Document RVv1V2bqMZXya3EGd4YeDYbk

FILE NAME Insulation Contractors & Distributors ICD DATE 1974 June DOC ICD030 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Trade Journal - NICA nica | vapor: Sere CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT OFFICE OUTLOOK National Insulation Contractors Association JUL3-1974 JUL3-1974 JUL3-1974 JUL3-1974 UBRARY CONGRESS = Outlook has Changed - As you noticed on the front cover our Outlook has changed No association can afford to stay the same forever It must move aggressively forward meet today's needs always eeping in mind yesterday's lessons and tomorrow's challenges The energy crisis swept us into a new era Our outlook broadened as insulation contractors work together to increase energy conservation The new cover design is intended to reflect the insulation industry's expanded outlook We hope it causes all NICA National Insulation Contractors Association Montgomery Center 86 Fenton Street - Suite 506 Silver Spring Maryland 20910 telephone 301-585-8441 john Pollock Executive Director A 11. Wotherspoon Chairman NICA Publications Committee Officers 1974 W Robert Murfin President William A. Bayer President Herbert Millpox Millpox Vap Vap Peperipni Peperipni ( Long Treasurer B Wheatley Sprietary Board of Directors Terms Ending 1974 Roben Bright CNICA Dee ( Luxe MICA Palmer Cavil SECA Leroy Whitaker WI~ A Terms Ending 1975 Walter Shine FASICA Herben McLau~ENAN^ SICA . Wave W Killion SLICA N Dulard SWICA Ralph L. Sartori WICA James W. Lidded targe 1 Rouge Harpy SICA Chhor Johnson ASION William O. Maukin MICA Raymond L Wopperer NYSITA Charles B. Morion SWICA S Rover large Immediate Past President W Munsey Annual Subscription 10 which is included in The Chapolled Membership Dues Single copy 1.50 1.50 Chapoled orculation paid at Stiver boring Statements of fact and opinion are made responsibility of the author along and noi necessarily express the opinions of the Association Material may not be reproduced hour whitien consen Copyright National Insulation Association - TABLE OF CONTENTS VOL 19 JUNE 1974 The President's Letter NO 6 i 2 Your Executive Director's Report 4 Spirit of '74 & Working With You and For You 10 Legged Stool 14 Ferguson Brings Impressive Credentials to NICA Labor Relations Post 16 Our Job Safety Law 20 NICA's 19th Annual Convention Registration Form 27 NICA's 19th Annual Convention Tentative Program 32 How To Conduct An Energy Audit 36 TIMA Introduces ECON II 44 What's New From Manufacturers 45 ECON | Provides Detailed Information 45 Calendar of Coming Events Revised Construction Forecast Shows Impact of Inflation for 1974 NICA Mall Sox Technical Challenge Working Cash vs. Capitol Cash r 49 52 f 53 54 56 Our Job Safety Law Should Say What It Means . Occupational By Robert D. Moran Chairman Occupational Commission Safety and Health Review Reprinted from Nation's Business In 1970 Congress enacted a law to protect the health and safety of American workers Surely no one could quarrel with that Yet the law was greeted instantly with a chorus of boos and a barrage of brickbats Nor has time stilled its critics Today almost four years later the Occupational Safety and Health Act has about as many warm friends as acne has Why did legislation so well intended misfire so badly In this article an expert gives his answer He is head of an independent agency created by Congress to near and decide appeals from rulings by Occupational Safety and Health Administration Administration inspectors It is generally agreed that the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 can be fully achieved only when all employers are voluntarily persuaded to comply ments .. with its require- I share this belief also believe that many of the existing job safety standards as written don't clarify what must be done to achieve compliance Before I get down to specific cases let me state what I think these standards should do . A standard is developed promulgatedbecause of the existence or the potential existence of a condition that's dangerous to the 20 safesstaafyeftyety or health of workers The purpose of the elimnatestandard standard standard standard standard standard is to tell employers what they must do to eliminate eliminate reduce or prevent the hazardous condition it as Gate Gate Gate Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge or or otheorther - that almost certain easily painter a a on theGolden Golden painter hazard bridges like it The severalseveral hundred hundred feet to We know this hazard could be reduced if a net capable of catching falling workers were strung RR under the bridge Or else if we required the painters to wear safety belts hitched in such a manner that a fall wouldn't mean a a plunge intothe Orga depths of the strait that the bridge spans bridge Now writing a safety standard for this is not ihe be insurmountable problem The nazara to BF +t falling prevented is falling from the bridge to the water Sein: below The standard should specify what must be US hpi done to prevent the fall or to interrupt it before it can cause injury or death nas We therefore can see that there are tworather can basic ingredients which are essential to every hea valid job safety and health standard awe First identify the hazard to prevent + Second specify what must be done to prevent avabr its occurrence det If all standards included these two funda- mentals in understandable language I am result job safety the number of job would alleged in citations for inspections inspections inspectitohnesreof would violations which which result be dramatically reduced : And that of course is what everybody wants More compliance and fewer violations NICA CUTLOCK Even if the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA tripled its staff of inspectors a rather unlikely prospect they could inspect only 10 percent of America's workplaces do so only