Page images
PDF
EPUB

vetoed. The new appropriation bill, as I understand it, that has now passed the House carries 15.

Mr. MEEDS. Is there not a substantial difference between 25 employees and 25 man-years? You might have a farm operation, indeed in most instances you do have farm operations where they work less than a full year. You might have 50 people working one-third of a year, one-fourth of a year, and still not have that farm covered. Mr. MAGDANZ. This is entirely possible.

Mr. MEEDS. Whereas they would be covered with 15 or 25 under the House amendment.

Mr. MAGDANZ. We make the recommendation, Mr. Chairman, because we feel it should be considered. We are not sticking adhesively to 25, or 20, but we do feel there should be some change made here, and some exceptions.

Mr. MEEDS. You agree with me that the 25 man-year test and 25 employees would be very substantially different?

Mr. MAGDANZ. Admittedly, this is quite true.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Veysey.

Mr. VEYSEY. Thank you, sir, for coming to us with this testimony. I am a farmer, myself. In my area there is a good deal of cattle feeding. I have heard some comment related to your testimony from time to time from my constituents there.

Let me raise one general question with you.

I think you raised the issue of the jurisdiction of Federal law over individual farmers. Is your organization taking a case under this to the Supreme Court, or is anybody testing that seriously?

Mr. MAGDANZ. It is my understanding that there are a number of cases in progress at the moment. I do not even know offhand where all of them are, but there are some in the South that have been brought, and are pending at this time.

We have not taken such action, sir, because I am sure the committee knows that up to this time, at least, without standards that have been prepared and promulgated by the Department of Labor for agriculture, as has occurred with some other industries, that admittedly inspections of agricultural properties and places of employment are very small up to this time.

There have been a few that have come to our attention, and I believe I am correct in saying that several have occurred in the State of Wyoming. But generally, farm operations have not yet been affected appreciably by this law. Our concern is what is going to happen when they are.

Mr. VEYSEY. It was your testimony that there are no standards in the agricultural field, but I am not quite sure of the status of things there.

Mr. MAGDANZ. If I said no standards, I meant to say basically none, at least not very extensively up to this time.

Mr. VEYSEY. I think it is correct to say that additional standards are in the process of preparation.

Mr. MAGDANZ. That is correct. Our word from the Department of Labor is that they are working with a task force in the Department of Agriculture trying to come up with something that is workable and will comply with the law as it now stands.

Mr. VEYSEY. Now, turning to another point, I think you have correctly identified for us the real problem in agriculture, where you point out that 86 percent of the injuries might be to farmers and their families working on the farm, and maybe only 10 percent to hired employees. Is that percentage correct?

Mr. MAGDANZ. Yes, that is the conclusion of this survey, which I perhaps should-well, I believe my statement identified the source of it, the National Safety Council. I did not mention it in my oral remarks. But this is the conclusion of the survey.

Now, what will happen if they run the survey in other States, we, of course, have no way of knowing, except that it is reasonable to assume that this pattern of States is broad enough to at least be an indicator, and I believe a fairly substantial or accurate indicator.

Mr. VEYSEY. If I understand correctly, a farmer or members of the farmer's family working on his own farm would not be under the jurisdiction of the act.

Mr. MAGDANZ. As we understand it, that is right.

Mr. VEYSEY. So there would be no attack under this act on the 86 percent which includes the major number of injuries. Therefore, you are proposing further educational, research, and design improvements that would reach that segment.

Mr. MAGDANZ. That is correct, and also reach the 86 percent as well as the 10 percent.

I believe the chairman is concerned about what we were going to do with these major accidents, and wondered if the employers should not also be brought under the act.

We would propose they be reached through this research and education program.

Mr. VEYSEY. Has there not been substantial research and education undertakings in the past through county agents, the 4--H, and the HFA programs all going to that educational aspect, and yet we continue to have large numbers of injuries?

Exactly what type of educational approach are you proposing?

Mr. MAGDANZ. We would not propose a specific type, sir, but we do mention several points here under the research and under the education aspect of it that we think ought to be developed.

