Document ZJbZwb4YoL221dy059N4kDqx8
S
Dear to; -Bi
I am familiar with the July 1941 issue of THE ASBESTOS WORKER
' thTrfrriyng^TOVTnwmc. and I am glad to give ^ou details about the
situation which ha3 resulted in the resolutions to which you call
my attention.
. -Av ."*
As you know, glass wool manufactured by Owens-Corning
Tiberglas Corporation has made considerable^progress as an industria!
insulation material within the last few years7 There is reason ::
to believe that as Fiberglas has been winning an ijioreasingly
large share of this market in oompetitioii principally with ,
" "' - '' ^7777.:^i-v'-7":-v7'- 85 per cent magnesia, rock wool, and asbestos^products, vested
-
.
?.. ;v,:t - .*? * -
- ;
^
interests that have had a virtual monopoly in this market for
some fifty years have stimulated the l&sbestos Workers Union to -
discriminate against glass wool by demanding prohibitive^wage
7."
7 '7v7^,'v ^ v.': 7'"' ` 7.. "%*
rates in certain areas. This position is supported by
nebulous assertions on the part of the Asbestos Workers that
handling glass wool endangers their health. Stories about
-
union members who have been hospitalized as a consequence of
handling glass wool are difficult to trace, belong in the,reaim!
of hearsay
duA \PjSmjlJu. 1A1t/n.iftily
und oeuaaotad-.-
I enolose a brochure entitled "Health Aspects of Fiberglas
Materials" which reproduces on the inside of the front cover a
.... \
*
letter dated June 17, 1941, from a Claims Referee of the
Industrial Commission of Ohio verifying the fact that no vlaim
for workers* compensation based on an occupational disease
attributable to Fiberglas has ever been validated. This is
01 501 1087
significant because thousands of Fiberglas production workers
in Newark, Ohio, have been exposed to it over a period of years.
The rest of the booklet provides other documentary evidence that
gives Fiberglas materials a clean bill of health. Significant
especially are the recapitulation and conclusions of an exhaustive
report dated June 28, 1941, made by Dr, Walter J. Siebert,
St, Louis pathologist, for St, Louis Local No, 1 of the Asbestos
Workers Union, in which Dr. Siebert says: "The conclusion that
the manufacture, fabrication, and application of Fiberglas products
is accompanied or attended by no unusual occupational hazard is
justified by the evidence," Dr, Siebert is director of
laboratories 1 n IrtFrFs \iiliTmiijIhirt five hospitals in the St. Louis
area and is assistant professor of pathology on the faculty of the
School of Medicine of Washington University,
.
r--
iw-JL* ** '****&*- ^ c^u
Although members of the St. Twrt Loul^Loca^ now are applying
Fiberglas without discrimination, largely as a result of the
Siebert reportywfcioh completely. oatlofleCL,'"theia that glass -wool
ifn tri linndTn, tilln nhtnatlnn In
in others
re/Under
fi-u.
the Union, efboaei
tasks ftfpirsriri.y
I
fragegeing* oommento to-^oquaint' you <h-tfae'
* 1 *
I rm
yVaywafl < nil
* t-V.
i
Naturally we
are doing our utmost to combat this situation, which presents a kind nktsII/of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sbk proposition.
and we are making ar headway although we refuse te have any
traffic with
union XKf^BBCBttelctxxx leadership w4eh is
disposed to handle questions of this sort in a racketeering sort
of way.
01 SOI 1038
W:
/
- i
Net of the Whole thing Is that our
be* tan pipe
covering, metal mesh blankets, and other industrial insulations
stand on their own merit as superior materials that are no
more hazardous and no more uncomfortable to handle than other
.materials that have been on the market for many years. It is
.O'- .*</
because they are making headway in the market that our competition
has become alarmed, and although these relationships are hard to
trace and difficult to *-tf*r6v'*e,,/vf,`tth'e *growth of our sales and the
suddenly developed hostilitVLof the single organized labor
group that applies insulating materials strikes us as being -
much more than a coincidence. to oxplulu WflnaW gl
[ You may be sure that we have gone carefully into the subject of occupational disease and that many years ago during
the research and development stagesjwe took steps to reassure owes
ourselves about the health aspects of Fiberglas materials
my part,^I^houid~ tha^Jjjtroduced to uncontrollable or'^menacing healtiThazards. j It was only after careful medical and scientific investigations by outstanding authorities gave our materials a clean bill of health that we brought them into production on a commercial scale.
I do not anticipate that you will encounter a situation
of this nature in aomegef your operations because you are dealing with glass textile fibers that are much finer in
diameter,4dur and therefore considerably less brash, than the
glass Ins wool fibers of which industrial insulations are made. 1
In our own plants it is our experience that ifour workert follow
01 tOl iOofl
the suggestions for normal body hygiene as set forth in the
Fiberglas Standards F 4.2.1, copy of which is enclosed, there
&is no difficulty. Indeed, we are
proud of the fact that
our employees, working in almost oonstant contact with Fiberglas
and in rooms where partioles of it might be in the air, have
compiled an outstanding.health reoord covering millions of
man hours. (^1 hope tSShttk these facts answer adequately the question
that you have put to me,
.f you need
additional information, we shall be happy to supply it.
Sincerely,
\
UfJI HUM*'
HIIUUP.W'J-II- !l IIJTll.
01 501 1090