Document ID: OSHA-2013-0015-0012
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-07-17T04:00Z

National Advisory Committee on

Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH)

1:04 to 3:59 p.m.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20210

A T T E N D E E S

Committee Contacts:

AMANDA EDENS, Designated Federal Official,

  U.S. Department of Labor

CHIA C. CHANG, MPH, MBA, CDC/NIOSH

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, NACOSH

GRETTA JAMESON, NACOSH

SARAH J. SHORTALL, Committee Counsel,

  U.S. Department of Labor 

Public Representatives:

LINDA RAE MURRAY, M.D., MPH [via telephone],

  Chair, NACOSH, Cook County Department of Health

LIDA ORTA-ANES, Ph.D. [via telephone],

  University of Puerto Rico

MARK CARLESON [via telephone],

  County Safety Manager, County of Orange

ANNE FOOTE SOLZA [via telephone]

  Washington Division of Occupational

  Safety and Health

A T T E N D E E S (continued)

Management Representatives:

JOSEPH VAN HOUTEN, Ph.D. [via telephone],

  Johnson & Johnson

JAMES JOHNSON, National Safety Council

Health Representatives:

JACQUELINE AGNEW, Ph.D., MPH [via telephone],

  Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

WILLIAM B. BUNN III, M.D., J.D., MPH

  [via telephone], Navistar, Inc.

Labor Representatives:

WILLIAM BORWEGEN, MPH,

  Service Employees International Union

MARGARET SEMINARIO, M.S., AFL-CIO

Safety Representatives:

PETER DOOLEY, M.S., CSP, CIH [via telephone],

  LaborSafe

RIXIO E. MEDINA, CSP, CPP [via telephone],

  BP Safety & Operational Risk-Audit

A T T E N D E E S (continued)

Also Present:

DR. JOHN HOWARD, Director, NIOSH

DR. DAVID MICHAELS, Assistant Secretary, OSHA

BEN SEIGEL,

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

ANN ROSENTHAL, Office of the Solicitor

C O N T E N T S

                                             PAGE

Welcome

  AMADA EDENS, Designated Federal Official		 6

Welcome and Introductions

  DR. LINDA RAE MURRAY, Chair, NACOSH			10

SOL Instructions

  SARAH SHORTALL, Committee Counsel		  	11

NIOSH Update

  DR. JOHN HOWARD, Director NIOSH              13

Overview of OSHA Activities on

Temporary Workers

  DR. DAVID MICHAELS,

  OSHA Assistant Secretary				    33

  BEN SEIGEL, Office of the Assistant

  Secretary for Policy					    38

Committee Discussion						   112

P R O C E E D I N G S

Welcome

	MS. EDENS:  I am going to start to kick it off right now.

	Before we start with the meeting and I'll turn it over to Dr. Murray,
just a few welcoming remarks and some general housekeeping.

	Just take some of the safety stuff first.  For the people here in the
room for emergency purposes, we have two types of emergencies in
Department of Labor statuses.  One is shelter-in-place.  If that happens
and you hear that on the intercom, just stay where you are because we
are in a shelter-in-place place.  If it requires some sort of
evacuation, then we'll all go down the stairway and proceed out the
building, the entrance that you came in, and go across away from the
building until we get the all-clear sign, and we'll come back in the
entrance that you all came in because that's really the only place that
guests can come through.  For those of you needing the rest rooms,
they're at either end of the halls.  There are men's a women's at both
ends of the halls.  That's kind of the general housekeeping.

	I'd like to welcome everybody here in the room and on the phone to the
teleconference.  I know this is not the typical format that we use for
NACOSH, but given some of the budgetary challenges and some of the
travel challenges that we're experiencing here in the agency and
especially with some of our advisory committees, we don't want to just
dispense with the committees, you know, not meet at all.  We'd rather
try to have the committees meet because we do value the expertise and
the advice that you give us.  So what we're trying to do in this call is
to limit the time but not the -- hopefully, the impact of your advice. 
We're going to really limit it to a single issue that is very important
to the agency, and Dr. Michaels will talk a little bit about that more
later.

	But, you know, hopefully, this format will work.  We did it with our
Construction Advisory Committee, and it seemed to work fairly well, and
it was fairly productive.  So if we can work this system out, it might
give us some advantages in the future moving forward.  We might to be
able to meet more often in addition to if we're able to have some
face-to-face meetings and may be able to have teleconferences as well.

	So, as I said, we're going to have a single topic today.  You will hear
from Dr. Howard, Dr. Michaels, and we have a guest speaker from the
Assistant Secretary for Policy's office.

	For those of you on the phone, most importantly our committee members,
please remember to mute your phone when you're listening, and then when
you want to speak, please remember to unmute your phones because
sometimes some people will just start talking and don't realize for the
next 3 or 4 minutes that they're actually -- no one can hear them. 
We'll try to remind you to mute and unmute as necessary, but hopefully,
things will move pretty smoothly.

	Also, when you're speaking, please identify yourself, so that we know
who's saying things, and plus the court reporter can create an accurate
transcript of what is said here today.

	Also, as you go through, the committee goes through deliberations, if
there need for votes, when we'll probably do the same kind of roll call
because we won't be able to see the nods or hear the yays or nays very
well over a phone system, so we'll try to do that.

	So, with that, the committee members, we did send you out some
background readings.  Hopefully, you've had a chance to look over theirs
and give some thoughts.  We gave you Dr. Michaels' charge in an e-mail
previously, and he will go over those more in depth when he gets to the
point on the agenda.

	So, with that, I will turn it over to Dr. Murray.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Before we do, has anyone else come in on the phone?

	MS. EDENS:  Has anyone else come in?  We have Lida or Jacquie?  Who is
that?

	MS. AGNEW : Jacquie Agnew.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay, all right.

Welcome and Introductions

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, I want to welcome everybody, and we will get
through this meeting.  We understand we are one of the byproducts of
sequestration, so -- however, I want to be realistic.  I don't think we
can go for 4 hours, so we want to keep our reports as short as we can
and make sure that the committee has time to discuss any actions we
might choose to take.

	So my understanding, before I turn it over to Sarah to remind us of our
instructions, is that we're going to have an update, a NIOSH update from
Dr. Howard, an overview of OSHA from Dr. Michaels, and he's asked us
specifically for some advice on contingent workers.

	And then, of course, we should have some brief discussion about our
next meeting.  As you know, we are supposed to have two a year, right,
if my memory serves?

	So, Sarah, are there any instructions you want to give us or remind us
of?

SOL Instructions

	MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.  Just a few.  Thank you, Madam Chair.

	First thing I'd like to do is let people know that if you want to get
access to any of the exhibits in this proceeding, they will be available
at regulations.gov under the following docket number:  OSHA-2013-0015. 
That is the docket number NACOSH is using for the entire year, so you
will be able to find anything relevant to this meeting, anything that
comes in afterwards.

	The second thing is we will be doing all votes that we take today by
roll call because it is not possible for a transcriptionist to see
people raise their hand, so we'll need to do that on the phone.

	Also, we still have the requirement that our meetings be a verbatim
transcript, so I really hope each one of you will speak up as loud as
possible, so the transcriptionist will be able to catch your voice.

	Finally, I have two things I'd like to enter into the record:  as
Exhibit No. 1, the agenda for today's NACOSH meeting; and as Exhibit No.
2, a letter from SEIU designating Bill Borwegen to continue to serve as
an Employee Representative on NACOSH, although he has required as
Occupational Safety Health Director for SEIU. 

	Thank you.

	MS. SOIZA:  So, Madam Chair, this is Anne Soiza, and I had a request. 
If I could please request that I'm only able to attend by phone because
it's not working for me, the WebEx.  I would like to request that when
people are speaking that they identify the attachment or the PowerPoint
that they are looking at.  That would be helpful to me. 

	Thank you.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  This is Joe Van Houten.  I want to also advise OSHA
that the WebEx is not working for me either.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, I don't think the WebEx -- the picture is
working for anyone, but it's my understanding that we really won't need
it today and will have to go with our handouts.

	As I said, you know, in general, I'd like the committee to discuss more
than listen to presentations, and that's even more true today.  So we
will, hopefully, all of us endeavor to have this meeting be as efficient
as possible.

	So, Dr. Howard, I presume you're there in the Ether somewhere.  Would
you like to give us a NIOSH update?

NIOSH Update

	DR. HOWARD: Thank you, Dr. Murray.  Yes, I am here in the Ethernet and
corporally speaking, and so we're going to concentrate on the spoken
word today as opposed to the visual word.

	What I wanted to do today with the brief time that I have is to divide
my remarks into two parts.  The first part relates to the regular update
that I do periodically here at NACOSH, and the second part relates to
the issue of contingent temporary contract workers that we're
thematically doing at this meeting.

	So with regard to the budget, as many of you know, the President's
proposed FY14 budget still carries the elimination of the education and
research centers, together with the elimination of the agricultural
forestry and fishing program at NIOSH.  This is now the third year in a
row, FY12, FY13, and FY14, that contains similar provisions.  However,
the Congress in their appropriation has continued funding in FY12 and
'13.

	Two publications of note, and I saw to you these because they both
contained recommended exposure limits that I think are important.  The
first has to do with a first governmental agency recommendation for a
recommended exposure limit for carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers. 
The new REL is 1 microgram per cubic meter of air.  This is a lowest
airborne concentration that can be accurately measured, and it's
designed for non-carcinogenic effects, chiefly adverse lung effects. 
It's not designed for carcinogenic effects at this time.

	The second publication, which also contains a REL, is a new criteria
document for hexavalent chromium.  Based on the results of a
quantitative risk assessment that NIOSH has done, the new REL is 0.2
microgram per meter cubed for an 8-hour time-weighted average during the
40-hour week.  The intent here is to better protect the nearly 600,000
workers who are exposed to airborne hexavalent chromium in the
workplace.

	Three initiatives I think I wanted to bring to your attention today. 
The first is our list of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs.  In
the health care setting, as you know, some of you have already seen that
we have proposed additions and deletions to this list, and we're
accepting comments through the 2nd of August.  So we hope that everybody
takes a look at that.

	We also have a blog that we did on a sort of free mobile web version of
the NIOSH Pocket Guide for chemical hazards, and we're sort of
interested to know what people think of the mobile version, the three
mobile version, and so you can comment through our blog on this subject,
which was posted on April 15th.

	The third initiative, we recently announced the launch of a Center for
Workers' Compensation Studies.  This is something that if you recall
from the Act of 1970, workers' compensation was mentioned in the act and
has become I think a larger issue of late in terms of many of the issues
of worker safety and health that also impact the workers' compensation
insurance system.

	So we are launching the center.  We are open to anybody's ideas that
people have about things that we should look at and research, and one of
those goals, which is the segue into the theme for this meeting, has to
do with the issue of contingent workers.

	I think from the NIOSH perspective, researchers at NIOSH have been very
interested in this issue for a number of years, and I wanted to point
out some publications and be happy to provide the sites -- and maybe you
already have them -- that have been -- that have already appeared in the
literature over the years on this issue.

	The first one is a publication done by Kristin Cummings and Kay Kreiss
that appeared several years ago on the issue of contingent workers,
looking at why these workers are at higher risk for work-related
injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

	These workers, as the paper points out, are actually doing more
hazardous jobs than other workers who are non-contingent.  They often
have insufficient training and insufficient personal protective
equipment for the job.  They often have insufficient experience and
familiarity with the workplace processes because they may work for
multiple different employers.

	And in fact, if you look at the 2013 Gallup Poll, which shows that
about one in every five workers in the United States is not working
full-time, some choose to work part-time, students, et cetera, but some
are sort of involuntarily working part-time.  It's not really a choice. 
It's they can't find a full-time job.

	The other paper has to do -- which was just published in the end of
March this year in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine -- is
entitled "Promoting Integrated Approaches to Reducing Health
Inequalities Among Low-Income Workers," and this was done by a number of
researchers at NIOSH and other places, trying to look at the issue of
whether or not workers -- how workers can be integrated, contingent
workers can be integrated into the larger occupational safety and health
paradigm because there's lots of obstacles, as we'll hear about today,
in terms of doing that.

	So I think that --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Dr. Howard, if I could interrupt you for one
second?

	DR. HOWARD:  Sure.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Somewhere on our call are some people in the
background.  I don't know if that's at a D.C. room or if it's on
somebody's phone, but those of you that are on the phone, if you can
keep your phone on mute if you're not talking.

	Okay.  Thanks, John.  Go ahead.

	DR. HOWARD:  Sure, no problem.

	And I was just sort of concluding with references to those two papers,
and I think that for us at NIOSH and for the researchers who are
interested in this issue, we would be very interested in the committees'
views, opinions, and advice about how we expand this research portfolio
in this area.

	So I'm going to close with that and say that we're looking forward to
at NIOSH from hearing -- to hearing from all of the members of NACOSH on
this issue, and I want to thank OSHA for putting this thematic issue and
for the committee for considering this thematic issue.  I think it's a
very significant one.  It affects how we collect data and how we include
this growing population of workers in the United States.  I think it
affects how our paradigm that was done in the middle of the last century
needs to grow with this new employment pattern that we're seeing.

	So I'm going to close there, Linda, and let you all ask questions if
you need to.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Thank you, John.

	Let me ask the committee if they think this is reasonable, to hold
question about contingent workers until we hear the other information,
so we can discuss it all as one.  But if there are questions about other
areas of Dr. Howard's report, ERC funding, any other areas, or other
things that he didn't mention, feel free to raise that now.

	MS. EDENS:  Dr. Michaels, since we're running a little early, he is not
going to be here for about 5 to 10 minutes.  So if you do have some
questions of Dr. Howard, why don't we ask those now, so that we can sort
of fill this space in between David gets here.

	MR. BUNN:  Yeah.  Hi.  This is Bill Bunn.

	John, what do you think the prospects are for the funding being
restored this year for the ERC?

	DR. HOWARD:  Well, you know, I don't have a crystal ball on the table. 
They did not provide me with that, but -- or Tarot cards.  So I don't
have my normal tools to predict the future.

	You know, from our perspective at NIOSH, we try to show all of our
stakeholders the value that these programs bring to the world of
occupational safety and health, and we hope that we've done a good job
there.  If anybody needs more information about their value to the
country, we're happy to provide it, and we are always hopeful.

	MR. BUNN:  Yes.  Do we have the support group we had last time
together?

	MS. AGNEW:  Can I turn on this, Becky?

	MS. EDENS:  Who is that speaking?

	MS. AGNEW:  This is Jacquie Agnew.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.  Why don't you go, and then Peg has raised her hand. 
We'll go to her.

