It was very wisely so because one way or the other they end up paying whatever that man's workmen's compensation costs are. So I think perhaps they tend to get a more safety-conscious group of contractors and I am sure they would agree.

Mr. ERLEWINE. I would have to say that, on lump-sum advertised bids, it would have to be quite a bad record before someone would be disqualified.

Mr. O'HARA. Before that becomes a major factor, the difference in insurance.

Mr. ERLEWINE. Where we have a cost-type contract we have greater control over the whole operation and can be very sure that it is adequately staffed.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Erlewine; we have learned a great deal from your testimony.

Without objection, any supplemental statements from witnesses will be inserted in the hearing record at this point. We have also received several letters from both employers and employees' organizations in the construction industry and, without objection, they will also follow at this point in the record.

The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor will now stand in adjournment.

(Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the Select Subcommittee on Labor adjourned.)

(The following supplemental material was submitted for the record :)

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C., January 15, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a supplemental statement, respectfully submitted by this Department, in support of H.R. 2567, the Construction Safety Bill. You will recall that the Department presented testimony supporting this legislation on August 29, 1967.

In addition, I have enclosed a collection of articles which we feel illustrate the great national problem in connection with the lack of adequate safety standards in the construction industry. It should be noted that none of these articles originated in the building trades. All of them are public information and every one speaks strongly for the need of a uniform, nationwide construction safety program.

It is our feeling that many of the arguments leveled against H.R. 2567 are not only unfounded but are completely unjustified. For example, much of the criticism aimed at H.R. 2567 made the point that it would cost too much. In reply to that we would simply ask: How much is too much, when you consider the articles quoting single accident payments of $696.000; $225,000; $626,000 and $178.000? Four accidents alone costing more than $1,700,000. The total program we envision could be initially financed by the cost of these four accidents alone. All of us who are involved in the construction industry-both labor and management-would have to admit that the most active construction safety program in the Federal Government today is the program carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And yet, despite the existence of this program, the Corps' own records show that in the last two years accidents cost $16 million; that in 1966 one out of every seven disabling injuries resulted in a death; and that in Fiscal Year 1967 there was one death for every 20 disabling injuries.

The Associated General Contractors, in their statement before the Subcommittee, made continuous reference to the active roles the States take with regard to construction safety requirements on projects within their boundaries, and that

the Construction Safety Bill (H.R. 2567) would simply duplicate everything now being done by the States. This statement is unsupported by the factual evidence. We know that throughout the country relatively little is, in fact, being done. Here are the facts as we know them:

a. Only four states have safety inspectors whose only assignment is the inspection of construction sites: New York has 108 construction inspectors; Illinois has nine: New Jersey-14; and, North Carolina-four.

b. Of the remaining 46 states, seven do not have a safety inspection staff for any purpose; and the remaining 39 states have a total of less than 1400 safety inspectors between them.

c. Of these 1400 safety inspectors in 39 states, 300 are listed to inspecting elevators, boilers or mines.

d. This leaves approximately 1100 general safety inspectors who must inspect thousands upon thousands of garages, manufacturing plants, buildings, schools, mines, boilers, elevators, etc.

e. It is also most interesting to note that of the 1500-odd State safety inspection personnel, nearly 1⁄2 are located in but three states. California has 220 safety inspectors covering all industries, New York-326, and Pennsylvania-157.

Based on the foregoing facts, it is apparent that adequate construction site inspection is physically impossible-even if every state in the nation had a complete, up-to-date, set of safety codes and regulations-which they definitely do not have.

In the State of Maryland, for example, cave-ins on construction sites became so common and involved such a large number of fatalities to construction workers that a resolution was passed providing that firemen and policemen be deputized as construction site inspectors.

The AGC representative stated in his testimony before the Subcommittee that "there are fatalities and injuries in our industry each year, and this situation we deplore. Historically we have deplored it, and historically this industry has tried and is continuing to do something about it...."

To our way of thinking, this statement by the AGC sets forth the whole need and purpose of the Construction Safety Bill. The solution to the immense and growing nationwide problem of safety in the construction industry is not to be found in history and deplorement. Many of the current problems that are national in scope exist for the simple reason that they have been "historically deplored," and historically NOT acted upon.

The associated General Contractors also highlighted the active role that the State of Arizona, the AGC and the American Society of Safety Engineers have taken in reducing the problems involved with the safety of workers in the construction industry. The enclosed clipping from Occupational Hazards Magazine, October, 1967, appears to refute the statement of the AGC in this regard. Mr. Frank Murphy, the Industrial Commission Chairman, stated that: "The State Workmen's Compensation Fund has eight million fewer dollars than it needed to cover claims. Also, Mr. Murphy said that Ariozna needs a comprehensive, rigidlyenforced State Industrial Safety Code, that will prevent accidents and thus decrease insurance costs. He intends to work for such a law. Arizona has none at present."