once a year This wouldn't go far enough toward achieving the Act's purpose of eliminating injuries and diseases which workers receive from their jobs The vast majority of America's employers don't want their employees hurt and don't want to violate the law Riddles for the employer So OSHA hopes for voluntary compliance with federal job safety and health standards But far too many standards are to paraphrase Winston Churchill riddles wrapped in mysteries inside enigmas They don't give the employer even a nebulous suggestion of what he should do to protect his employees from whatever also left unexplained which represents a hazard to their safety and health For example what does the following standard tell you to do in order to avoid conditions at your place of employment hazardous whiwhcich h are potentially least one citation against an employer < alleged failure to satisfy this standard for a 500 penalty His alleged offense proposi was proposi employees were required to work under unsupported concrete placing pipeline Clearly there isn't an employer in wor the wor who can look at this standard and know that tells him to keep his employees out that from unde unde unsupported concrete placing pipelines Fortunately in this case the employer employer tested the charge and the Review Commissio dismissed it But this standard is books and I wouldn't be the least bit still on the surprised see OSHA use it again in a case which doesn't involved unsupported concrete placing | pipelines placing t What can happen when someone takes steps which he thinks meet the requirements of one these vague standards was illustrated in a casa decided by the Commission last August No contractor contractor or require any laborer subcontractor mechanic shall to work in surroundings or under any working conditions which are unsanitary hazardous or dangerous to his health or safety These are laudable sentiments but nowhere does the standard hint at what these unsanitary hazardous or dangerous conditions might be Apparently that has been left to the employer to guess and for OSHA to decree with hindsight if he guesses wrong With this sort of direction the most safety- conscious employer could have no idea what do to meet the requirements Perhaps such a standard can be compiled with by saying Amen and hoping for the best Unfortunately however OSHA has issued at BRUSHES for the insulation trade IMMEDIATE DELIVERY LOW PRICED ADHESIVE BRUSHES WRITE FOR FREE SAMPLE AND QUOTATION MARCUS BRUSH COMPANY 444 West 23rd Place Chicago Illinois 60616 Phone 312-326-2707 22 22 Other means The standard prohibits an employee from working in such proximity to any part of an electric power circuit that he may contact same in the course of his work unless unless the the by employee protected aga nst electric shock shock by energizing the circuit guarding it by or In this case an employee splicad a live electrical by power line a line neither owned nor control.ed his employer and in performing this job he piece protected himself from shock by placing a of plywood on the ground and standing on it while he made the splice The means he chose were successful since he suffered ill effects OSHA charged his employer with a violation because the splice was allegedly made in a manner inconsistent with with the standard's requirements of This charge of course was the result thaotf hindsight OSHA gave no unt in advance plywood was not a means of obtaining effective insulation when splicing wire simp It seems to me that when a standard lists other means as an acceptable criterion of NICA CUTLOCK | meeting its requirements and does not list or limit the other precisely means contemplated that standard provides no guidance for want to know what OSHA employers who tarily to do expects them volun- If we don't get more specific no one will know what will and what won't prevent the existence of the hazard In addition the employer is left at the mercy of the inspector whose interpretation of what constitutes other means is never known in advance and will of course vary from inspector to inspector In this particular case OSHA claimed in effect that the standard means the guarding shall be by using effective insulation or other determined by whatever OSHA methods as the investigation inspector conducts There is no way under the sun that can voluntarily comply with a standard aepmplpileodyeinr this manner Before voluntary compliance can become realized OSHA will have to heed fully the words of Benjamin Cardozo the famed jurist who stated in a decision issued over 50 years ago A prohibition so indefinite as to be unintelligible is not a prohibition by which conduct can be governed It is not a rule at all it is exhortation and merely entreaty person on earth who can be compliance with the certain he is at any particular requirements of this st point of time If you have some knowledge of profes wbhaiscehball football hockey or basketball- must comply with this be sure that all standard full complianceemHpolwoyaebeosutplayers are alw other officials umpires referee high Once you are satisfied with consider circus performers yotuhre answer p trapeze artist or the lion tamer Almost anything goes Let me turn now to one of OSHA's favorite standards must be a favorite for it turns so many of our cases This particular standaurpd iisn so nebulous that almost umbra I apologize for askainnygthyionug tios croevaderi ednbyfuiltls but one has to see its full text to appreciate its all- encompassing richness Protective protective equeiqpumiepnmtenfotr including personal eyes face head and extremities protective If you employee are a who farmer works or lifeguard doors \ or othe what needed from other hazards of such as rain wind snow ice air poelnlvuitrioonnment The answers to these questions are difficult but bear in mind that an employer who comes up with wrong answers is penalties