	MS. AGNEW:  Oh, okay.  I was just going to add to that or provide a
little detail in terms of the ERCs and AFFs and what we're doing.

	I think you all might know that the AFF and ERCs have joined together
in this effort, so we're trying to coordinate as much as possible within
regions and in our approach to different contacts on the Hill.

	We have made -- much of what we're doing is the repeat of what we've
done in the past 2 years, which has worked then, but there's no
guarantee it will work now.

	We have gotten letters to both of the subcommittees on Labor HHS
budgets that came from the Senate and from Congress.  We had, I think, a
few names on those letters, and then in the positive department, we also
submitted or actually helped coordinate the submission of a Friends of
NIOSH letter, and that also went to both budget subcommittees.  And we
had more than 200 signers on that letter.  Many of you here helped get
your organizations and others to sign on as well, but they were public,
private, academia, labor, and basically a very good representation of
the folks we serve.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Another budget question.  What has been the impact of
the current sequestration on NIOSH, both in terms of the overall funding
cut you've had for fiscal '13 and how you are trying to deal with it in
terms of the impacts on your -- trying to minimize the impacts on your
programs?

	DR. HOWARD:  Well, I think the biggest impact probably has been on our
lead surveillance program and our grantees which have had to be reduced.
 The ABLES program, we have eliminated that program altogether, and we
are relying on our state surveillance grants to restructure that
program.  The grants have been reduced by 5 percent overall.

	HHS in general has a smaller amount of its budget that are devoted to
personnel, salaries, and benefits, as opposed to other departments where
their entire budget is personnel.  The NIOSH budget itself, a third of
it goes out the door as grants, and we have laboratories.  So we are not
as impacted labor-wise as other departments are.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Well, has the amount of money that's coming off of
NIOSH's budget been set yet for 2013 as to how much you've lost because
of sequestration?

	DR. HOWARD:  Yeah.  That has been -- that has been done, and it's about
5 percent in the program for NIOSH.

	Now, there are other parts of NIOSH, other programs that are funded,
mandatory funding, but the discretionary part of the NIOSH budget is
about 5 percent; 5.1 actually, I think it works out.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  Thank you.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  But, you know, I'd like to go back to the ERC, and
I know each year we've written letters and done this.  And while people
in the employ of the federal government may not be able to be as blunt
as I would like them to be, I am just stressed that we're going about
this wrong.  We shouldn't have to be running to congressional committees
to restore funding from an administration that is supposed to be a
friend of working people.  So I guess my concern is perhaps we should be
talking to someone in HHS, in the Department of Labor, in the White
House.  I don't know where, but -- I'm not against talking to Congress,
but it seems to me that we should not be expecting the President's
budget to repeatedly cut these areas.

	If I remember correctly, the original year they did this, they tried to
pretend that they had met all the manpower needs of our field by the
ERC's existence.  

	So if I could have some speculation on the part of anybody about other
areas that maybe we should be trying to reach out to, to address some of
these issues?

	MR. BUNN:  Linda, one thing I think we probably --

	MS. EDENS:  Please identify yourself.

	MR. BUNN:  We could send another letter.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Who is that?

	MS. EDENS:  Please identify yourself.

	MR. BUNN:  Oh, hi.  This is Bill Bunn.

	I think we should probably send another letter.  As we all know, there
was a group of folks that labored industry supported.  I think we need
that again, and I'm interested in other approaches.

	MS. AGNEW:  Well, let me add here.  This is Jacquie.

	One of the obstacles obviously for the development of the budget is
OMB, and we tried, I think 2 years ago, to send ambassadors to try to
get somewhere and got absolutely nowhere.

	What Linda said is true, that the first time around, the justification
was that supposedly we had already met the personnel needs, the worker
needs in the occupational health and safety labor force.

	The second time, that language was taken out of the justification, and
when we asked, "Okay.  Now what is the issue?" basically the answer was,
"Well, there are many priorities, and this is not rising to the top."

	So thoughts about how to make it rise to the top are welcome, and we
will help or take the initiative in any way that makes sense to you all,
including Dr. Howard, if you have thoughts.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Jacquie, this is Bill Borwegen.

	Would it make sense to send that same letter you sent to the Hill to
the White House?

	MS. AGNEW:  I personally am not familiar with, you know, the protocol
for doing something like that.  It makes sense to me.

	I don't know.  Can you get a letter to the White House without OMB
being a middle man?  I have no idea.

	MR. BUNN:  This is Bill Bunn.

	We did give one, as John recalls, historically, so, yeah, you can.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Are you thinking, Mr. Borwegen, of having NACOSH send a
letter or just the individual organizations?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  No.  NACOSH can only advise HHS and the Department of
Labor, is my understanding.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Yes.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Now, we in the past, NACOSH as a committee, advised
the two departments in the past.  We have not done that yet.  We can do
that again.

	Obviously, as we've already talked about, we know of many efforts
outside of our committee that are going forward with the normal letters
that we do.

	So we do have new leadership in the Department of Labor, and again, I
don't know to what extent these two departments are fighting for these
training programs.  So it's never been crystal clear to me, especially
after the first year, where the resistance to the programs are coming
from.  But they're clearly internal to the administration if the
President's recommendation continually drops these programs.

	So I certainly would entertain a motion.  I'm almost tempted to send
the same thing and say for the 20th year in a row or however many times
it's been, here is a copy of the same letter we went you the last time. 
But in any case, we certainly could decide towards the end of this
meeting to send another NYCOSH letter to the departments that we are
charged with advising, should people want to.  And I think there's
nothing wrong about being on the record again for that.

	MS. SOIZA:  This is Anne Soiza.

	You want me to move something later on this issue?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  If we wait a few minutes, I would hope we could,
because I think voting is going to be tricky anyway.  Maybe somebody
could quickly draft something very short and sweet, and then we could
vote on it a little bit later in the meeting but before the meeting is
over.

	So if someone maybe could volunteer to write a quick draft?

	MS. EDENS:  Linda, this is Mandy.

	Dr. Michaels has arrived now.  We do have a -- after his presentation
and Ben Seigel's presentation, the committee will have some more chance
to talk, and there will be a break.  So if somebody wants to take a
crack in that 15-minute break to decide what you guys want to come up
with the recommendation, I think you will have some time to do that.	

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, one good thing about meeting on the phone is
no one can see what you're doing.  So let me add, if somebody would
volunteer to write two or three paragraphs.  I'm not particularly
looking forward to 15 minutes of dead space, so let's see how quickly we
can move this.

	MR. BUNN:  Did we ever talk to you about what we said the last time we
could update?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  That is even a better idea.  I am sure -- I don't
know where to get a copy of that quickly, is my concern.  I don't know
if maybe staff could hunt up a copy of the letter we went last year. 
That might be very helpful.  I don't know if that's possible on the net
or --

	MS. EDENS:  Do you mean the recommendation from the last meeting on
this topic?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  We sent a letter around this budget issue before.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  If we could find a copy of it, I think the position
hasn't changed.  We could change the date, and we might make another
few-sentence comment.  That might save some time.  Is there someone on
the staff that could be asked to dredge that up from our records?

	MS. EDENS:  We can try.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay, great.

	MS. EDENS:  Does anyone have another question on Dr. Howard's update? 
If not, we can move to Dr. Michaels.  Nothing?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  So wait.  Let me try to summarize where we are.

	Essentially, we have asked Dr. Howard about budget issues as being the
primary thing, though he did ask for some other input.  Are there any
other issues that people want to bring up?

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  Well, welcome, David.  I can see
something now, little people moving in jerky ways on my screen, so --

	MS. SHORTALL:  Madam Chair, while Dr. Michaels is coming to the podium,
I would like to enter into the record as Exhibit No. 3 the use of worker
compensation data for occupational safety and health proceedings from
the June 2012 workshop which is NIOSH Publication No. 2013-147.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay, thank you.

	Welcome, David.

Overview of OSHA Activities on

Temporary Workers

	DR. MICHAELS:  Thank you very much, Linda.

	I'd also like to begin by welcoming everyone, those of you who are here
and on the phone, and thanking you because you play a very important
role in representing the interests of the public, employers, employees,
the states in advising OSHA and the Department of Labor.

	As you know, this is a period of transition in the Department of Labor.
 Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris has a long history of supporting
worker safety and health and the work of OSHA.

	We are also looking forward with enthusiasm to the confirmation of a
new Secretary of Labor who also has great experience in worker safety,
having served as the Commissioner of Labor in Maryland, a state plan
state.  So we are going through transition.  We'll see where that goes.

	I also want to acknowledge Bill Borwegen, who retired yesterday,
approximately, from SEIU, and a number of us were at the festivities
noting and roasting his great work, and we're pleased to see you today
after your retirement.

	The very important issue that I'm looking forward to discussing today
with you is the protection of the health and safety of temporary
workers, and I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts and your
recommendations on this issue.  It's certainly one we can use them on.

	In recent months, we've received many reports of temporary workers
suffering serious injuries, sometimes fatal injuries, during their first
days on the job.  One of our most recent high-profile enforcement cases
was at the Bacardi Bottling Corporation in Jacksonville, Florida,
following the death of a 21-year-old temporary worker, Lawrence Davis,
known as "Day" to his friends, who was crushed to death on his very
first day at work while he was cleaning up glass inside the palletizer
at the Florida bottling facility.

	Our investigation found he and his coworkers were never trained in the
simple lock-out/tag-out procedures that would have saved his life.  And
if I had brought the pictures along, this palletizer had a large sign
above it saying "Danger.  Do Not Enter," but this young man, it was the
first day on the job.  He was a temporary employee, given the broom, and
said go clean out that glass.  He clearly didn't feel he could say no or
didn't know enough to say no to that job.  That first day on the job is
his last day on earth.

	Many of the workers who were killed in their first few days on the job
were new construction workers, workers like 28-year-old Adrian Zamora,
who fell 40 feet from a scaffold while restoring an 11-story building in
New York.  It was his first day on the job.  According to a source
quoted by the New York Daily News, quote, He took a chance he shouldn't
have while cleaning out materials on some scaffolding at the end of the
day.  He had no-fault protection in place at the time.  He left behind a
wife a two young daughters.

	And last August, Mark Rainey, a 60-year-old temporary worker at an Ohio
roofing company, was working in the hot summer sun on top of a roof,
throwing roofing material down into a dump truck.  He started to become
lethargic and confused.  He lost consciousness and died of heat stroke. 
He left behind two daughters, three grandchildren, and a large extended
family.

	On January 22nd of this year, Samir Storey began his first day as a
temporary worker at Resolute Forest Products in South Carolina, was
assigned to clean the inside of a tank.  The local news reported he was
given a brief training video and a respirator to wear inside the tank,
but when an alarm sounded and liquid started pouring into the tank, only
two of three employees were able to escape.  The news stories report
Samir was trapped inside the tank for hours after the liquid started
pouring in.

	So that's the problems which we think we're facing out there.  To think
about and to give you an overview of the research and data on temporary
workers, how many there are and where they work, I've asked Ben Seigel
to make a brief presentation.

	Ben is advisor to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
where he's leading an effort to expand that office in the Department's
policy research capacities.  Ben also serves as the deputy director of
the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships here at the
Department of Labor.

	He's been with the Department since April 2010.  Prior to joining the
Department, Ben was senior vice president of Program Development and
External Affairs at Seedco, a national community development
organization.

	Ben has a master's in public administration from New York University
and a bachelor's degree in political science from Swarthmore College.

	And let me turn this over to Ben.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Okay.  Thank you very much, David, and thanks to the
committee for having me here today.

	For those of you on the phone and for those of you in the room, I am
going to walk through one of the handouts that you have.  This is the
PowerPoint-looking presentation titled "Trends in the Employment
Services & Temporary Help Industry."  As you leaf through and find that
handout, let me just by way of context explain what we are doing in our
Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy right now.

	Largely at the request of David and some of our other agencies here
within the Department, we are doing some policy research and background
work on the employment services and temporary help industry, and so we
are in the process right now of putting together an internal policy
paper that's intended to outline the trends and implications of this
industry and provide background information and guidance to our various
agencies here at the Department that are facing kind of a growing
connection and viewing and seeing temp workers more and more in their
day-to-day activities.

	So let me jump into this.  Let me begin by stating specifically who we
are talking about.  So this is the first chart, if you go to page 2 of
the document.  There is often a lot of confusion on contingent workers,
part-time workers, independent contractors, contract workers, temp
workers.  There's a lot of different classifications, and with some of
the research out there, it's estimated that as much as 30 percent of our
overall workforce are all of these categories, contingent workers,
part-time workers, independent contractors.  So there's a lot of
different types of workers in there, and within that 30 percent, the
largest percentage is part-time workers.  As we know, part-time workers
can be contingent.  They can be contractors or temps, but they can also
be wage and hour, W-2 employees as well.

	So let me kind of focus in on who we are looking at.  This is a very
specific industry code that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has very good
data on, and it's the employment services industry.

	Employment services is comprised of three sub-industries.  The first is
the temporary help services industry.  The second is professional
employer organizations, PEOs.  These are companies that serve as
employee leasing companies that provide HR and other services for client
employers.  And the third category is employee placement and executive
search firms.  So of these three, we are mainly focusing on the first,
the temporary help services.  They represent 91 percent of this
employment services industry, and among the temp agencies and the PEOs,
they both are involved in the co-employment model.  So this is a model
where the employee has in essence two employers.  One of those employers
is where they go to work every day, where they receive their work
assignments from, who they work for, and the second employer is the
staffing firm, the PEO, the temp agency who signs their paychecks. So
it's those two different employers.

	What I also just want to mentioned quickly at the outset, because we
hear a lot of terminology, temp agencies, staffing firms, it's the same.
 They're interchangeable language, so we often sometimes hear separately
temps, temp agencies, and staffing firms.  As far as how we categorize
them and count them, it's the same type of workers in industry.

	So on this first chart, let me just jump into it.  Well, you can see
here is the kind of pattern over -- since 1990 to today of the growth
and changes in growth in this industry.  The blue line at the top
represents the entire employment services industry.  The red line is
that 91 percent of the industry, which is the temporary services
agencies, and then the green line are the PEOs.

	The main thing to point out is that today, there's 3.3 million
employment services jobs in the economy.  That represents about 2.5
percent of overall employment, and within that, there's 2.6 million
temporary help and staffing jobs, which is about 2 percent of
employment.