The same article calls attention to an announcement by the State of Kentucky of an overall cut of 3.6% in workmen's compensation insurance rates and the fact that this cut would save employers almost one million dollars. Strangely enough, however, the same announcement mentioned that despite all the savings, construction industry rates faced a boost of 1.6%.

In our opinion, the few facts that we have selected seriously question the validity of the position taken by the opponents of the Construction Safety Bill. The examples we offer represent only random selections which reflect—and we quote "the historically deplored" safety situation that exists in this nation.

We feel that the magnitude and the glaring seriousness of the problem is obvious and undeniable. The facts speak for themselves. The Construction Safety Bill is much needed legislation which should be passed without delay.

Finally, we respectfully request that this letter and all enclosures be incorporated as part of the official record.

With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

C. J. HAGGERTY, President.

SUPPLEMENT TO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY ON H.R. 2567

The Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO respectfully submits the following additions to their comments of August 29, 1967, for the consideration of the subcommittee.

STATISTICS

That injury statistics regarding the construction industry are dubious at best can be demonstrated by analysis of the figures for the industry published by the National Safety Council in the 1967 edition of ACCIDENT FACTS. The Injury Frequency Rate therein is shown as 12.24 and footnotes indicate that this figure is based on reports from about 250 contractors who are members of the Council. However, the base figures shown for the construction industry for 1966 are 3,800,000 construction workers suffering 2,800 fatalities and 240,000 disabling injuries. Applying the American Standards formula for computing injury severity (Disabling Injuries times 10 divided by Total Hours Worked) rates and using the Bureau of Labor statistics figure of 1400 as the average annual hours worked by workers in the construction industry, we arrive at an indicated severity rate of over 45.

In view of the above, one hesitates to use the published statistics to establish anything. There is copious evidence from other sources, such as the astronomical insurance premiums prevalent in the industry, to show that the situation is deplorable and badly in need of assistance from an outside source.

SAFETY REGULATIONS

The industry sometimes attempts to give the impression that federal work is already covered by adequate and well enforced safety regulations-thus making H.R. 2567 superfluous and a potential source of confusion to an already satisfactory situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the good safety programs of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, we are unaware of any Federal construction standards worthy of the name. Some other Federal contracting agencies may do a better or worse (usually worse) job on safety, but well-conceived and well-enforced safety standards are about as rare on Federal jobs as they are in the rest of the construction industry. And to the best of our knowledge, such standards on Federally-financed work are completely non-existent.

The attempt is also made to infer that Federal Standards such as proposed by H.R. 2567 would superimpose by administrative fiat a set of arbitrary standards on the adequate standards already used to meet the varying needs of the industry. To begin with, there are, by general consensus of all factions of the industry, no satisfactory safety standards in the construction industry today. That's why the A-10 Committee on Construction Safety of the United States of America Standards Institute is now working on the development of such standards under the voluntary procedures of the Institute. These construction safety standards, when completed, will represent a consensus of the whole industry, including both management and labor.

As such it can confidently be expected that these A-10 standards will be a model for construction safety codes and standards of state and local regulatory bodies, Federal contracting agencies, and all others who are interested in setting up the best possible and best accepted construction safety regulations. As we read the proposed legislation, they would also serve as a model for the standards to be set up under H.R. 2567. This procedure and this consensus could hardly be called arbitrary; and the result would be not confusion but a set of generally accepted regulations which would be of great value to the entire industry.

SUB-CONTRACTORS

Only recently has there been an attempt by a few General Contractors to bring sub-contracting under contractural obligation to adhere to the "Safe Work Procedures" (if any) adopted by the contractor. This means that every General Contractor in the United States farms out portions of his contract to subcontractors who do not, repeat, do not have to observe the safety standards of the Prime Contractor. This prevalence of sub-contracting has a significant effect on safety practices as regards a total job.

The administrative difficulties alone, which arise when the activities of a large number of independent firms, whose past accident prevention experience may be totally non-existent or completely different from the requirements of the Prime Contractor, and must be coordinated to be effective, are beyond the capabilities of most General Contractors in the absence of uniform standards. The magnitude of this problem can be demonstrated by the following figures. The membership of the National Constructors Association is 33. The claimed membership of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. is 8200. There are more than 800,000 Construction and Maintenance Contractors in the United States by Internal Revenue Service estimates.

