advance notice be given to the employer. Would you give me your view on that?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir; we have thought about it at great length.

We recognize the language of the act clearly implies the use of advance notice only under very proper circumstances. We also recognize, however, that there are a number of circumstances where it

would not be administratively proper for us to dispatch inspectors

to their various assignments, compliance officers in their assignments

where they may wind up at a plant where there is an operation shut

down, where we are particularly concerned or where there may be a

labor dispute. In the early going of the program in particular our

compliance officers may be required to travel considerable distances

to get to those work places that they will be inspecting. So that it is

our administrative good judgment that there are times when it would

make sense rather than sending a man 100, 150 miles only to find that

there is no employer representative on the site or the plant is not in

full operation or there are no employee representatives in concerned

areas, to provide a very brief advance notice or brief advance contact, if you will, to insure that what we are coming to see will be in

fact observable at the time of our arrival.

In addition, you are well aware that the act creates new provisions

with respect to employee representative walk-around privileges. This,

too, is a difficult area from the administrative standpoint, when you 

consider the wide variety of situations that can exist in different work

places, from one union to a number of unions to no union, to how are

we going to select the employee representative. In the interest of

expediting the arrangements, getting a management representative

and employee representative together, so that the compliance officer

can as promptly as possible after his arrival pursue his business, in

some cases we believe it would be appropriate to shortly before the

arrival of our compliance officer let people know that we are coming

so those arrangements can be made and there would not be a waste of

time.

Now we have been discussing how shortly before the time of arrival should we notify the employer that such a decision is made. We

have set an outside limit on ourselves for such kinds of notifications

of 24 hours if they would take place.

Now the argument has been raised, which those who have been in

the Government safety business for some little time recognize as a

valid argument, that by giving an employer any advance notice he

has the opportunity to send a corps of people throughout the plant

to correct all of the various violations that may exist so that when the

compliance officer arrives he finds a "lily white situation." We believe

the act contemplated this kind of approach, which frankly I don't believe employers will employ generally. But the act contemplates it in
13

that it requires of the compliance officer that he shall consult in the

course of his inspection with various employees; and it is our belief

that the act further provides that if employees say such quick cleanup

actions have taken place the compliance officer is still empowered,

based on that testimony, to cite the employer for violations which

were, if you will, covered up.

So we do believe that there is a middle ground here, considering on

the one side proper and responsible administration of our role in the

compliance program, and on the -other side meeting the intention of

the, act; that we can find as we go down the path—already, incidentally—many areas where we have to thread our way very carefully in

order to be responsive and reasonable in Working out techniques for

various parts of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do want to emphasize that this matter of

not giving advance ,notice was a very important concern here in writing the.legislation. This is another area where we will be looking closely at,your implementation.

Another important area—and I have been hearing a great deal

about this very recently—are the education and training provisions of

the law. I don't know if you have had time to think about this, but

I . know many employers and employees are eagerly awaiting the

development of such programs. Is this going to. have high priority

in your administration of this law?

Mr. GUENTHER. It will have very high priority, Mr. Chairman. It

has had priority, a new high priority in the Department during the

past 2 years. I have been convinced ever since the beginnings of my

involvement in the safety business that training and education are

the key to the success of the program.

We reorganized the Bureau of Labor Standards last year and for

the first time in its 35-year history created a top-level position of

Office of Training, which at that time began to focus more clearly

than ever before on the matter of training and safety.

We have created a similar high-level office, one of the four or five

key offices below my office in the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration organization chart entitled the Office of Training and

Education. We contemplate the establishment of a number of training institutes around the country which will be specifically for the

purpose of conducting training for employers and employees in the

various aspects of the act. As an overall policy approach to these

institutes we would hope to be training instructors most of the time

so as to get a multiplier effect. We aren't going to ever be able to have

institutes to train every level of people, but we have followed this

practice in construction safety where we are running training courses

around the country training trainers so the graduates of our courses

can then go out and multiply the effect in the various areas in which

they would instruct.

We are in the process of developing all kinds of educational material with respect to the act, brochures, pamphlets, and various kinds of

printed material. Again appropriations permitting, we intend to circulate these as broadly as possible.

But in the specific area of training and education it has a very high

priority. It is most visible in our organizational structure, and it has

a key role as we develop the program.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a role for industry here to bring them in
14

as a training ally, or in any of these areas, research, education or

training?

Mr. GUENTHER. Absolutely; we contemplate in June a meeting with

as many of the Nation's two or three thousand trade associations as

we possibly can get here to Washington, at which meeting we will be

explaining our target industry program to which I have referred earlier, and also at which meeting we will be advising these associations

of what they can do as industry groups and subgroups to institute

training programs within their own memberships. So that we will be

starting off with an effort to get the trade association to use their own

devices for building an effective safety and health program within

their membership.