	You can see in the chart that the peak for employment services was late
'90s, early 2000s.  It dipped after the 2001 recession.  It went back up
and then dipped a lot in our last recession, and now it's heading back
up.  And we are actually right now at the peak employment for temporary
help services.  So the one place we have seen the decline is the PEO
market has declined and has not come up, but the temp agency market has
been climbing since the last recession.

	The other thing to point out is that since 2009, August 2009, 900,000,
just under 900,000 temp jobs have been added back to the economy.  So
it's the single largest individual industry, top jobs growth of any --
since the recession.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Excuse me.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Yes.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.  Can I just ask a question?

	MR. SEIGEL:  Yep.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Where would independent -- you know, a lot of employers
call -- like taxicab drivers, they call them "independent contractors."

	MR. SEIGEL:  So we're not talking about independent contractors here. 
So that's another type of worker with an alternative arrangements. 
Independent contractors are also a very growing portion of the economy. 
There's about 10 million independent contractor jobs in the economy.

	There are similar issues, but there's a lot of different issues too. 
There are independent contractor 1099s as opposed to W-2s, lots of
different issues relating to compliance and responsibility of the
employer.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Because we have had situations -- you know, I've heard
of situations where they will sell a janitor a floor of an office
building and call them an "independent contractor."

	MR. SEIGEL:  Right.  And we're talking about a staffing firm who
employs that janitor, not as an independent contractor.  Otherwise, I'll
touch on at the end here, there are many cases where a staffing firm or
temp agency is classifying their employees as independent contractors,
which is a whole additional issue.

	And so the final point I just want to make is that while it's a
relatively small slice of our overall employment, the temporary help
services industry add about 2.6 million jobs in the economy.  It's about
10 million workers per year who are in these jobs, so there's a lot of
turnover, as we all know, with temp and staffing firms.  The average
kind of turnover, the average tenure for a temp worker is about 14 weeks
with a single agency.

	If you jump to the next slide, I'll kind of breeze through the next few
slides here.  This gives you just a breakdown by state of where temp and
staffing firm workers are.  You know, one thing to point out is that
between 1990 and 2008, the greatest growth within temp employment was in
the South as a region.  The southern states experienced about 126
percent growth in temp workers during that 18-year period.

	And what you'll see here is that as with many things, California and
Texas have the most temp workers, and what's interesting to note too,
though, is the states that have the highest share or percentage of temp
workers, so Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina, all
over 3 percent.  So kind of the South and Midwest is where a lot of the
concentration is happening these days.

	Jump to the next slide.  Just quickly on who are the agencies, who are
the employers, there are about 12,000 temporary and staffing firms in
the country, 12,000 individuals firms.  It's about 30,000
establishments, and while there's that many companies, 12,000, about 100
large companies comprise 63 percent of the industry in terms of staffing
 revenues, and here's the top 15.  And this data was collected by
staffing industry analysts.

	As you can see in the top 15 groups, companies that are well known and
recognizable, Adecco, Manpower, Kelly Services, TrueBlue/Labor Ready,
one of the largest industrial temp agencies.  And you can see on the
fourth column there, the end column, the industry segments they focus
on, so a lot in clerical, industrial.  IT is growing, and that's the
breakdown of those companies.

	If we jump to the next slide, I want to talk a little bit about the
occupations, and this is really I think driving a lot of what we're
looking at specifically here within the Department of Labor.

	When you talk about 30 years ago in the 1980s, you talked about temp
agencies.  People thought about the clerical worker, the admin worker. 
In terms of the demographics, you know, it was most likely young women,
young people in general looking to get a start after college or working
during vacations, that type of thing, from school.  That was who the
temp worker was, and in fact, over 50 percent of temp workers in 1985
were in the admin and clerical fields.  It's very different today, and
this chart shows that.

	Kind of the key thing to point out is that today, temp workers are just
as likely to be clerical or admin workers as they are to be working in
production and manufacturing jobs and transportation and material
moving, and warehousing jobs. 

	And so just to quickly summarize here, in fact, the most number of jobs
today are in the manufacturing sector.  665,000 of the 3.1 million
employment services workers are in manufacturing occupations.  That
represents over 21 percent.  Office and admin support, clerical jobs
represent another 21 percent, and then the transportation and material
moving, which includes warehousing jobs, bus driver jobs.  They
represent just under 20 percent, and then there's a number of other
positions that have experienced growth in health care, in information
technology.  Construction is a growing sector in this field and many
others.

	And just to point out finally here on this slide, as the type of
occupations have diversified within the temp industry, the types of
workers have also diversified.  So workers today in the temp industry
are just as likely to be men as they are women.  They are less likely to
be young as they were 30 years ago, and what's also interesting to note
where there's been a heavy increase is that 23 percent of temp
employment services workers are African American and 21 percent are
Latino.  So these are much greater rates than in our overall workforce.

	We jump to the next slide.  I want to get into a couple of the
implications now.  This table on page 6 shows differences in wages,
average wages for the same occupations.  In the first column, the column
"May 2012 Mean Wage for Employment Services Industry," those are the
average wages for occupations with a staffing or temp firm, and then the
column over are the average wages within all other industries.  So,
basically, it's if we look at production occupations, the first column
there, $11.91, that's what production occupations, manufacturing workers
make on average or on average when they are employed by the staffing
firm, and $16.69 per hour is what they earn on average when they are a
direct hire, directly employed by the manufacturing firm.  So you can
see the tremendous wage differentials between what the temp workers earn
and what the direct hire workers earn.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Bill Borwegen again.

	Did you capture how much goes to the staffing agency?  They typically
get 50 percent.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Well, yeah, that's a good question because a portion of
that obviously, you know, a driving factor of the differences here is
that the temp agency, you know, is also receiving a fee from the
employer, from the client employer to provide a whole range of HR
services.  And that in part explains the reason, but it doesn't explain
all the reasons.

	What a lot of the research out there shows is that, you know, kind of
controlling for all other characteristics, including those fees, but
also controlling for sex, for age, for race, for education levels, they
still are much lower in terms of wages.  And I'll talk on the last slide
here on some of the reasons why in addition.

	So to jump to that last slide, let me just talk briefly about, you
know, some of the implications here, what does this growing -- the
growth of the temp agency services and employment services and the
diversification mean for our economy, employers, workers, and government
agencies.

	Just to point out a couple things, first, on the economy, there's an
interesting kind of trend out there in the research that especially
relates to the growth in the manufacturing sector -- and this was one of
the publications we handed out -- as well as the transportation sector
that shows that all the jobs within the temp industry are classified in
professional and business services.  So all of those 600,000-plus
thousand jobs with manufacturers, what are staffing firm agency jobs,
are not counted as manufacturing jobs.

	In one of these studies in the report we gave out, if those jobs were
in fact classified as manufacturing jobs -- the authors looked at the
1989-2000 period -- rather than a 4.1 percent decline in manufacturing
employment, if we count all those staffing firm and temp jobs with
manufacturers, we would have seen a 1.3 percent growth in the
manufacturing industry in terms of employment.

	And using some of that same methodology today, we talked about -- since
the recovery, we've added 530,000, approximately, manufacturing jobs
over the past few years.  If we counted all of the staffing firm jobs in
manufacturing, it would be over 800,000, so that's an interesting kind
of note on the economy.

	At the same time, while the temp industry helps to understate the
employment size or employment growth in specific industries, it
overstates labor productivity because while we're not counting these
workers in terms of the manufacturing sector employment, we're also not
counting them in terms of output, and so they're kind of ignored on that
side.  So those are some interesting trends on that side.

	Let me kind of end here on what does this mean for workers.  Dr. Howard
alluded to this a little earlier today, but a couple things to point out
with regards to safety issues and workers' comp issues.

	Let me first mention safety.  So what the literature shows is that temp
workers -- two things.  One, they are placed into more dangerous jobs on
average than non-temps, and two, they are injured at kind of greater
instances than non-temps on the jobs.  From some of the papers that were
shared, a study in Washington State found that temps had an 88 percent
higher rate for falls than manufacturing jobs and a 400 percent higher
rate exposure to toxins as well as higher rates for caught-in and
struck-by injuries, and so both the fact that they're in more dangerous
jobs and as Dr. Michaels alluded to, not receiving the level of training
and information about those jobs.

	Another kind of interesting trend to look at is the use of the workers'
compensation system among temp workers.  There's been a lot of research
here.  Again, some of the research from the study in the State of
Washington that looked at workers' comp records were that temps were 17
percent less likely to file for workers' compensation.  They were twice
as likely to have their claims rejected and receive less in medical aid
and time-lost payments, despite more time-lost days when compared to
non-temps. 

	And in addition, employers were two times more likely to question and
protest temp worker claim validity, and some of the reasoning for this,
a couple -- the authors identified both in this study -- and this
confirms some other studies -- identified a couple reasons for why are
temp workers making less claims, and then when they do make claims, why
are they less successful, so three reasons.

	One is kind of lack of knowledge.  They are in some cases making less
claims because they don't know which employer, who is responsible.  Is
it the temp agency, or is it the host employer, the site employer where
they're working?	

	Secondly, in terms of why employers have succeeded or why employers
have greater rates at protesting or questioning the claims of temp
workers are because in many cases, temp workers have multiple
assignments with various temp firms, so the burden is distributed.  So
it's harder to kind of prove which assignment did this occur, did the
injury occur on.

	Then secondly, what happens here is in many cases, because a temp
agency supports multiple occupations, there is often misclassification
of that specific worker into a safer occupation that maybe requires
lower workers' compensation premiums.  So, as a result, they are paying
less at the end, and that's what the research shows.

	So those are a number of problems.  I will stop there and close with
saying as it relates to enforcement and government compliance issues, we
have some work to do to look at how to kind of help make things less
complicated as it relates to the co-employment model.

	And what I just want to close on is, you know, it's interesting or it's
worth thinking about where are we going from here.  Again, the temp
industry as a whole, 2.5 percent, 2 percent of the overall economy, not
huge, but it does have an effect.  And, you know, we've got some things
going on in the environment right now.  It will be interesting to see
how employers react over the next 5, 10 years to things such as the
Affordable Care Act.

	You know, there's a lot of literature out there, a lot of articles out
there right now where the temp industry, some of those top 15 companies
I referenced before are having discussions among themselves on what will
-- let me grab some water -- the temp industries having discussions on
what is going to be the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the temp
industry.

	There are some kind of notions out there that temp agencies might be
able avoid some of the employer mandates, you know, questions whether or
not companies will look to temp agencies to use them more to staffing
firms, so will it grow there.  You know, there's been a huge movement in
online staffing firms over the past few years where kind of this idea of
micro tasking has taken hold, where companies are actually bringing in
temp workers with W-2s and assigning them micro tasks, micro projects
all online, so it would be interesting to see where that plays.

	Then, you know, there are a number of other kind of issues in the
environment as the world of work changes that may affect the growth of
this industry.  So it's one thing that we certainly want to keep our
eyes focused on this and keep track of the growth and the
diversification.

	Thanks.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you very much.  This was really incredibly just
informative and eye-opening and useful.

	But one question -- I've got to ask you a number of questions, but one
question to start with, you talked about the co-employment relationship,
and you've got information here on the temp agency side and on the
worker's side, but what kind of information, if any, is available on who
is contracting with these staffing agencies?  Like where are these
people actually working?  Which employers?  Because if we are looking at
safety and health and working conditions, we need to know sort of where
and what they are exposed to.

	So when we've looked at this in the AFL-CIO, we've found there isn't a
whole lot of information out there.  We can't find anything in terms of
the government data.  The question is does anybody, like industry
associations or others, have that kind of information.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Well, I think it's an imperfect answer.  What I can say is
what we do know are the types of employers who are most likely to use
temp agencies, and it's larger companies is what the -- and this is
based on survey data, but, you know, large companies are the ones most
likely to use.

	And, you know, they're -- McKinsey did a study in 2011 surveying large
corporations where they found that 58 percent expected to increase their
use in temp workers over the next 5 years, and again, those are large
companies, 500-plus employers.

	DR. MICHAELS:  This is David Michaels.

	If I could add to that, one of the things that OSHA has done is asked
our inspectors to record in all of their inspections if there are
temporary workers on the site, and we have some very -- we have just
started to do that.  While it obviously isn't a universe of -- it's a
universe of convenience.  It's a sample of convenience, but what's
interesting to us is -- this is very preliminary, but in the first
groups that we're looking at, among the employers with the highest usage
of temp workers were roofing contractors, framing contractors, and
forestry -- and the forestry industry, three very high-hazard industries
I would be particularly concerned about people without training going
into.

	Over the next few months, we will certainly gather more information
about that.

	MR. SEIGEL:  And I would just say in addition to size, we obviously
know by sector.  I had mentioned the three sectors that have the highest
numbers in terms of manufacturing, transportation, and warehousing, and
still admin and clerical.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  One other follow-up, you mentioned that if you sort of
step back and look at the larger issue of employment relations and the
workforce, going beyond the temporary agencies, that there are many more
people in different, alternative, fractured employment relationships.

	One of the things in moving forward on this that I think would be
helpful is trying to -- and you were very clear about what you were
talking about, but a picture of the whole and how groups of workers fit
into these different models and piecing together what information we
have.

	And Bill raised the issue of independent contractors, which is a whole
other category with different issues.  But we've also got in a lot of
industries, people working in contracted arrangements that aren't
necessarily working for a temporary staffing agency and whatever NAICS
code.  They are working for another construction firm.  They are working
for another manufacturing firm, but they are basically on site, maybe
long term, performing work.

	And so in many of the same issues, for those workers, where they're
basically -- got one employer but they're on site of somebody else, and
somebody else controls the working conditions, some of the same issues
are impacted.  I'm not suggesting that you have to bite off the whole
thing to try and deal with, but I do think that it's helpful as we go
forward that there be an overall picture of this, or else people may
just ask a question why are we doing this for this relatively small
industry when the implications and the issues are much broader than this
particular sector.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Certainly, a good question.

	You know, one of the challenges is quantifying that work force.  The
best tool that we have is that the Bureau of Labor statistics has done
their contingent worker survey, which is a supplement to the current
population survey.  The last time they did this was in 2005, but what
that looks at are all contingent workers as well as workers with
alternative arrangements, which includes all the categories you just
discussed.

	Now, that is unlike the data we have here, which are surveys of
establishments.  Obviously, those are surveys of workers, but those are
the best data that we have.  And, you know, we use some of that here,
but it's a little dated.  It's 2005, but, you know, it's certainly an
area we're interested in, and we'd love to get BLS maybe to do another
one of those.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Well, we've talked with BLS about doing that, and the
commissioner seems quite interested in looking at this whole area.