MECHANICAL CONDITIONS VERSUS UNSAFE ACTS

To our knowledge there has been no recent survey made to ascertain the relative percentages of accidents due to "mechanical failures" or "human failures". Such a study would, in the final analysis, prove little or nothing as it becomes more and more evident that even most "mechanical failures" were due to human failures somewhere along the line; the use of an undetected, faulty coupling during manufacture that later causes a mechanical breakdown “could have been prevented" etc. The conclusion usually drawn, considering that management is the only real source of accident reports, is that the worker is directly or indirectly responsible for practically each and everyone of his accidents. This conclusion is completely unsupported by factual evidence.

Management, understandably, shifts any blame possible away from its own supervision and places it where there can be little or no rebuttal. To sum up this subject, "Human Failures are not necessarily "Worker Failures". Concerning this problem of human failure we feel that one of the most important provisions of the bill is that for Safety Education. We construe this to apply to everyone connected with operations in the construction industry.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS

The pre-employment physical examination has frequently been put forth as a major means for preventing accidents in the construction industry. Indeed, of all industry. This is in spite of the complete lack of evidence that physiological deficiencies which are reasonably discoverable by a necessarily cursory examination have other than a vanishingly small effect on accidents in the industry.

In industries where these pre-employment physical examinations have become a matter of course, the rejection rate is less than 1 percent although the cost of these examinations consumes a major portion of occupational health budgets, to the detriment of more important preventive activities.

Perhaps the greatest bar to effectiveness in these examinations, particularly in the construction industry, is the virtually complete lack of data on which to base a medical judgment. What specific physical deficiency precludes satisfactory performance of any specific job is a question that goes far beyond medical competency. We agree that every individual in the United States should have periodic physical examinations. That the individual's livelihood should be wholly dependent on a subjective evaluation, by someone who may be totally ignorant of the real requirements of his occupation, is an entirely different matter.

In our view, the issue is raised by management, in the construction industry, largely as a dodge to screen their lack of meaningful activity in accident prevention and shift the responsibility to the workers.

INJURY FREQUENCY RATES OF CONTRACTORS, NEW YORK, 1964

In 1964, a study of 73.000 construction contractors was made by the New York Department of Labor. The chart below reports the results of the study and I quote:

"Injury frequency rates tend to be highest among medium-sized contractors and lower among larger contractors, according to the experience in New York state. Small contractors generally have rates in the middle range, except that those employing fewer than 10 workers have the lowest rate."

These facts were revealed in a study made by the New York Department of Labor of the work injury experience of nearly 73,000 contractors. By size of contractor, the injury frequency rates were as follows:

Injury frequency rates by size of contractor, New York, 1964

For special trade contractors, the injury rates ranged from a low of 18.0 for glazing and glass work, to a high of 60.4 for demolition. For all trades tabulated, the 1964 rates are shown in the table below.

INJURY FREQUENCY RATES BY TYPES OF CONTRACTOR, NEW YORK, 1964

Source: New York State Department of Labor, "Injury Rates in the Construction Industry, 1964."

[From the Des Moines Register, Sept. 19, 1967]

4 KILLED IN DITCH CAVE-IN

(By Robert Krotz and Robert Kisler)

RUSSELL, IA.-Four workers were buried alive in a series of three cave-ins in a sewer line trench here Monday.

Three of the victims were crushed under tons of earth in second and third cave-ins while they desperately tried to free their 19-year-old co-worker who had been trapped by the first slide.

Killed were:

Clyde McKinley, 19, son of Mr. and Mrs. Richard McKinley of Russell, and nephew of Russell Mayor Arlan Reynolds.

Lowell Gillis, 54, and his son, Marvin, 23 both of Colo, who were working in the 19-foot-deep trench and the first men to attempt to save McKinley.

Donald Vandenbosch, 36-year-old job supervisor for H and F builders of Ames, the company in charge of laying the sewer lines.

Mayor Reynolds, who witnessed the three separate cave-ins, said Monday night he believed that his nephew and the three other men "died needlessly."

LOOSE GROUND

"I'm not a construction engineer," Reynolds said, “but I think the trench should have been shored up during the digging.

"The land in this area is dangerous when you get down more than six or seven feet. It's a loose clay-what they call a joint clay-and it has a tendency to slip." Reynolds said metal shields, sometimes pulled along the sides of similar trenches to protect workers, were not used Monday.

Reynolds and residents living near the trench also said there had been at least two or three other cave-ins along the trench last week.

Reynolds gave the following account of Monday's slide:

McKinley, Gillis and Gillis' son were working at the bottom of the block-long trench about 12:50 p.m., an hour after the work crew returned from its lunch period.

Reynolds and Councilman Bob Long were at the site watching its progress when the slide occurred.

McKinley was using an "air shovel" to scrape dirt from the sides of the trench