Above and beyond that we have many contacts with the larger

companies, and small companies as well, who are interested in training programs themselves, and we consult with them on a regular basis.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Stevenson, who is Chairman of

the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, has questions he has asked

me to put to you dealing with the recently publicized area of injury

and disease arising on the farms through the use of pesticides and

chemicals. The first question is: As Administrator of the Occupational

Safety and Health law, what steps do you plan to take to protect farm

workers, again referring to the problems created by organophosphates

and chlorinated hydrocarbons, the chemical hazards?

Mr. GUENTHER. Agriculture is one of the broad new areas specifically covered under the act. We have made every effort in putting

together our initial standards package to include as large a number

of a firicultural standards as we possibly can.

The plain truth of the matter is, however, that there are many

standards yet to be written in the agricultural area, and indeed this

is one of the reasons the act addressed itself to agriculture, to bring

that industry more under the coverage of the broad law.

With respect to pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals used in

agriculture a number of departments in the Government already are—

obviously the Department of Agriculture HEW—are taking a hard

look at these chemicals. The act provides that HEW shall conduct research into areas where such research is not now available. And I

wouldn't speak for HEW, but I do believe that they have every intention of focusing on agricultural chemicals at an early date.

The CHAIRMAN. Who has the authority to prohibit the use of chemical insecticides, herbicides fungicides, when there is a question of

danger to human beings? W''heredoes that authority rest?

Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve an absolute answer

to that question for consultation with our solicitor's office. But I believe that the authority where the health and safety of the farm-workers is concerned rests with the Labor Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Peter Benedict, our minority labor counsel.

Mr. BENEDICT. I just have one question, Mr. Guenther. When this

bill was in conference between the House and Senate last December

there were quite a few informal discussions concerning the lack of

qualified inspectors and the need of the Department of Labor to recruit inspectors to administer this program. And it was at least indicated that the Department of Labor would make some sort of special

effort here to recruit from the great number of individuals unemployed in the area of the space industry who possibly because of their

1
15

background were pretty well qualified or would seem to be qualified

for training as inspectors. And my only question would be what, if

anything, has been done in this area?

Mr. GUENTHER. We have made a special effort to 'recruit from the

aerospace area, both Federal Government aerospace which has been

subject to RIF reductions and in the private seCtor. We have in the

first new recruits in the program a number of aerospace people both

from the private sector and from Government. We have plans to intensify this recruiting effort because we believe that this is a fertile

source for the type of engineering know-how that we need in the program, and we will be continuing this.

In fact, one or two of our very key appointees who we hope to have

on board in the not too distant future will be from this area.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything further, Senator Randolph?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, just this final comment. Senator Javits indicated that there should be continuing rapport between

you and others in carrying out the intent of Congress and the legislation, which involves a wide range of people in our industrial complex, labor, management, and, of course, those who enforce the laws.

Mr. Guenther, I want to re-emphasize this feeling that I think all

members of this committee have. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you

are interested in doing something I have done in the Public Works

Committee—we have discussed this—to have the people who administer the laws come to this committee and sit with us in informal session

from time to time and discuss some of the problems that they face.

We cannot always anticipate these problems as legislators, or you cannot anticipate them. So we do need to have clarification, understanding, that we do not attempt to hide a fact or fail to develop a new

method of handling a problem, that we may better understand our

joint responsibility. And I am sure, Mr. Guenther, you and your

associates will want to do that in your important work.

Mr. GUENTHER. Senator, we do. We share your feelings indeed for

maximum focus of all concerned parties on this program.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Guenther. You

can count on our cooperation, and we appreciate yours, too.

We have another Labor Department nominee this morning to hear

from, Mr. Horace E. Menasco, of the State of Washington, nominated

to the position of Wage and Hour Administrator in the Department

of Labor, the post that is now held by Mr. Moran.

Now since August of 1969, Mr. Menasco, I understand, you have

been Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor with responsibilities in

the areas of wage and safety standards and equal employment opportunity, is that right?

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Prior to joining the Labor Department you served

as City Manager of Pasco, Wash. and Colby, Kans.—not in that order,

though, was it?

Mr. MENASCO. No, that is the right order. Most recently Pasco,

Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. From Colby to Pasco, all right.

Your biography will be included in the record.

(The biography of Mr. Menasco follows:)
16

HORACE E. MENASCO NOMINATED To BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR

DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Horace E. Menasco has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Program Development and Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor's

Workplace Standards Administration since July 1970.