	MS. EDENS:  I think David had a few more points he wanted to make. 
Maybe let him finish up, and then we can have David and Ben answer some
other questions.

	MR. BUNN:  Bill Bunn.  I have a quick question.  Does hazcom apply to
the workers, and is it the individual company, or is it the person that
they're actually employed by?

	DR. MICHAELS:  Bill, this is David.

	That actually does lead into exactly what I'll be talking about in the
next component, which is --

	MR. BUNN:  I think that's a big issue, Dave.

	DR. MICHAELS:  -- how OSHA is thinking about this.

	It doesn't surprise you, I suspect, that there is a growing body of
research showing that temporary workers are at greater risk for
workplace injury and illness than non-temporary workers.  In fact, we've
known for 100 years that new workers are at greater risk of new
injuries, and temporary workers can be new several times a year or more
than that, and issues of training are very much connected to risk of
injury.

	So given the enormous size of the temporary workforce and the reports
of temporary workers being killed on the job, OSHA has announced a
concerted effort to use enforcement, outreach, and training to ensure
that temporary workers are protected from workplace hazards.

	Now, the OSHA law is clear.  All this nation's workers have the right
to safe working conditions, and employers have the duty to provide
necessarily safety and health training to all workers for workplace
hazards.

	As part of our initiative, OSHA has sent a memorandum to our regional
administrator's underscoring the importance of assessing whether
employers who use temporary workers are complying with their
responsibilities under the OSHA law.

	So one thing we've asked our inspectors to do is to code this
information in the records to denote when temporary workers are exposed
to safety and health violations.

	The preliminary, very preliminary data is what I've just told you
about.

	We've also asked our inspectors to assess whether temporary workers
received required training in a language and vocabulary they could
understand.

	We know that this is an issue.  We heard a report from one of our
regions about a temporary worker who was hired to work in a
manufacturing facility to run a certain machine.  When asked if he knew
how to run the machine, he replied he did.  He was afraid to admit he
did not know how to run the machine and thought he would be let go if he
didn't know how to run the machine.

	Thirty minutes later, his arm was severed and was not able to be
reattached.  When the compliance officers visited him at home to
interview him about the event, there were several guitars hung up on the
wall.  The compliance officer asked who played the guitar, and the
victim replied that he used to play guitar.

	In terms of environment, the division and extent of responsibility
between staffing agencies and host employers are dependent upon the
specific facts of each case.  Staffing agencies and host employers are
jointly responsible for maintaining a safe work environment for
temporary workers, ensuring, for example, that training, hazard
communication, and recordkeeping requirements are fulfilled.

	If we find that the temporary employer and the host employer are both
responsible for violative conditions, they will both be cited.

	But, Bill, in answer to your question, it depends very much on
supervision, but if a temporary worker is sent to a site without
supervision, the client employer, as it might be called, certainly would
have clear responsibility to provide hazcom training and access to the
information in the hazcom program to all workers, including temporary
workers.

	Now, side by side with this enforcement initiative, OSHA reached out to
the American Staffing Association to work with them to educate their
members about the importance of ensuring that temp workers have safe
workplaces.  I am very pleased today that we're joined by Steven Dwyer
and La Tanya James-Rouse, who are here, who are with the American
Staffing Association.  With them, we are planning a webinar for ASA
members that highlights employee rights and employer responsibilities,
and this webinar will include important safety and health information
for staffing companies, and along with the identifying best practices
for staffing agencies and their client employers.

	While we're doing more enforcement and looking at whether there are
violative conditions, we also believe that by identifying and
disseminating best practices, we can certainly improve conditions in
many workplaces.

	We are looking at ways to increase awareness of these concerns in the
temporary worker industry and with stakeholder input develop some of
these effective best practices.

	Some early thinking on best practices include both the staffing agency
and host employer having safety and health programs and giving
substantial, substantive orientations to newly placed temporary workers.

	Staffing agencies should perform on-site safety evaluations of the
worksites and keeping regular contact with their placed employees to
better identify potential hazards.

	Now, with a meeting we had last week with VPP companies, we heard of
reports from the Gulf Coast of safety organizations doing training for
all temporary workers in the petrochemical industry in different cities
up and down, from Texas, Louisiana, but these firms there will not bring
in a temporary worker unless they have been trained by this safety
organization and all temporary workers go through there.

	That training, they have the ability to do site-specific training at
that facility, so we think there are some good models out there.  There
are some best practices, and we really want to identify them.

	So we have a number of questions that we posed to you, to NACOSH, that
we hope you will discuss.  Let me just read them.  I think you have all
received them.

	One is how to gather the best practices from employer and worker
communities, that employers and staffing associations, staffing agencies
can utilize to ensure the safety and health of temporary workers, and
what are some of these practices?

	Are there additional outreach or compliance assistance efforts that
OSHA can undertake to help address temporary safety and health --
temporary worker safety and health issues?  Are there additional groups
or stakeholders that we should reach out to that OSHA could involve as
we develop strategies for addressing some of these issues?

	What's the role of state governments in ensuring the safety and health
of temporary workers, and are there additional environment strategies
for addressing safety and health issues of temporary workers?

	I think you will all agree this is a fertile area for discussion.  We
are just beginning our efforts in this area.  We have gotten great
support from the labor community, the faith-based organizations, the
American Staffing Association.  We are looking forward to all working
together and addressing this very important problem.

	Thank you.  Ben and I can take some questions, or you can go into your
discussion.

	MS. EDENS:  I think Jim had his hand up for a question.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Yeah.  Jim Johnson.

	David, a question for you.  From an enforcement perspective when you
are looking at the staffing company and the host employer, there is this
shared responsibility, and when you're looking at an employer and it's
clear that not the same level of care is being taken with the temp
employees as the regular employees, is there any avenue for you in that
case?

	So, clearly, you've got an issue with the host, but the staffing
company has a responsibility as well to be clear on where they are
sending their workers and so they are properly prepared.

	Do you have an avenue back to the staffing companies?

	DR. MICHAELS:  It will depend on the specifics of each case.  If there
is no supervisory role played by the staffing company at all, they don't
control the workplace at all, and therefore, there's no direct
relationship or direct ability for OSHA to go back to the staffing
company.

	But there have been situations.  We had a heat case last summer where
the staffing company had some involvement in the workplace, and
therefore, we cited them.

	I know in California in some of these warehouse cases, the staffing
agencies have been cited as well.

	So it really depends on the specific case.  Our view is that there are
cases where the staffing agency will have a role and maybe others where
they may not, but certainly, I think we all believe they have a
responsibility to play a role to ensure workers are safe, and we will
work with them on that basis.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Just a quick follow-up comment.  Jim Johnson.

	That is what is troubling here is that the staffing company by
abdicating supervision can be less responsible for understanding the
conditions and the safety requirements, training, personal protective
equipment, and everything else where they are sending their employees. 
And that seems to be part of the problem, and I'm sure that there are
examples of good practice staffing companies who are responsible and
look carefully at their customer base, if you will, where the
assignments are being made and taking steps and efforts to make sure
that their customer is doing right by their employee.

	DR. MICHAELS:  We agree, and that's why we're working with the American
Staffing Association.  We believe -- there will be staffing agencies,
there are staffing agencies who certainly want to be on the high road
and ensure that their workers are safe, but we also know there's always
a range of different approaches to this from different employers as
there will be for different staffing agencies.

	We hope most or all of them will ensure that those workers are safe.

	MS. EDENS:  Dr. Murray, on the phone, do you want to ask some questions
as the chair, or are there some people on the phone that --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I want to go ahead -- I wanted to allow a
discussion to unfold.  I don't know if other people have very specific
questions for David.  I mean, I have some.  I'm trying to be a
disciplined chair here, but --

	Do any committee members have other questions or queries?

	MS. EDENS:  I think Bill Borwegen has one.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Bill Borwegen.

	So, again, you know, why wouldn't the staffing agency be responsible
for the safety of their employee.  What is their due diligence to figure
out what the employee is going to be doing?  It's their employee.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Well, that's an interesting question.

	Many of you already know Ann Rosenthal, but I'll ask her to join me up
here.  Ann is with the Solicitor's Office, and we've certainly thought
about this issue a great deal.

	MS. ROSENTHAL:  And this is an issue that we are thinking about.  We
are doing a lot of research right now.  I don't have that much of an
answer. 

	We do have cases where -- there was one case a few years ago where we
were able to get a ruling from the commission and I think also from the
7th Circuit that the staffing agency and the host employer were
co-employers, and therefore, they both had a responsibility.

	It is going to be somewhat -- in all cases, it will be somewhat
fact-specific in order to determine exactly what the responsibilities of
each are, but we are working really hard on trying to develop theories
whereby we can establish that there is some due diligence requirement. 
We're not there yet.  We haven't finished all that work, but that is the
direction that we're going and we're trying to go in, so we do agree.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm sorry.  Was there another question?

	MS. SOIZA:  Well, a comment.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Go right ahead.  Don't forget to identify yourself.

	MS. SOIZA:  I'm trying.  I'm trying to.  This is Anne Soiza.  I'm on
the phone.

	I just wanted to comment, maybe not a question, but I just wanted to
relay a little bit about our -- as the head of enforcement for
Washington State and the program, I wanted to relay that primarily it's
case-specific.  A lot of state plan states like Washington have slightly
different compliance rules and laws, and the structure, the legal
structure that we operate in isn't what federal OSHA operates in
necessarily.

	But I know that many states are like ours, and in that case, we
typically cite the temporary worker employer service agency for the
exposures.  

	In Washington, for example, we have an accident prevention program
requirement.  So employee training and having the program is a
requirement that the temporary service organizations have to comply
with.

	We also cite the employer who actually has the physical site, and the
primary legal decision for us is who controls the work, is who gets the
bulk of the violations, assuming there are violations associated with
the hazardous work.

	So I just thought I would share that it's pretty actively -- you know,
the temporary worker organizations and in fact the companies that hire
them don't walk away scot-free on this issue, at least in Washington. 
And I know that other state plans are a lot like us.

	MR. BUNN:  A quick question.  This is Bill Bunn.  Who has workers' comp
responsibility in Washington if someone is employed by a temporary
agency?

	MS. SOIZA:  In Washington State, we have a monopolistic workers' comp
system, and the temporary worker agencies pay into the state fund, which
is Washington State.  They are all covered under the temporary worker
agency accounts.  It doesn't fall normally to the company that hired --
that has the hazardous condition, if that's what you're asking.

	MS. EDENS:  Peg has a question.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  One of the things that Anne just mentioned, which I
think is very -- it's very useful to see what Washington State has done
in this area because they have run both the state plan and workers'
comp, and they have a requirement for an injury and illness prevention
program rule, so doing things on an affirmative basis.

	One of the questions that I had -- and I think one of the areas that is
probably worth exploring moving forward is on the regulatory side, is to
look at which regulations that you have on the books right now have
application explicitly for multi-employer arrangements.  There's two or
three that I'm aware of.  One is hazard communication, process safety
management, and sort of recordkeeping sort of.  I don't know if there
are others.

	But going forward and looking at the development of an injury, an
illness prevention program rule, it would seem that trying to have a
robust discussion around that rule about how do you sort of structure
programs, training, hazard identification control in those
multi-employer situations, regardless whether they're temporary agencies
or somebody else, is a really important area for exploration,
particularly as Ben was saying, that these alternative arrangements --
and call them "employment arrangements" -- are growing, would continue
to grow.  So dealing with that rule in that kind of context might
provide some useful and innovative ways of trying to deal with this
situation because it is the one holistic regulation or approach, whether
it's a regulation or voluntary efforts, that would seem to provide the
appropriate umbrella for that.

	So that's just sort of a thought and as an observation as a committee
as we think about this and go forward, and hopefully, there might be an
opportunity at some point to actually have that discussion in a
rulemaking context, but even without there being a rule out there, I
think some basis for discussion as to how that could work in a context
of looking at responsibilities under injury and illness prevention
programs.

	And, Anne, I don't know if you have more specific experiences,
whatever, but it just sounds like given the structure that you have in
place and the requirements, that you probably have had more experience
in this area than maybe fed OSHA has.

	MS. SOIZA:  Well, I don't know if that's true.  Again, this is Anne
Soiza.

	But one of the things that I know that we end up citing quite often is
the requirement for workers to be trained prior to the assignment to a
hazardous work task.  It's a common violation in this kind of scenario.

	We have a hospitalization reporting rule in our state.  You have to
report all hospitalizations, all acute ones, just like fatalities.  So
we do inspects a lot of very serious incidents, single-party and serious
incidents in the workplace, and that is a pretty common citation or a
violation given to the temporary agencies or the controlling employer,
the employer who has the hazardous machinery or the hazardous job task,
depending on who's directing the work.  And that is a case-by-case
situation.

	There is not a single -- like if we were to challenge OSHA to write a
rule to cover temporary work agencies, it would be kind of tricky
because in some cases, we found that the temporary worker agency is the
one responsible for the primary safety and health aspects of our rules,
and in other cases, it's the employer who has the dangerous situation,
the machinery or whatever.

	Because every case is different about who is directing the work, it all
comes down -- under our legal system, anyway, in Washington State, our
attorneys seem to be winning violations, and the judges always come down
about who is actually controlling the work.  And a lot of times, if the
temporary agency has the supervisor present, then it's actually on the
temporary agency's head.  It's their responsibility and so on and so
forth.

	MR. CARLESON:  Hi.  This is Mark Carleson.  I'm the safety manager in
Orange County, but previously, I was with Cal OSHA in the Enforcement
Branch.

	Like the State of Washington, Cal OSHA has very, actually rather
detailed procedures for their folks in terms of determining what sort of
reasonable action the primary employer, which would be the temp agency
in this case, needs to take in order to minimize their exposure for a
violation.

	So, again, Cal OSHA looks at these things in the same manner, and they
really have certain things they want that primary employer to do to
ensure that their employees are going to be safe.  Then, of course, as
Anne said, it would still be control and direction as the primary thing
they look at with the secondary employer.

	I haven't been with Cal OSHA for a while, but obviously, they have been
utilizing this approach in the warehouse industry recently, citing both
employers in that case.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  This is Linda Murray.

	I want to challenge us to sort of back up and think about this a little
differently.  I want to go back to something Bill said earlier.

	I was just at a meeting where restaurant owners are seriously proposing
that their kitchen and wait staff be considered independent contractors,
and therefore, they get out of, you know, hours and all kinds of stuff.