subject to monetary . clothing devices and protective shields andrespiratory shall be parriers provided used and maintained in a sanitary and reliable concition wherever it is onrecessary by reason of hazards of processes environment chemical hazards radio- logical hazards or mechanical irritants countered in a en- manner capable of injury or impairment in the causing function part of the of any body through absorption inha- lation or physical contact possibly What do you think it tells us to do I have no idea I don't think OSHA tell you either before could an inspection citation complaint hearing and hearing brief Some people may read it and conclude it requires that hard hats be worn by construction workers But can you be sure it doesn't also require sometning else I submit that there isn't a 24 Commission This particular standard applied in one nas already been case which has been decided by the Review An OSHA inspector looked at a loading operation at one employer's terminal He then made an ad hoc and I think purely subjective determination that there was a hazard of environment boxes of freight that might be dropped and wheels of various kinds of material- handling equipment that could roll over someone's toes for which extremities feet required protective equipment He said that meant safety shoes but although there are many different kinds of safety shoes ne didn't get more specific Thus although freight and wheels feet feet and safety shoes are nowhere mentioned in the standard OSHA charged that the employer violated its requirements because the employees did not have their feet covered by safety shoes oN, ae ae Due process is your due Now you've all heard about the due process clause of the Constitution It requires that a potential offender have fair warning that the conduct he engages in is a violation of law To me the substance of this regulation simply does not afford any advance notice of the conduct which it either requires or prohibits To permit enforcement of so vague a standard is to subject the employer to the unbridled discretion of OSHA inspectors in the determination of what constitutes compliance How can an employer voluntanly comply with standards that he could not possibly understand until after he has been cited for a particular determined infraction And what must he do to satisfy the interpretations of the next inspector There are many kinds of protective equipment for one's feet For example stockings may guard against infections such as athlete's foot and sandals will protect you against picking up cuts on the bottom of the foot but neither will help your toes if they come in contact with a dropped brick or an immovable object One inspector could say that neither stockings nor sandals constitute protective equipment for extremities but that only leather shoes with iron tces meet the requirements of this occupational safety and health standard The next could specify that only shoes with certain nonskid soles would suffice Another could hold that only shoes . bought from a named manufacturer or retailer qualify I think you can see the danger in this type of yardstick The inspector tells you what the hazard of the environment then he tells you what protective equipment your employees should have been wearing when he made his inspection Before anyone says that it is up to the Review Commission and its judges to interpret whether any particular charge constitutes a violation of this standard let me quote from the Supreme .GLASS CLOTH - tpepthay BY tet 26 Court's 1966 decision in the case of Giaccio 4 Pennsylvania Giaccio ts meet It is established that a law fails to toe the requirement of the Due Process Clause if eons it eos so vague and standardless that it leaves ee the public uncertain as to the conduct it pro- hibits or leaves judges and jurors free Me each standard decide without any legally fixed what is prohibited and what is not in particular case the One of the principal evils of vague regulations that they leave the definition and therefore | creation of crimes to the unbridled discretion : : cops on the beat or local inspectors or trial count judges : Police state tactics I submit that this is one reason why OSHA has | been criticized for police state tactics ; The generally accepted definition of the term ; police state is a place where the police decice i what the law and the law may vary from policeman to policeman and from victim to victim * We have always prided ourselves on having a government of laws not men This means the laws must be exact enough so that individual police officers cannot improvise upon them amplify them or apply them differently Until all occupational safety and health standards are thus employers are likely to be at the mercy of the inspectors and cries of police state will no doubt continue But let's not forget the employer's plight for the moment The purpose of this law is to protect employees This will be accomplished by providing safe and conwd orki ingt coni ditio onsn fs or Unfortunately however such a state of affairs cannot be achieved until employers are regulated by job safety standards which set forth meaningful and clearly discernible requirements by which they can guide their conquct and the full scope of these requirements must be obvious to every prudent employer upon a reading of the standard of Presenting employers with a quicksilver standards such as those described here cannot Indeed such such such improvements in standards may may serve serve serve to delay job safety and health conditions conditions as puzzled employers either await clarificat on what is expected of them or think they are stancaros presently doing all that such standards So long as job safety and health stancaros make remain shrouded in ambiguity the gains we be in safety and health conditions on the job will . equally ambiguous NICA OUTLOOK OUTLOOK