Now, it is true that some States have what we call safety engineers in their agricultural extension service, but not very many of them, however.

There has been some work done here. We propose that this be expanded materially. Of course, in lieu of spending more money, we feel inoney that might otherwise be spent on investigations and citations, and so forth, might more properly be spent in the education and research area. So we really are not advocating that there be more expenditures for this program.

Mr. VEYSEY. As you see the impact on agriculture, if the present law were followed and enforced sometime in the future when the regulations are developed, what would you expect that the impact might be in terms of reduction in numbers of accidents or injuries? Mr. MAGDANZ. A reduction of injuries?

Mr. VEYSEY. Yes, sir, in agriculture.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I am sure that you realize that we have to make an educated prediction on that.

It is our opinion, or at least mine, at this particular moment, that most of these accidents are the result of the actual operators' perhaps personal carelessness, and that any law or any regulations or anything of that sort are not going to eliminate that type of accident.

Let me give you an example. Machinery has changed a little bit in this day and age compared to what I used to use, but we still have harvesters and what we used to call cornpickers. They don't do that any more. They still have in them what are the equivalent, at least, of snapping rollers.

Now, you cannot possibly cover up these particular parts of a machine, because they are essential to removing the ears off the stalk, as you well know. They have to operate so that the stalk will go in there.

Yet, if they plug up, and a man deliberately goes around and grabs hold of this stalk and suddenly he is jerked into the machine, any law or regulation or anything else is not going to prevent that man from having an accident, if he carelessly does that.

This is where at least quite a few of our accidents occur so far as harvesting machinery is concerned.

Mr. FORD. Excuse me a minute.

I would like to understand what you are saying. Is the burden of your position at this point that if the worker would be just a little bit more careful, and if we put some posters on the wall and said, “A stitch in time saves nine," that that would solve the problem, that we don't need all these bothersome regulations? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I would not attempt to simplify it to that extent, sir. Mr. FORD. That is the way it is coming through to me. I do not understand what the point is that you are making when you suggest that mest of these accidents would not occur if the operator himself would be a little bit more careful.

Are you saying that the individuals who are being injured in the industrial accidents would not be injured if they were just a little bit more careful?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I don't mean to address myself in this case to the industrial field, because I am not familiar with that. I am talking in this particular case about the agricultural situation.

Mr. FORD. That is a very good one, as a matter of fact. I consider it a form of industry. You have the highest rate of injuries for employees of any industry in the country. You are worse than steel mills. And it goes up every year. I have seen statistics that it is the most dangerous job there is around.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I believe, sir, I referred to that in my earlier remarks. If I remember correctly, this was before you came into the room.

I pointed out that we recognize the hazards in the agriculture industry. We don't deny that at all. But we also point out the results of a survey showing that 86 percent of the accidents on farms occur to the employer and members of his family, and only 10 percent to employees.

Mr. FORD. There are not any employees left.

Mr. MAGDANZ. Oh, yes, there are employees left.

Mr. FORD. Well, they are migrants, and you don't count them. They are out of town with their injuries before you even know what happened to them.

87-382-73- -32

Mr. MAGDANZ. There still are employees on many farms, although there is not the labor market on agricultural operations that there is for the industrial market.

Mr. MEEDS. Is the gentleman from California finished?

Mr. VEYSEY. No.

I had one further point that I wanted to develop with you. That point was with respect to your request that the 25 man-year standard for excluding the family or farmer from the act be applied.

Mr. MAGDANZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. VEYSEY. I find that substantially higher than an exclusion of the family or farmer, himself. I am wondering how we can really say, if we exclude that many, we are really penetrating the heart of the problem in the agricultural area.

Mr. MAGDANZ. As I believe I mentioned to the chairman a short while ago, we are not holding adhesively to the 25 man-years. We do make the recommendation that small businesses, particularly in agricul ture, should be exempt, and we use the 25 man-year figure. I think, as I also stated, there is some precedent for this. Actually, an exemption of employers with 25 employees passed the House not too long ago, at least for 1 year. It was finally resolved to 15.