	How can I say this?  This sort of nontraditional work status, whatever
labels we put on it -- temporary, independent contractor -- clearly is
growing, and I feel like we're playing catch-up.  So, even though I
don't want to stymie specific suggestions that OSHA can do tomorrow -- I
think we need to talk about that, but I want us to understand that even
if we did this, we would still be playing catch-up because we're talking
about contingent workers.  This doesn't apply to, quote, independent
contractors.

	So let me suggest -- and I know nobody really disagrees with this on
this committee -- that we are really looking at loopholes in the law,
oversights in the law, an old law through which not necessarily with
evil intent, though sometimes with evil intent, through which health and
safety gets dropped.  So if you're trying to cut corners and save money
and you use temporary workers, well, one of the corners that gets cut is
appropriate training, not only specific health and safety training, but
appropriate training for whatever machines, et cetera, that you're
using, something that were you to employ 40-hour-a-week full-time
workers, part of your cost of business obviously would be training those
workers, et cetera.

	So even though these things that we have been talking about, who's
accountable, who should the fines be levied against, are all important,
if we don't have a higher level view that says we need to plug this
giant hole up and have a plan to do that, then we're going to be chasing
around all these folks.  If we tighten up the temporary workers with the
big employers, we'll still have little employers, and I predict that
we'll see people then immediately begin going to independent
contractors, and we'll just have big companies that help independent
contractors make their little individual contract with the employer.

	So I don't want us to be in a position as an advisory committee of
playing catch-up with this.  So I think one of the things that I would
like to put on the table is that we really need to look at what legal
and regulatory changes need to happen, so that we cover not only these
temporary, whatever we're calling this group of workers, but all workers
and say what the act really says, that every worker has a basic right to
a health and safety workplace.

	Right now, you know, we have all of our exceptions that are still in
the books.  So I don't want to lose track of that fact because if we
don't address these structural problems of how we organize work and who
we hold accountable, then we really are just going to be playing tag and
put a regulation in here and then people will go in a slightly different
direction and say that that doesn't apply to them.	

	Well, let me stop there and just ask for people to respond to that and
to ask ourselves in terms of David's questions, how can we really do
this.

	MR. BUNN:  Linda, Bill Bunn.

	The one question I have for David is I've been looking at the web a
bit.  You know, it's very unclear to me if hazard communication could be
made to apply to all workplaces.  It's a start.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Bill, my understanding is hazcom applies to all
workplaces -- or will once it goes into effect, the GHS.  I guess the
only question on the table is, Who is responsible for providing the
information?  That is one of the -- sort of the multi-employer
standards.  We'll have to look at that very carefully, but --

	MR. BUNN:  Certainly, as a committee, we can make the recommendation
that it's not who it is; it's everyone -- because I think it's very
difficult sometimes.  We certainly have had the issue, but hazcom would
be a great start for those people that come in, first time in the
workplace, get hurt early.  We've all seen them.

	MR. SEIGEL:  This is Ben Seigel.

	I just want to point out kind of clarification to the fact that it's
not necessarily in terms of what we've been finding mutually exclusive
that you're a temp worker or an independent contractor.  That was to the
point raised before.

	Wage and Hour recently settled two cases where the temp agencies, so
the actual temp agencies, were classifying their employees as
independent contractors, so that kind of adds extra layers of complexity
to this.  But we are finding that -- and I will point out that in the
literature, we did not come across that, but we have experienced that
with our own work within Wage and Hour.

	Just another point to mention here, with the growth in this online
staffing firm movement, one of the kind of interesting things that
jumped out at me in some of the kind of literature from some of these
companies themselves is that they discuss that they are now moving in a
direction where they will provide -- the online staffing firm will
provide either a W-2 or a 1099, so either make them an employee or an
independent contractor, based on what the client employer chooses, so
it's kind of like a check-your-box thing.  So I think that's something
that we'll also want to pay attention to.

	Of course, if that temp worker is hiring them and providing supervision
and work hours and the rest, they should be receiving the W-2.

	DR. MICHAELS:  This is David Michaels.

	If I can add, OSHA has been working very closely with Wage and Hour
looking at these issues because our laws are in some ways,
complementary.  Wage and Hour laws draw a more immediate connection to
the staffing agency in many cases than the client employer.

	We've done, for example, in Stanford, Connecticut, sweeps where we've
gone in together with Wage and Hour under the working assumption that
Scofflaw employers under one law are likely to be Scofflaws under other
laws as well, and I think that's been somewhat successful in increasing
our penetration and changing some behavior.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  This is Peg Seminario.

	Just one point of information for folks and focusing on the OSHA law
itself.  As Dr. Murray said, it is a seasoned law.  It's been around
for, I guess, 40-some-odd years here, but one of the things that the
OSHA law does not apply to is self-employed people, and so that's a big
issue.  The question becomes if those self-employed people are working
on site of somebody else who is an employer, what kinds of protection
are afforded to that person by the host employer?

	One of the provisions that is included in new legislation to update the
OSHA law are provisions to try and deal with this situation under the
General Duty Clause, and in both the House bill and the Senate bill,
there are provisions which make clear that there is a responsibility for
an employer to provide a safe and helpful place of employment to
employees who are performing work -- and not only employees but other
persons performing work at the employer's workplace.  It protects them
from recognized hazards that essentially are under the control of the
employer, and I think that is one initiative that's attempting to at
least start a discussion and moving into this area of multiple
employment relationships.  It doesn't deal with sort of the mutuality
issues.  That still is I think a really big issue.

	But again, I think some analysis of what OSHA can be doing not only
with its current law, but with some new regulations, under its current
authority, to move in a way that, as Linda indicated, goes beyond just
temporary workers, but goes into these issues of co-employment would be
really, really critical and important.

	One of the issues that would be good to just have you folks speak to is
the whole area of recordkeeping and injuries and illnesses.  You've all
said there is data that has been reported that shows that workers in
temporary capacity are at higher risk, both because they are
disportionately employed in hazardous industries, but what kind of
information exists with respect to injuries and illnesses?  How is that
captured, and could that be improved, so we get a better handle, and
also with that reporting create some sense of knowledge and
responsibility?

	DR. MICHAELS:  As all of you know, OSHA is not a research agency, but
we try to look at these issues and at least review other people's work.

	Certainly, there is some work done out of Washington State, Ann's group
that is in the back, and there are a number of other studies that are
out there at least showing, based on workers' compensation data, that
workers who are classified in temporary staffing agencies are at greater
risk.  It's tough to see.

	We can't answer the question, these questions based on our limited look
at OSHA logs.  I think in the long run, we may be able to get more
information. 

	I think NIOSH has done some important work in this area.  I don't know
if it's something worth addressing now or something in the long run.  I
think NIOSH has some great potential to do more in this and can really
be very helpful.

	MS. SOIZA:  This is Anne Soiza.

	Added information.  In the last several years, the Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries in the Wage and Hour Division and the
Audit Division, which covers auditing, workers, employers, and providers
who feed into the workers' comp system, we have greatly increased our
staffing in this audit program.  Because of the -- well, I guess I'll
get to the chase.

	We don't allow people to decide whether they're independent contractors
or workers.  There are very strict black-and-white rules from Washington
about what makes you a worker, what makes you an independent contractor.
 And even though an employer may temporarily get away with having
restaurant cooks and dishwashers be classified as independent
contractors, it doesn't last long.

	I would like to say I don't know how it could possibly be handled in
other states or even in federal OSHA states, but we have basically
tripled our audit staff in Washington State and greatly increased the
amount of fraud detected of people misclassifying workers as independent
contractors, and it's the main focus of the department in Washington.

	DR. MICHAELS:  This is David.

	I would love to refocus us on if you have any thoughts on these
specific questions.  I think this has been a very interesting
discussion.  We've certainly gotten some ideas, but if you have specific
thoughts around other stakeholders or different sorts of outreach
activities we could be involved in, different ways to think about
enforcement, we've talked about it a little bit, and I think we'll
certainly do some thinking more about this.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Bill Borwegen.

	Maybe I missed this part, but when a compliance officer goes in now,
because you said you have him asking questions about this topic, is
there like a form where they could fill out, well, for hazcom, this
person is doing it, the temp agency is going it, or the workplace is
doing it?

	DR. MICHAELS:  No, we're not looking at that level.  We're looking at
the specific, are the temp workers present, but then we are looking at
the specific, if there are training requirements and have they been
fulfilled.  And this is all in our new OSHA information system.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  But can you parse down a little bit more and just say
who was doing the training requirements?

	DR. MICHAELS:  No.  We're not collecting that much new data, and that
would be probably pretty burdensome to go through different standards
and have a checkoff on each one.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Well, just pick one for like a pilot study.  I'm
thinking hazcom.

	DR. MICHAELS:  We certainly could think about that.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  This is Peg Seminario.

	Just a question.  Going back to looking at your questions about what
kind of additional outreach or compliance assistance efforts can OSHA
undertake in these issues, temporary worker issues.  Does OSHA have
plain-English publications on the responsibilities at multi-employer
workplaces?  I know you have a whole multi-employer doctrine, so it
depends case by case, but if people were just to look at it and say
who's got responsibility, what does OSHA look at, and that you're
addressing it like right out front, so you got an outreach tool here
that at least is putting the issue out there for people and then look at
some areas where training, who might be responsible.

	And I was looking at the best practices coming from the staffing
association, but looking at some of those and how do they fit within the
constructs of your law, and so they give people both a sense of some
good practices as well as what are the legal requirements -- because
it's a really complicated area, and again, the definitions are really --
they vary, and so I think just getting out there with some materials and
doing some more outreach to folks on this would be really an important
thing to do, along with the kind of examples that you laid out of what's
happening, so that there's some nice tools that people can use to both
go out and educate as well as to get input would be really helpful.

	DR. MICHAELS:  No, I think that's an excellent idea.  We don't have
those materials now as far as I know.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  David, this is -- can you hear me?

	DR. MICHAELS:  Yes.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Okay, thank you.

	A couple of thoughts come to mind as I'm reflecting on the types of
injuries that you were articulating as part of your presentation, and
when I was reading the materials in advance of the meeting, I was
intrigued by, I guess, Section 3 of the Employee Safety Best Practices
from the American Staffing Association, where it talks about, in
conjunction with the client, conducting a risk assessment and
consultation, doing an on-site evaluation of the work site, having a
safety partnership with the client.  And I think these are truly best
practices, and I have to say that in my experience working with
temporary agencies, I haven't seen a lot of this from the temp agencies.

	Now, it could be that because we're Johnson & Johnson, they trust us to
do the right thing with respect to the workers that they're sending us,
but I think as a best practice, I would certainly highlight the fact
that temp agencies should be working with the clients that they are
sending their workers to, to assure that they are sending them into a
safe workplace.  So that will be one thought.

	And the second is I think as an activity, OSHA could work with the temp
agencies to assure that those temporary workers know that as they go
into a workplace, if they had any questions about the safety of the work
they are doing, they should know the number for OSHA, they should know
the number for their agency, and be instructed that they should question
the work if they feel as though it's unsafe, because I think there may
be some communication issues there that need to be improved.

	So those would be two thoughts for the agency.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  David, your first question talks about gathering
best practices, and here I think -- I don't think there's anything
particularly new under the sun.

	I think Peter had mentioned before -- and I think we have a history of
doing this -- making sure that we are talking to temporary workers, and
since they tend not to be unionized, that means working with
community-based organizations and other people like that who have an
entrée into that community and in an organized way, through focused
groups or whatever, really beginning to look in from their point of view
what they're doing.

	I don't think we know at this moment.  We may know something about
these 20 or 30 big companies, but if I'm a temporary worker, do we know
over a 10-year span how many companies do I work for, how many of these
agencies do I work for.  Some people I know are signed up with more than
one of them, for example.

	So just being thoughtful and making sure you touch base with all the
appropriate stakeholder communities, both unions but also a mechanism to
get to these workers, like I said, that often are not represented by
organized labor.

	The second thing that I think may be in conjunction with NIOSH or
something is looking internationally, not that I want to ignore
Washington State.  Obviously, we should look at our states and see who
has good practices, but also looking internationally and seeing what
happens with contingent workers around the world.  So to me, that's just
like basic survey of what people are doing and where it appears to be
good.

	MR. BUNN:  Linda, this is Bill Bunn.

	One of the things we did is -- my job, I ran security as well, and one
of the things we did was contingent with workers that were temporary,
they had to be drug-tested.  And so we trained them in safety and health
at the same time as their drug test.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Hello?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Who is this?  Go ahead.  Just identify yourself.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Yes.  This is Lida.  I'm sorry I got disconnected.  So
I don't know whether you already talked about this.

	But somebody was talking previously about workers' compensation models.
 I think it was Anne, and one of the things I would recommend we look
into is what type of models are used.  Every employer needs to pay some
sort of a policy for their employees, and it was interesting to see the
difference between the pay that gets to the employee and the percentage
that the staffing companies keep.

	Maybe we should look into how we can use part of that percentage and
share the responsibility for health and safety.  The multi-employer
situation is an important one, and we know that we may have employees
that actually are attached to different staffing companies.  And I don't
know whether it will be by regulation or whether there is already a
model that looks at this.  Maybe Washington State already does this, but
something that actually is used to make them comply with the
responsibility for health and safety for these employees.

	So looking into that percentage that is kept by the staffing companies
may be a way to actually make them responsible for that, to comply with
the law in that regard.

	DR. MICHAELS:  I want to circle back to, Joe, your comments. 
Obviously, we are trying to partner with all the organizations we can,
and we are very pleased to be working with the American Staffing
Association, approaching from the agency, the temporary agency approach.

	The other side, of course, approach is from the client employer, and I
am wondering if perhaps Jim Johnson might have some thoughts in terms of
best practices from some of your Campbell companies or the companies
that clearly get safety and health that we can begin to develop and
reach out to the National Association of Manufacturers and some of the
other groups to again sort of raise these issues.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Sure, a brief comment.  Jim Johnson.

	What we see as shared characteristics between the Campbell
Award-winning companies is that they hold safety as an integral part of
the business.  It's integrated in the business, and they hold similar
levels of safety for any person who is exposed to their business
operations, and whether that's a temporary worker that's going to be
there for an extended period of time or it's a contractor who's coming
in for a specific job and is only going to be there for a short period
of time, so the expectation is that though the temporary or contract
workers coming in would adhere to the same safety systems and
requirements as all other employees, and they have in place the proper
indoctrination and training programs and oversight of the operations to
assure that in fact that's taking place.

	The other thing that they would do -- and this is conjecture on my
part, but I'd say it's safe conjecture, and that is that they would only
do business with the temporary staffing companies who had the better
practices in place where there was a partnership that was formed, so the
staffing company was very well informed on what the nature of the work
was, the hazards involved with the work, and what the requirements were
for the skills and capabilities of the workers and what training was
necessary.