Prior to that he was Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Wage and Labor

Standards Administration, following appointment in August 1969.

In the Workplace Standards Administration, Mr. Menasco's responsibilities

have embraced the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Wage and Hour Division, Bureau of Labor Standards, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, the

Women's Bureau and the Division of Wage Determinations.

Bureau operations have included the following areas: Developing and advancing labor standards, enforcing Federal minimum wage laws, assuring workers equal employment opportunities in Federally-involved work, administering

compensation laws which apply to Federal workers, promoting safe and healthful

working conditions, developing policies and programs to promote the welfare

of working women, establishing wage rates for workers in Federally-assisted

construction work, and setting labor standards for contractors selling goods and

services to the Federal Government.

Prior to joining the Labor Department, Mr. Menasco was the City Manager of

Pasco, Wash. He assumed that post in 1964, after serving as City Manager of

Colby, Kans., since 1961.

Born on March 3, 1925, in Cushing, Okla., Mr. Menasco received a B.A. degree

in architecture from Kansas State University in 1950 and did graduate work

at the University of Wichita.

He served in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946 and was discharged with the

rank of Staff Sergeant.

Mr. Menasco is married to the former Julia Ann Warren of Wichita. They

have six children.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any statement?

Mr. MENASCO. I don't have a prepared statement? Mr. Chairman.

I might add that my situation in this nomination is different than

the gentlemen who preceded me inasmuch as they are faced with the

problem of starting a new administration under a new act. I will be

looking forward to working with what the committee generally regards as a very accomplished staff in the Wage and Hour Division.

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, on almost everybody's list there is

concern about the present level of the minimum wage which is $1.60

an hour.

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have talked with the Secretary about this, and

our attitude here, in view of all the economic concerns today, is that

that $1.60 per hour multiplies out even for a full work year to a wage

that is less than the poverty level. The minimum wage bill will be

under review and there will be legislation to update that. Do you have

any attitude about the minimum wage law as it is now?

Mr. MENASCO. Well, of course, I am very well aware that it is under

consideration. We are conducting studies to support it. I believe in the

minimum wage. I believe also that it has cross cutting impact in other

areas of employment, and so forth. So that the very serious consideration I am sure will happen should be given to all of the factors that

are involved in the minimum wage. The enforcement of the wage—

whatever is established—is, of course, the responsibility of our administration, and we obviously will do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell.

Senator PELL. I have no questions, and I support the nominee.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dominick.

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Menasco, you have served in the Labor Department since August of 1969?
17

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, sir.

Senator DOMINICK. And prior to that time you were city manager

of Pasco. As a fellow westerner, I should know where Pasco is and

how big it is, but I really don't.

Mr. MENASCO. It is in the tri-cities area, sir, approximately 25,000

people. It is near the Hanford Atomic Energy works in Washington,

in the desert.

Senator DOMINICK. You were in Colby, Kans. prior to that time.

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, that is near Colorado.

Senator DOMINICK. Yes, I know that. Now your work in the Labor

Department since you have been here has been in the Wage and Labor

Standards Administration, then the Workplace Standards Administration. What is the difference between the two?

Mr. MENASCO. The Wage and Labor Standards Administration was

the organizational unit that was there when I came. There was a

reorganization within the administration at the time of Secretary

Schultz. The administration was renamed the Workplace Standard

Administration to reflect the character of the labor standards that

were promulgated and enforced by an administration that dealt primarily with the worker and the workplace, minimum wage, equal

employment, and at that time safety standards.

Senator DOMINICK. And had responsibility for safety standards as

well?

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, sir; the Bureau of Labor Standards was part of

the Workplace Standards Administration.

Senator DOMINICK. I think that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY. I know you mentioned that you were reviewing

the questions of raising the nonagricultural minimum wage. Are you

also seeking to discover what the minimum wage ought to be for

agriculture workers?

Mr. MENASCO. Yes, sir • a study is under way at this time.

Senator KENNEDY. When are you going to have recommendations

to make on this?

Mr. MENASCO. Senator, I am not exactly certain the current status

of it—there is research under way on the agricultural minimum wage.

I am not certain that we will present it, but it is being done.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schweiker.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I got

back late on a flight from Pennsylvania this morning, so that I wasn't

here when George Guenther came before the committee. I would just

like to comment I have known George for some time and feel he is

very well qualified for the job that he is being nominated for. I know

that he is an outstanding and conscientious person, and I am glad

to see him willing to accept this position. And I am sorry I couldn't

be here with George earlier, but the plane was late.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions. Thank you very much.

This concludes the hearings this morning on the nominees before

us. We will go into executive session, and we thank all the nominees

and their sponsors.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee went into executive session.)

0