Mr. VEYSEY. I consider that resolve more or less an expedient in the initial application of the act. Perhaps it would have been more effective to apply the Federal effort to the larger employers and work on down later, when there has been more time for educational purposes.

Since you are not locked in on the 25 man-years, what do you think about basing it on some of the other standards, such as the minimum wage bill, 500 man-hours, which I think is the exemption basis there? Any of these standards are arbitrary.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I believe, sir, the 500 man-hours would be per month. I believe that is what the labor relations standard is, 500 man-hours per month.

Mr. VEYSEY. No. I don't believe that is correct. I think it is essentially the equivalent of seven and a half full-time employees.

Mr. MAGDANZ. I think that is correct, seven to eight employees. This is much lower than we think would be advisable, sir. That is about all I would say about it at this moment. We would prefer and make a recommendation that it be higher.

Mr. VEYSEY. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ford.

Mr. FORD. You are recommending that anyone who employs or has employees for less than 25 man-years should not be covered? Mr. MAGDANZ. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FORD. Let us figure that out. That is 25 men working full time per year, 50 men working 6 months, a hundred men working 3 months. When you get down to the migrant worker, how many do you have to have before you are covered?

Mr. MAGDANZ. I cannot answer that question.

Mr. FORD. Less than a month, we would say, would be normally when they would be in farmers' fields.

Mr. MAGDANZ. This may be true. I am not acquainted with the migrant working situation.

Mr. FORD. You could conceivably have 5 or 600 people working at one time, and they would not be covered under your rule. Do you think that

[ocr errors]

is consistent with what you said heretofore about protecting the farmer's family?

That was your principal concern, as I understood the burden of your testimony, that you should not like to see the farmer's family protected, they ought to be more careful.

You are suggesting any particular employer could have as many as five or six hundred in the field for a couple weeks at a time, and no rules. That is not what you want to do.

Mr. MAGDANZ. As I say, I cannot address myself to the migrant worker situation, because I am not acquainted with it.

Mr. FORD. If size is as important as you have made it, it is true the House adopted the rule. I don't think the House understood fully the consequences of what they were doing, eliminating the so-called small employer by numbers.

What you say about numbers is valid, having two, three, four, five employees, I think you said up to seven, as a reason for not being covered.

How do you feel about having 5 or 600 people at one time involved in an operation, farming or any other operation? Does it suggest to you, since you do stay with these small numbers, that there is something inherently dangerous involved in trying to have that many people working at one time with farm machinery and so on?

Mr. MAGDANZ. As I say again, sir, our main concern is with the people who are particularly throughout the vast agricultural area of the Midwest, where we are not concerned at all with migratory workers. Mr. FORD. What part of the Midwest do you come from where we are not concerned with migrant workers?

Mr. MAGDANZ. We do not have them appreciably at all.
Mr. FORD. What State are you from?

Mr. MAGDANZ. From Nebraska.

Mr. FORD. You don't have migratory workers in Nebraska?

Mr. MAGDANZ. No, we don't have an appreciable number of migratory workers.

We do know that migratory workers are a prominent part of certain aspects of agriculture in certain areas, but we have very little of it throughout that area.

Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Esch.

Mr. EscH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me preface my remarks by indicating that I appreciate your testimony.

I am trying to get a feel as to which direction this committee should go, if there are inequities in the act, to correct that act and its application. One of the problems the committee has is that it feels very strongly the need to protect the American worker, at the same time not to be coercive against the small industrialist or small farmer who may have a relatively good safety record.

Many of us feel that because a great number of workers live and work and are employed in high-risk areas, and yet are still employed in groups of under 25, that that should not necessarily preclude them from coverage. Yet, we recognize, too, that a lot of those employees may have relatively low-risk employment, and perhaps we should concentrate on those areas in which there is a high-risk employment.

I have read your testimony. I think you are not arguing necessarily

« PreviousContinue »