	So from a best practice point of view, it's pretty easy to document,
and there's a good document, just scanning through, from ASA that's in
the booklet that talks about some of those very things.  So that's the
easier part.

	The problem -- I mean, if you can't get to the employer who has the
direct responsibility for the workers who are getting sent out, it's a
pretty significant problem.  You lose a significant amount of control,
because OSHA has got control, and they go into the employer who may have
the supervisory responsibility for the temporary workers.  But if you
don't have a responsible party that's providing the workers, then you
can only solve half the problem.

	MR. BUNN:  One of the things that's very important --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Please identify yourself.

	MR. BUNN:  Oh, this is Bill Bun, Navistar.

	I just want to point out that in our contracts with all of our
significant contractors providing temporary workers, they had to follow
all of our health and safety rules and all the training as well.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Bill, this is David.

	So you are saying that your agency has -- you are telling the staffing
agency that they have to follow the safety and health rules.  What does
that mean in reality?  I mean, they are sending workers over.  Are you
expecting them to be trained before they get to Navistar, or do you do
the training?

	MR. BUNN:  Either way.  You know, David, most of the time, we do it or
redo it ourselves.

	I think the only challenge is somebody is painting the outside of the
building or something, but for our major temporary worker contracts,
they have to do exactly what we do.  They have to do -- and like I say,
they have to do the drug screening.  They have to go through the hazcom
training, and we report them, by the way, to you guys, to OSHA, if they
have an accident.

	MS. EDENS:  I think Ben wanted to make a comment too.

	MR. SEIGEL:  Yeah.  This was just back to a couple comments before I
think.  Dr. Murray brought up looking internationally to see what's
happening there, and in our research, we did find a little bit on the
international scene with regards to trends and the temporary worker
industry and just a couple of interesting points to throw out there.

	First is there has been a big growth in temp workers in Germany, and
Germany currently has 1 million temp jobs, which percentagewise is 3
percent of employment, which is higher than it is here in the U.S. where
it's 2.5 percent of the temp workers, so that's one thing, a data point
that's interesting.

	Second is that China granted its first licenses for temp firms in 2007.
 We don't have as much data here, but Manpower did report that in 2012,
they had 125,000 temp workers in China, so that's pretty interesting.

	Finally, in Japan, there's been a huge movement over the past 30 years,
especially among young workers, where now half of all young workers -- I
believe it's under age 24 -- half of  all young workers in Japan are now
temps, and that's a kind of increase from about 30 years ago or 20 years
ago when only about 20 percent were temps.

	And just one final point on the international scene is that in the UK,
a new law went into effect in 2011 called the Agency Workers
Regulations, and basically what this law is, is it's a prevailing wage
law for temp workers.  Once they've been with the same client employer
for 12 weeks, they then have to receive the same wage as other similar
direct-hire workers with that firm, and they also have to have access to
the same benefits with regards to overtime pay and access to training
and breaks and the like, so a couple of interesting items from the
international scene.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I don't know if Dr. Howard is still in the room,
but one question I have is whether NIOSH has done or planning to do more
extensive report on best practices.

	DR. HOWARD:  Not at this time.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Not at this time.

	DR. HOWARD:  But upon request, we can be induced.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Dr. Howard says but upon request, they can be induced.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, that sounds like one good recommendation from
the committee.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Let me also just give you one last overlay, a little bit
more of the challenge.  All of us working on this, we are learning more
and more.

	The temporary agencies are an important source of employment for
refugees who are being resettled by the State Department, and so they
tend to work through agencies that are specific to that language and
ethnic group, but we hear stories about refugees from Burma, going
through one temporary agency to a set of workplaces, refugees from
Bhutan being settled through refugee -- refugee agencies using temporary
agencies to get them jobs.

	When refugees are admitted to this country, they are entered into sort
of a system run by NGOs, often really need to be affiliated, who have a
very limited amount of time and money to get them settled and get them
into jobs, and so the temporary worker approach is one that's often
used.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario.  

	Another question here.  So the federal government, big employer, we
hear they are hiring more and more contract workers.  Is there any data
or information on the use of temporary staffing agencies and temporary
employees by the federal government?

	MR. SEIGEL:  I have not seen that.

	I mean, we do have data on contract workers that comes from the 2005 --
the most recent is the 2005 BLS Contingent Worker Survey, which does
break out contract workers for public sector for government, but I have
not seen anything specifically on temp workers within government
agencies.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  It might be useful to see if it all be under a
government contract, just looking at some of the big firms here, to see
what they come up with, are there contracts with any of them, and to see
if there are places that you might look at some better practices, trying
to establish some models here at the federal government being the
employer of these -- or contractor for these firms.

	I know you are trying to do it in some other areas, looking at the
federal government as being a leader, but maybe there are some
opportunities in this area as well.

	MR. SEIGEL:  I think another area that would be interesting to look at,
again, talking about the big 15, the top 15 in that list, you know,
these and the folks from the staffing association can speak to it. 
These firms provide a lot of other workforce services to the temporary
workers, including training, and obviously having them build more kind
of worker safety training into their standard kind of career advancement
training, which a lot of them do as well would be interesting to look
at.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Bill Borwegen.

	You know, in the U.S., we do also have the Service Contract Act, which
says that if you're a contractor, you have to pay prevailing wages, but
I'm not sure what, all the occupations that are part of that.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Jim Johnson.

	Have you been able to identify either out of the top 100 or -- I forget
the number.  Was it 12,000 total?

	MR. SEIGEL:  12,000.

	MR. JOHNSON:  12,000 total.  Is there any opportunity to target within
that?  So through the work with ASA, you are identifying some best
practice companies and be able to better define that, share it with
other organizations, but do you see any patterns or trends?  Is it the
smaller staffing agencies?  Is the problem kind of widespread across the
whole 12,000?

	DR. MICHAELS:  Jim, I don't think we know yet, and we tend to go into
places where people are physically working, and so we don't focus on the
agency itself or their location. 

	I mean, this raises all the classic issues of how we should focus, how
we should -- where we should be going, and that's really why -- we're
spending a lot of time thinking about this, talking to a lot of our
stakeholders, and are eager to get your input on all of these issues.

	MS. EDENS:  Dr. Murray?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yes.

	MS. EDENS:  I think they have exhausted their questions.  I don't know
how you want to proceed with the committee.

Committee Discussion

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, I want to, first of all, try to divide this
up.

	One is we've had a lot of comments about the temporary workers.  I
don't know if David feels happy.

	I also want to ask the committee whether they want to make any priority
suggestions to NIOSH and OSHA that might help address this question.

	MS. EDENS:  Dr. Murray, do we want to keep Dr. Howard and Dr. Michaels
here, or are we just going to let them leave, unless they want to stay,
and we can have the committee do its deliberations from the direction
that it's gotten from Dr. Michaels?  Because I think Dr. Howard and Dr.
Michaels have a lot of things to take care of, and I think Ben probably
has a job somewhere he wants to go back to.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, let me just ask the committee whether they
want to ask any more questions or have any more discussion.  I think all
of us have jobs to go to, except obviously for Bill who I am very
jealous of, but short of him, who is retired.

	So I don't foresee us having to take very much longer on this meeting. 
I'm just trying to structure it, so let me ask my question again.  We
have given individual comments, which have been excellent, addressing
the temporary worker issue.  I am asking the committee whether there is
anything they want to highlight.	

	Let me just say I for one would like to formally request that NIOSH
lead -- I don't care how they do the work assignment -- this issue of
collecting best practices around the world and around the different
states and different companies for this issue.  This is going to be a
growing problem in the field of health and safety.

	But I guess I am asking the committee.  Are there priority suggestions
that we want to make while they are still here in the room?

	MR. DOOLEY:  This is Peter Dooley.

	I had a question for David in the sense, Has OSHA considered having a
national emphasis program at temporary work?

	DR. MICHAELS:  Well, you know, this is the interesting question.  We
often hear that.  How would we focus it?  Where would we go?  And if you
all want to think about that and give us advice, we'd be interested.  I
wouldn't know where to start.

	MR. BUNN:  David, this is Bill Bunn.

	A quick question for you is I see hazard communication as a key issue
here that could be applied pretty much to all workers.  What do you
think about that?

	DR. MICHAELS:  We agree.  It should be applied to all workers.

	MS. EDENS:  But, Bill -- this is Mandy.  Hazcom only applies to
hazardous chemicals.  Some of the examples that Dr. Michaels gave were
hazardous machinery, so hazcom, if we want to focus on hazcom, that
could be something we would do, but hazcom only covers a certain type of
hazard.  So that would only solve part of the problem, but maybe an
important part of the problem.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Pet Seminario here.

	Again, this goes to the issue of providing some more guidance,
information, but is there any clarity in your minds as a matter of
program or policy on some of these other hazards?

	We heard from Ben that many of these workers are working in
manufacturing jobs.  They are working in construction.  So this isn't
people just going off to offices, as you said, and many of those have to
her training requirements of the kind of hazards that workers are
exposed to.

	But whose obligation, whose legal obligation is it to do that training
right now?

	MS. ROSENTHAL:  This is Ann Rosenthal from the Solicitor's Office.

	It's one of the things that we're working on, but certainly, the
employer who is supervising the worker doing the job and who is in
charge of the hazard, so to speak, will have a primary obligation.

	There are certain standards, as well as the three you mentioned, that
do have some specific requirements.  I think confined spaces and
lockout, for example, and several of the cases that Dr. Michaels
mentioned earlier were confined spaces, and I think maybe there was one
lockout where the workers just did not receive that training.  And
that's a huge problem.

	DR. MICHAELS:  If I can add, this is still something we're looking at
and are thinking more about this and what are the respective roles of
the different parties in this within a multi-employer structure, not
like the ones we've traditionally thought about.  So we're still working
on this issue.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I think that is really critical because we can talk
about training and everybody needs to be trained, but I think being sort
of clear as to who's got that responsibility, providing examples for how
it's getting done and best practices, maybe it's not under the legal
framework that it's being done.  And the kind of -- specific kind of
training in these sectors would be really helpful for people to
understand, both employers but also workers as to what are the
obligations and who has to provide it.

	The other issue again goes to the issues of training, but then also
you've got a whole set of certification requirements, right?  So who has
to basically -- is responsible providing for this certified person.  Is
it then the person who provides the body, the employer?  Is it the host
employer?

	So I think again if you can begin to lay those out in these different
areas, that would be incredibly, incredibly helpful.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Let me ask the committee a separate question,
though.  I don't know what this means with our inability to meet in
person, to be honest with you.  Is this a topic around which we should
have a workgroup, a committee workgroup?

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I think it's going to be difficult in this setting for the committee to
effectively work and come up with some good ideas that are going to be
helpful.  I mean, we can hit some high-level stuff, like, "NIOSH, please
do some more research on this and collect more best practices," but I'm
not sure how to do it.  But I don't know that it's going to happen today
in the remaining 2 hours we have left.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Please don't think that we have 2 hours left.  Let
us try to be expeditious in our discussion.

	[Laughter.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Clearly, we've given some immediate feedback, and I
guess I am asking -- I think everybody agrees there is much more work to
be done in this area, and so while we have asked NIOSH to do a little
bit more searching out stuff, my question is should we ignore for a
moment how this group is going to work, should this committee, advisory
committee, form a workgroup, as we've done around other issues, on this
issue of contingent and other categories of workers.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson again.

	I would say yes, with the understanding that we don't forget we have an
existing workgroup that is still in place on I2P2.  So I don't think
we're done with our work in that particular group, and we have to
determine, if this is the nature of the meetings we're going to have,
how the workgroups can be effective, what's the means by which we'll get
together in order to do the work.

	So I would be supportive of another workgroup, but I'd want to make
sure we don't forget the existing one, and we figure out how we're going
to work together.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Sarah, could you remind us about the legal
requirements of our work groups in terms of open meetings and that kind
of thing?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, since you're a committee, you're a parent
committee, and the regulations under which you were chartered require
that any subcommittee you have, bring whatever recommendations they have
directly to the parent committee for consideration, not giving them
directly to the agency.

	The FACA, Federal Advisory Committee Act, and OSHA's regulations
basically do not apply.

	That said, OSHA has had a long history of trying to make subcommittees
and workgroups open to the public.  It could be something like a
teleconference.  It could be something like people who are in a certain
location who could work on a committee, but when it comes down to the
actual law, there is no requirement under FACA that applies to
subcommittees.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right, great.  Would someone like to make a
motion that we form another workgroup?

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  This is Joe Van Houten.

	Before we do that, what is the status of the workgroup on OSHA
effectiveness?

	MS. EDENS:  Peg is the chair.  Do you want to --

	MS. SEMINARIO:  There is no status report right now.  Basically haven't
met, haven't had activity in between.  We could decide whether we want
to restart that or if we want to focus on this particular activity.  I
think it's hard in the context of not having in-person meetings to have
a fruitful discussion around sort of a broad area.

	My suggestion would be, given the limitations that we are going to have
for the rest of the fiscal year and maybe beyond that -- we don't know
-- that whatever we do in these areas, be focused, because I think if we
are just talking generally, then it's too amorphous and its' too much to
get our heads around.

	And one thought would be for there to be a workgroup.  Maybe it's an
expansion of the injury and illness prevention group that looks at in
the context of injury and illness prevention programs, whether it's a
rule or voluntary programs, how should those programs deal with the
multi-employer relationship, temporary workers, and others, because,
again, I think that frame provides just the best way to think about how
this gets implemented in some logical way and may provide some utility
if there is ever a rulemaking.  So I think that would be something that
would be worth doing.  I think it's doable.  It's something that's not
so big that it just becomes too difficult to handle.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I think that's a good suggestion because it does give us the focus.  It
works within the context of an issue that we've been addressing already.
 It takes it back to the management systems, and so I'd be supportive of
that approach.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Does anyone object to that suggestion as a way of
addressing this issue, to put it underneath the other prevention group
and allow them to focus on what Peg outlined?  Does anyone object to
that?

	ATTENDEES:  No.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Great.  Then we'll just do that, once we figure out
how we're going to let these groups work and what's the best way to do
it.

	Are there other issues that we need to -- we clearly need to have some
general discussion -- short but general discussion about the next
meeting, but are there other issues that need to come before this
committee that we need to act on?

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I just want to ask David, if he's still there, if he
has gotten sufficient feedback from this group this afternoon.

	DR. MICHAELS:  I've gotten terrific feedback.  I have a list of good
ideas.  I think we have a long way to go, but I'm grateful for your
input so far, and I look forward to additional input.  But I really do
feel like this has helped us, moved us along.

	While I'm here, why don't I thank also Mandy Eden and Elizabeth
Grossman and Sarah Shortall, while I'm still here, for staffing this
committee because I think you do an excellent job, and we're grateful.

	I also just want to comment that I know you're on the schedule till
five.  What that means for Linda, that means you have 3 hours more, not
2 hours more to do part of this.

	[Laughter.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yes.  But I'm chairing, so I'm not worried.

	[Laughter.]

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I just have a request before Dr. Michaels leaves, and
that is, clearly the Department and the agency are doing a lot of work
and thinking in this whole area of temporary workers and these alternate
employment relations.  If you could keep us informed if there are
products or things, developments that are coming out in between, that
would be just very helpful.  That way, we would be aware of it.  It's
not that you have to provide every week a weekly report, but just so
that we're aware of what the agency's thinking, direction, activity is
as this effort is going forward, that would be really, really helpful,
and the same for Dr. Howard.

	Thank you.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.

	Again, we're trying to be helpful, but sometimes we may not be exactly
clear in the direction you're moving, so I just want to echo what Peg
said.  As long as we maintain open communication, we can provide the
best advice that we think we can provide.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Very good.

	And may I do one more housekeeping item?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Sure.

	DR. MICHAELS:  Very important.  I'd like to introduce the new OSHA
Chief of Staff who is here.   Lucera Ortiz, who is an attorney, has just
joined our staff last week.  We are very pleased he has joined us.

	Our previous Chief of Staff, Debbie Berkowitz, has been promoted to
Senior Policy Advisor, will be working on many of the same issues, but
more deeply involved in some of the policy issues and less involved with
some of the more traditional Chief of Staff issues, so thank you to both
of you.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Any other questions before the agency folks
can leave, if they wish?

	MR. BUNN:  Linda, Bill.

	I just want to ask -- Navistar -- one more question.  Is there
something we could do to help the funding issues, and should we write
the letter we talked about earlier?

	DR. MICHAELS:  You know, John Howard unfortunately is no longer in the
room, so you'll have to use your imagination.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yeah.  I think we can address that in just 2
seconds, as soon as we're finished, as soon as we make sure there are no
other questions for David.

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  So --

	MS. EDENS:  Thank you, David.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Thank you.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Thanks, David.  Take care.

	So from what I can tell, we've handled the issue of how to continue to
have a little bit of focus on this temporary worker matter and without
making a new workgroup and putting it as part.  What we haven't handled
is how those workgroups can function.  We'll leave that alone for one
second.  And then we want to come back to the funding issue you raised.

	I don't know if anyone was able to find the previous letter.

	MS. EDENS:  No.  We've been looking for it but were unsuccessful. 
We're still looking.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Does anyone want to volunteer?  We can do this by
via e-mail I think quickly, to draft -- again, we have many letters
coming in as we have had in the past for this funding stream.  We know
the arguments.  Does anyone want to volunteer to draft by tomorrow a
letter that could go out?  And we could quickly e-mail it to everybody
and turn it around in a day or two before -- and turn it around this
week and send it to -- again, I want to remind people, we are able to
advise NIOSH and OSHA.  So it's really just being on the record, which I
think is a useful think.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Speaking of on the record, I need to make a correction,
Madam Chair, to your question about what requirements apply.

	I was telling you about the requirements that we apply to workgroups. 
Technically, if you want to call this group that is going to have it a
"subcommittee," the regulations do require that subcommittees and
subgroups for NACOSH must operate in accordance with the committee's
charter and the procedures set forth in this part, so that would
indicate that all the requirements apply for making it open.

	So we've been using sort of a fiction of the concept of a workgroup as
distinct from subcommittees and subgroups, but towards that end, we have
been trying to use as many of the openness and transparency procedures
that would be part of that without making them too difficult for
ourselves.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm sorry if I was sloppy in my language.  What I
meant to say as a summary is that we've decided collectively to take
this issue of temporary workers and roll it into our broader issue of
prevention of injury and illness, our other workgroup.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Somewhere along the line, people were also calling it a
"subcommittee."

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I apologize for that sloppiness.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, you know, I just want to clarify.  We're sort of
in a Never-Never Land when we try to use the fiction of a workgroup, so
we try to use some of the openness requirements without obligating
ourselves to follow every single one of the procedures that we do for a
full NACOSH meeting, and that's in section 1912 A.13 of OSHA's
regulations on NACOSH.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Thank you, Sarah.

	MS. SHORTALL:  It's in the books that all of you have.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Thank you for that clarification.

	So let me come back to this simple letter in terms of support for
continuing funding for the centers and the ERC.  Does anyone want to
volunteer to draft something and then by tomorrow --

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I am not volunteering; however, I did find our recommendation from June
22nd, 2011, and I'm happy to read that for the record.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Wonderful!  Go right ahead.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Okay.  The title is "Funding for NIOSH Education and
Research Centers and Centers for Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing." 
Whereas, NACOSH understands that the administration's current budget
proposal for FY2012 would completely eliminate funding for the NIOSH
Education and Research Centers, ERCs, and the NIOSH Centers for
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing; and whereas this would have a
significantly harmful effect on national efforts to prevent workplace
injuries and illnesses; and further, whereas these programs are the only
ones that provide critical services required by Section 21(a)(1) of the
OSH Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, education
programs to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry
out the purposes of this act; and further, whereas, NACOSH strongly
supports the continuation of these programs, therefore, recommends that
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and NIOSH take whatever
measures are available to urge as forcefully as possible that funding
for these activities to be continued.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Would someone like to move that language
with whatever minor amendments they might feel appropriate, like
changing the year?	

	MR. BUNN:  I would move that -- this is Bill Bunn, Navistar.  I would
move that and any appropriate changes Jim would make.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  So we all agree to change the year.  Are there any
other small amendments anyone wants to make to that language?

	MR. JOHNSON:  And I'd be happy to change 2012 to 2014.

	MR. BUNN:  The only other thing I could think of -- this is Bill again
-- is one of the questions they had back --

	MS. SHORTALL:  Whether is speaking?

	MR. BUNN:  -- then was --

	MS. SHORTALL:  Excuse me.  Who is speaking?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  He said his name, but he can say it again.

	MR. BUNN:  This is Bill Bunn at Navistar.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.

	MR. BUNN:  The one question, Jim, that you might want to add is given
no other funding sources that would be adequate because that was one of
the questions they had.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.  

	Thank you.  Got it.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  For the record, Sarah, for these
recommendations to get to where they have to get to, do I have to send a
hard copy, or what happens with this?

	MS. SHORTALL:  You don't have to have a hard copy.  We have a
transcript here, and Jim has read it into the record.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  And so do the heads of these two departments have
to read the transcript to get this message, or can we just pull it out
of there and send it to them?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, you'll have the transcript within 10 days, but if
someone can give it -- if Jim can give you the language, send it to you
today, that would allow you as Chair, if everyone approves, to send the
letter on.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.

	MS. SHORTALL:  So if Mr. Bunn would say he moves that the Chair send a
letter to NIOSH that includes everything from the 2011 resolution plus
appropriate changes --

	MR. BUNN:  I would be happy to make that move with minor changes from
Jim, and it should be sent to the same distribution list as before,
unless Linda would like to add someone.

	Do we have a distribution list?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  There was a question about whether there was a
distribution list or whatever you found.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, this committee is providing advice to the Secretaries
of Health and Human Services and Labor.  

	What has happened in the past is the committee drafts some
recommendations, becomes a part of the formal transcript, and then later
on, so that it gets to the Secretaries of these Departments, they write
the letter and send a hard copy to the different agency heads, so that
these agency heads get this and then can act upon it.  So we do have
that extra step that has to occur after the committee convenes at the
end of the day.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I do have the documents as a PDF, so I can't edit it conveniently, but
I can e-mail it to somebody who can make the two changes.  We said
change FY2012 to FY2014 and to add at the end a statement to the effect
that there's no other source of funding for these two centers.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  That's read into the record, so it will be in the
transcript.  If you can e-mail that to me, I will put it in a letter and
send it out before Friday -- or by Friday.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson. 

	I'll do that now.  Thank you.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Well, after we vote on this, so we have a motion --
I think, Bill, you were the maker of this motion.  Could you restate it
coherently for the transcription people?

	MR. BUNN:  I would move the letter as stated by Jim with the minor
modifications discussed responding to date and the intent to make it
clear that there's no other funding sources be approved.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Is there a second?

	MS. ORTA-AMES:  I second.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  We need to do a roll call vote, since we are no the
phone.  So if a staff person, if someone there can call the roll?

	MS. GROSSMAN:  I'll call the roll, or, Mandy, did you want to do it?

	MS. EDENS:  Go ahead.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Borwegen?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peg Seminario.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  James Johnson.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Linda Rae Murray.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Linda Orta-Anes.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Lida.  I'm sorry.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Mark Carleson.

	MR. CARLESON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Anne Soiza.

	MS. SOIZA:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Joe Van Houten.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Jacquie Agnew.

	MS. AGNEW:  Aye.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Bunn.

	MR. BUNN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peter Dooley.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Rixio Medina.

	[No audible response.]

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Are you still there?  I guess he left.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Does that complete the roll?

	MS. GROSSMAN:  That's it.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right, very good.

	Okay.  So I will send this out, and I'll copy -- I'll have a PDF and
copy everybody on the committee, again, by close of business Friday.

	Is there any other business that we need to attend to?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario.

	Just a request.  That is, the Injury and Illness Prevention Program
workgroup starts to look at this issue of temporary workers or contract
workers, multi-employer arrangements, that they reach out to the whole
committee.  That workgroup I think right now is limited, but I think
some more of us might be interested in looking at this particular issue,
so we just ask that that occur.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  There's no objection to that, I'm sure.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Would it be possible -- this is Lida Orta-Anes again. 
Will it be possible to reconvene by e-mail the roster of that group?  I
think that we need to sort of catch up in terms of what specific tasks
we were working on and the status of those tasks in having, you know, so
long.

	And I do recall that there were some unfinished business with both of
the committees, both the INI as well as the effectiveness, and some of
us were on both as some point or another.  So will it be possible to
sort of identify the roster again and confirm who is serving what
subcommittee?

	MS. EDENS:  We should be able to let the committee know who is on the
current workgroup.

	I mean, Peg and Peter, do you -- I mean, the last time we met, you
should know who your folks are.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  The effectiveness workgroup was still the whole
committee.  We had not --

	MS. EDENS:  But I mean the I2P2, with who's --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Peter?

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.  I will send out an e-mail with the list that was
previously on the workgroup and ask if other folks are interested in
being on it and start from there.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  And I think that Peg was making a point that for
this specific focused discussion around contingent workers that there be
a general invitation to anyone for that.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Mr. Dooley, did you also have persons on that workgroup
who were not members of NACOSH participating?

	MR. DOOLEY:  No.  When we met in person, there were members of the
public who sat I on the workgroup, but that was the extent of it.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay, great.  So Peter is going to send out an
e-mail about the workgroup.  I am going to send out the letter that we
sent to the agencies.

	As usual, unless someone -- now, we all know -- I'm going to try to
summarize where we are.  We hate meeting like this, but we understand
the budgetary issues, and in order to fulfill our obligations, we will
have to work on a second meeting for the year, looking at Dr. Michael
and Dr. Howard's schedules.  So, hopefully, we can set this meeting as
quickly as possible.

	Let me ask some help from staff.  I don't know.  To me, again, the
farther ahead we set the meeting, the better chance we have of good
attendance.  So when do you think we can look at their schedules and do
an e-mail thing about meeting times?  Assuming that we're going to do a
call -- I mean, at this point, I think the safest thing for us to assume
is that we're going to have to have a call again.

	MS. EDENS:  This is Mandy.

	Last time, it was in the November time frame, so we can shoot for that,
and we can quickly check Dr. Michael's and Dr. Howard's schedule and
send out potential days and then let people sort of -- you know, maybe
by some kind of poll or see how those match up with the committee's
availability as a starting point.

	MS. SOIZA:  This is Anne Soiza.

	Can I ask a question or a request, please?

	MS. EDENS:  Sure.

	MS. SOIZA:  Because of the timing of this NACOSH meeting, I was absent
from a very critical portion of the OSHPA meeting, which is I'm in a
hotel in Connecticut to attend.  I would really hope that the November
meeting, which would also coincide with potential OSHPA meeting, please
consider at least other OSHA-sponsored events when you are calendaring
these things.  I would really appreciate it, because I tend to attend a
lot of them.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, we certainly take that into consideration.  We'll try
to match that up as much as possible, but with everybody's schedules and
all the meetings, it's sometimes very challenging to get 100 percent
participation, but we will do our very best to make sure it doesn't
conflict.  But, you know, I can't promise that --

	MR. SOIZA:  No, I know.  I'm not asking you to promise.  I'm just
saying that if there's a -- the OSHPA meeting is a pretty major federal
OSHA event.

	MS. EDENS:  Yes, as is NACOSH.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Anne, if you could please get the information when the
next OSHPA meeting is going to be to Liz and Mandy and Gretta as soon as
possible, that will also help.

	MS. EDENS:  Sarah, we can -- I know the people that did OSHPA.  I do
work for OSHA, so I think I can figure that one out.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But it's a little bit different, you know, travel days,
et cetera.

	MS. EDENS:  But I will definitely -- when they complete this one, I
will go directly to Doug Kalinowski and his staff and figure out when
they're scheduling the next meeting, and we will try as best as possible
not to have it overlap with other major OSHA-sponsored meetings at the
very least, if possible.

	MS. SOIZA:  That would be very -- I'd 

really appreciate that.  Thank you.

	MR. DOOLEY:  This is Peter Dooley.

	On one of the fairly recent e-mails, there was the notion that the next
meeting would be in person.  Has that been determined?

	MS. EDENS:  I wasn't aware of that motion.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Mandy, that e-mail was from you, I believe.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, I just said that in my e-mail that, you know, we'll
have to look at this situation that arises.

	We appreciate the value of a face-to-face meeting, but we'll have to
look at our budgetary limitations and do the best we can to have an
effective meeting.

	ACCSH, the last time around, they did a teleconference.  They had a
2-day meeting.  It was like 3 hours one day and 3 hours the next.  So
there are different ways we could do it if we have to rely on a
teleconference.  There are different ways of doing it, so that you don't
have to feel like you've got one shot, to best replicate a multi-day
meeting that we had in the past.  We can think about the best way to do
it next time, if we have the funding.  It's possible we can hopefully do
it that way.  I just don't know right now what the situation will be.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, I'm assuming, maybe because I work for
government -- I'm assuming that we may be stuck with a teleconference
call.

	Unless we know we have funding, I think the first request I'm going to
make of staff is that we plan a teleconference call.  That is not my
preference, but it's sort of hard to plan an in-person meeting if we
don't know we have funding.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, the availability becomes somewhat easier when people
don't have to travel for people who are out of town, so it might open up
more days.  If you're talking about being available one day for 3 hours
as opposed to traveling a half a day, staying here a day and a half, so
-- I mean, we can try to poll people for both situations and see what
their availabilities are both ways and then, you know, kind of plan
around both and see what happens as the new fiscal year starts.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  That is October 1, right?

	MS. EDENS:  Exactly.  Well, the fiscal year starts.  Whether or not we
have a budget or not is the issue.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, let me speculate that we may not have a
budget.

	Personally, I'm not interested in holding 7 days for this meeting on
all these various possibilities.  I don't know what people think the
likelihood of us having money to travel in this calendar year.  I don't
expect the budget to pass by September 30th.  I don't know about you
all.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, it's not that a budget won't pass.  I mean, we will
have -- generally, there is some continuing resolution.  We will have
some funds.  It's just a matter of sometimes you know more than you know
closer to the fiscal year starting than you do now.

	If you want to just plan on the teleconference, that's up to the
committee.  I'm just suggesting just to look and see what dates are even
out there.  If everybody just says, "I don't have any dates," it's a
closed deal.  I'm just suggesting let's think about it, and then as we
move through the summer, we can do some e-mails and say let's just
forget about the full day and focus on the teleconference.  I'm just
suggesting to poll people about what the availabilities are now.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I don't want to be specific on the dates right now,
but for me, it's better to know months ahead of time what I have to do,
whether it's an in-person meeting or a conference call.  So let me be
blunt with that.  I don't know what other people think.

	I'm not interested in August in trying to figure out when in November I
might could meet.  Personally, I think the longer the lead time, the
more attendance we're going to get, and since I think we're talking
about a really iffy situation for an in-person meeting --

	Now, the other thing we could do is plan an in-person meeting and block
out that amount of time, and if it has to be a teleconference, that is
an easier thing to contract, but I don't want to try to have two --

	MS. EDENS:  Okay, that's a good idea.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Does anyone object to doing that?  We will plan on
an in-person meeting, which I am pretty confident won't happen, but
we'll plan on that, and then should that not happen because of the lack
of funds, then we'll be able to contract to a shorter meeting, because
the other thing I don't want to do is sit on the phone for 4 hours.

	So we can look to looking for dates in the next week or so.  Mandy?

	MS. EDENS:  Well, in order to take into consideration Anne's request, I
don't know if OSHPA will be planned next week.  So I need to sort of
figure out when they plan on setting their next date.  They are fairly
regular about meeting quarterly, so they may have it.

	Also, the further we plan out -- you guys were upset with me last time
because David didn't show up.  Now, I can say David, his schedule is
clear.  If you want to know within the next few weeks that we're going
to have a meeting, I'll tell you I can't promise that David will be
here.  The further out you plan on him, his schedule gets filled with
things that are sometimes out of his control that he has to go to. 
There's just different things -- I mean, I think within the next few
weeks, I think OSHPA will know the next time they're meeting.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Can we have this done by July 4th?  Is that
possible?

	MS. EDENS:  It's probably possible.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Committee members, is that adequate time for you
that we would try to decide by July 4th when our next meeting will be?

	AGTTENDEES:  Yes.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  And we will plan -- at this point, we will plan on
an in-person meeting framework, knowing that we can always cut back if
we have to.  Is that okay?

	ATTENDEES:  Yes.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.

	Are there any other matters before this committee?

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	One other matter.  Peter had sent an e-mail to the committee. 
Distribution may have been broader than that, and it asked the question
whether we should resubmit the I2P2 recommendations.  Personally, I
think the one on the national symposium is very important, so I bring
that to the committee.

	Peter, I don't know if you want to add any comments to that.

	MR. DOOLEY: Well, just with the thought that whatever we recommend, my
understanding is that it has to be in the context of a resolution that
we pass, and I had that question, Linda, even in regards to our sort of
asking NIOSH to do more survey work.

	I believe that we should probably move that in the form of a
resolution.  Otherwise, it's not official.

	The I2P2 resolutions that we have passed in the past still can be
updated in the sense that we could reemphasize that this recommendation
has been made in the past, is still current, and we could basically move
that again.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, Peter, this is Mandy.

	I can't stop you from doing that, but just so you know, the
recommendations are before the agency, so really no further action by
the committee is necessary.

	We realize the recommendations you have.  David and the Acting
Secretary of Labor knows them.  So you don't really need to do that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Someone can make a motion that we reaffirm or
reiterate or we're pissed because you haven't answered us, whatever,
however you want to frame it, about this recommendation for a workgroup
to plan a national symposium.  That's the recommendation you're talking
about.

	MS. EDENS:  Well, you have reaffirmed it the last time.  You had a
committee.  You had the recommendation one time meeting away ago, and
then last meeting, you reaffirmed it.  So, I mean, I guess you can
reaffirm again --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm aware.  I'm aware.

	MS. EDENS:  -- but I don't know what real point it's going to make at
this point.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  It just makes us feel better if we do it.  That's
all, so let me come back to this.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I wanted to ask this question of the committee
before we decide.  No one has made a motion yet.

	Again, to me, we should have some sense of priority here, and we can
reaffirm this.  Again, I won't comment on what I think our chances are
of having this happen.

	What we are really saying is that this really becomes critical for the
work that this work group has been discussing.

	Having said that, let me just ask if Peter or anyone else wants to --
and I think, Peter, this can be a short resolution.  We can pull the
same language -- the language is already there -- that we reaffirm or
reiterate the urgency of this particular recommendation.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Mm-hmm.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Would someone like to frame that in the point of a
resolution?

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yeah.  This is Peter Dooley.  I would like to.  I would
like to affirm that and move that we basically pass the same resolution
that we passed last time, and the reason is because the agencies haven't
acted on the recommendation.  I believe the recommendation is current,
and we should reaffirm it.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I should remind -- well, I'm sure you understand this,
Mr. Dooley.  The agency is not required to act on your recommendation.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Correct, I know that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But you're giving them advice, and they can choose to
adhere to it or not.  Mr. Borwegen said that excellently earlier in the
meeting.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  What did I say?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  So Peter has made a motion that -- if I
can sort of paraphrase it.  Whereas, the agencies have not acted on our
previous recommendation; therefore, we wish to reaffirm this
recommendation.  It's urgent.  I mean, that's really all we're saying. 
Is there a second to this motion?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Linda, this is Bill Borwegen.

	We may want to add a sentence and say we would like a courtesy of a
response this time.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Again, if someone could just frame it, then we can
get it seconded and vote it up or down.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  We would like to reaffirm and are requesting as an
advisory group an official response from OSHA to our request to blah,
blah, blah, whatever else the letter says, whatever the resolution says.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I think we need a little bit more than blah, blah, blah.
 This is pertaining to the symposium.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.

	We are resubmitting the identical letter with an additional sentence
that simply says we are requesting an official response.

	MS. SHORTALL:  This is the letter on the national symposium on Injury
and Illness Prevention Programs.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  I'll let Peter Dooley respond to the exact letter that
we want to convey.  Peter?

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.  Can I read the resolution that we passed last time?

	NACOSH has previously recommended that OSHA and NIOSH convene a
workgroup for planning an Injury and Illness Prevention Program national
symposium in order to be prepared to execute the plan based on best
timing according to the SBREFA process.  Therefore, NACOSH recommends
that OSHA and NIOSH create a workgroup at this time and schedule the
first meeting as soon as possible.

	Next paragraph.	NACOSH has previously recommended that OSHA maintain
Injury and Illness Prevention Programs as the number-one priority of the
agency and that they progress with the standard-setting process with a
high sense of urgency.  Given the importance of leading indicators to an
effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program, NACOSH recommends that
NIOSH consider a participative research project that would seek to
identify leading indicators and better understand their relationship to
outcome measures of injury and illness focused on what indicators are
most predictive of improved outcomes, including what indicators are most
effective when working together.

	MS. EDENS:  Peter, just for the record, because you were breaking up,
rather than have you read that whole thing back, were you reading from
the recommendations from the November 14th-15th, 2012, meeting or the --

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.  So I can give that recommendation on the rulemaking
to the transcriber, and they will be able to --

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. EDENS:  Okay.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  Is there a second to that motion?

	MR. JOHNSON:  Second.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Are you ready for the question?

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  I have discussion.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay, go right ahead.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  This is Joe Van Houten.

	I just want to get -- kind of take the pulse of the committee regarding
reemphasizing this recommendation when we're operating under sequester. 
I am reflecting on Peg's e-mail when we were talking about the need for
an in-person meeting or the preference for an in-person meeting and the
fact that the agency needs to make some decisions regarding maintaining
strong enforcement as opposed to sponsoring in-person committee
meetings.

	Are we in the same situation here?  Should we be recommending a
conference at this time when the funding is limited?  I just ask for the
opinion of the committee.

	MR. JOHNSON:  This is Jim Johnson.

	I am sensitive to and appreciate the budgetary challenges and
prioritization of what's most important. 

	OSHA has stated that I2P2 is their number-one priority, and so,
therefore, I think it is important to convene a national symposium so
you can have further discussion in support of that rulemaking.

	MS. EDENS:  Just so the committee is aware, I mean, I don't know how
familiar everyone is with the rulemaking process.  We have had five
public stakeholder meetings on I2P2.

	I think that in the workgroup meetings and when Jordan was here the
last time before the committee, it's not that we don't find any value in
the symposium as the timing of it, and that until a proposal is on the
table, that people don't have a lot of new things to react.  And our
concern is having a symposium before we have a proposal out is not going
to tell us something we haven't already heard in the five previous
stakeholder meetings.

	You know, if you want to have a workgroup to plan it, so that when the
timing comes right, it's not that we don't disagree with it, but we will
have to look at that.  I think it's a good point to make about where
we're going to spend the money when we go into a rulemaking process
because it is not a cheap endeavor to hold a -- pull off a symposium,
and if we want to use those funds to actually support the rulemaking in
other ways, we have to make some choices about where we're going to --
if we have limited funds, where we're going to put it.

	You guys should feel free to advise us on where you think we ought to
spend our money, but we do at the end of the day only have a certain
amount of money.

	It's not that I2P2 is not our -- not a priority.  I think David has
made that clear to the committee on several situations, is how is he
going to make that priority come into effect or make it be realized and
where he's going to spend his money.  At this time, we reiterated, but
in case you can reaffirm that you want us to do it, and we will take it
under advisement as we have the other two times you recommended it.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Jim Johnson.

	Just one point of clarification.  We did make a change the last
iteration of the recommendation, which was that there be a -- I forget
the same language -- workgroup or committee brought together in order to
discuss the nature of the symposium, the extent to which we would add
value to the rulemaking process; if it was going to happen, how would
you do it, what would the expenses be, et cetera.

	So it had the in-between step to at least convene some folks to talk
about it.

	MS. EDENS:  So would this workgroup exclude OSHA staff?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I don't want to re-discuss -- I'm trying to help us
here.  What we're trying to do, we have a motion on the floor -- it
hasn't been seconded yet -- to reaffirm our previous recommendation
which, as many people are reminding folks, included the recommendation
for convening a workgroup.

	And I think people have raised perfectly legitimate issues, and that
should help determine how people vote.

	Now let me ask.  We have the motion.  Do we have a second to the
motion?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, I'd like to ask a quick question about that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I'm going to be more formal here.  Why don't we --

	MS. SHORTALL:  No.  I'd like to know.  You've had Pete Dooley read the
recommendation from last time.  Is he going to be considered the maker
of the motion, or are we going back to Bill Borwegen who also added a
sentence on the end of it?

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  We'll decide right now.  One of these gentlemen
will make the motion, and then I'll ask for a second.

	MS. SHORTALL:  We have a motion and a second down.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Then we don't have to ask for a second.

	Is there any more discussion?

	MS. SHORTALL:  Which motion are you going to take, the one that Pete
Dooley did or the one --

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I want to save time here because we can get rid of
all of this and start over again.

	Bill, you're right, made a motion and he asked for Pete to read the
exact language.  That's in fact what happened.  He asked for Peter to
read the language, which Peter had in front of him.  So I'm going to
just take that as Bill's motion, and I'm going to ask for a second to
that motion.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Once again, I'll second that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Excellent.

	Now, we've had a lot of discussion.  Does anyone else on the committee
wish to discuss this motion before we vote?

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Okay.  Hearing no discussion, can we take a roll
call?

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Borwegen.

	MR. BORWEGEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peg Seminario.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Linda Rae Murray.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Lida Orta-Anes.

	MS. ORTA-ANES:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Mark Carleson.

	MR. CARLESON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Anne Soiza.

	[No audible response.]

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Not responding.

	Joe Van Houten.

	MR. VAN HOUTEN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  James Johnson.

	MR. JOHNSON:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Jacquie Agnew.

	MS. AGNEW:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Bill Bunn.

	MR. BUNN:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Peter Dooley.

	MR. DOOLEY:  Yes.

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Rixio Medina.

	[No audible response.]

	MS. GROSSMAN:  Didn't come back on.

	So that's 10 yeses and 2 not responding.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Thank you.

	Is there any other business before this committee?

	MR. BORWEGEN:  This is Bill Borwegen.

	I just want to clarify that as SEIU, you never really leave.  Even
though I am retiring as the health and safety director, I've been asked
to stay on as the senior health and safety advisor, so just to clarify
that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have already entered the letter from SEIU into the
record to make sure that they've designated you as well, so we're all
perfectly fine with that.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  I'll stop being jealous then, Bill.

	Is there any other business before the committee?

	[No audible response.]

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  I want to thank everybody for their patience on
this phone call.  I know it's difficult.  I really appreciate people's
efforts to get them going.

	So we've reaffirmed some of our old business.  We've redirected one of
our workgroups to look at -- to expand our temporary worker discussion,
and we re-passed a funding letter, which you should expect to see from
me in a PDF format before the end of the week.

	Can I have a motion to adjourn?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario moves to adjourn.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  Second?  Any discussion?

	ATTENDEE:  Second.

	CHAIRWOMAN MURRAY:  All right.  Have a great week, everybody, and those
of you in D.C., you have our sympathy.  Bye-bye.

	[Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., the NACOSH meeting concluded.]

 

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free:  888-445-3376