Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565044
label
[Industrial Safety] - Management Review of Division of Industrial Safety, January 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565044
contentType
document
title
[Industrial Safety] - Management Review of Division of Industrial Safety, January 1972
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565044
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
423494ff30a9fa15
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Industrial Safety] - Management Review of
Division of Industrial Safety, January 1972
Box: P37
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
PRESS
MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
JANUARY 1972
Audits Division
Department of Finance
We express:
Our appreciation to the employees of the Division
of Industrial Safety for their courteous attitudes,
their frank and open discussion with our auditors
and their willingness to participate on their own
time and at their own homes.
Our thanks to Director Hern for the information,
reports and cooperation he furnished us.
Audits RyAndaling Division
R. T. SODERBERG, Chief
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
i
Introduction
1
Administration
9
Construction
12
Electrical
24
Elevators
29
Industrial
33
Pressure Vessels
43
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coverage
Professional employees below the level of Chief were interviewed as follows:
Section
Potential
Interviewed
Percent
Administration
18
17
94%
Construction
48
46
96%
Electrical
10
10
100%
Elevators
20
15
75%
Industrial
67
58
87%
Pressure Vessels
51
47
92%
Total
214
193
90%
FACTS REGARDING STUDY METHODOLOGY
All data collection was done through employee interviews. No records, except
the Governor's Budget, were reviewed. Solid data, supported by specific ex-
amples were hard to come by and in most instances lacking. Thus, this can
be considered an opinion survey rather than a systematic program review.
Nevertheless, the size of the sample interviewed, the frequency of many
responses and the convictions evidenced by the employees lead us to believe
the study conclusions are sound.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The Role of the Division is Not Well Defined
There is a conflict between educational and enforcement
activities.
Employees feel management stresses education.
Management feels employees stress enforcement.
-i-
Communications With Employees Needs Improvements
Many employees feel a lack of policy direction from
top management.
Safety codes are not current.
Application of safety requirements are not uniform.
No feedback on permitted deviations from safety requirements.
Supervisory personnel spend little or no time in field.
Training for field personnel to update and refresh their skills
is totally inadequate.
Management Support of Field Personnel Needs Strengthening
In the Construction Section, 43% of employees interviewed
(20 out of 46) rated management support as unsatisfactory.
In other sections, there appeared to be reasonable manage-
ment support; however, there were some indications that
management support could be improved.
There was a general feeling that field personnel do not
always report all unsafe conditions due to anticipated
lack of management support.
Few recommendations to prosecute are upheld.
Many field personnel feel that management's approach is
"don't rock the boat".
Field reports no longer provide for a prosecution
recommendation.
There Were Some Indications Of Favoritism
Most employees felt that various segments of industry
received some special treatment.
At times, deviations from safety requirements may be
granted to influential persons or organizations.
Many employees indicated that failure to prosecute was
unwarranted favorable treatment.
There Were Some Indications That Travel Funds Were Inadequate
Employees indicated travel funds were adequate, except
in the Construction and Electrical Sections.
Lack of travel funds restricts needed reinspections,
especially when jobs are dispersed over large geographical
areas.
All jobs that should be inspected cannot be inspected due
to inadequate travel funds.
Additional Staffing Appears Needed
Most employees expressed a need for additional staffing.
Many employees felt staffing for enforcement was inadequate.
Paperwork ties up professionals, need more clerks.
There are inspection backlogs.
Workload is increasing.
Geographical areas too large to be adequately covered with
present staff.
EMPLOYEE MORALE
Based upon the testimony at the select committee hearings, we anticipated
that employee morale might be low in this Division. However, we were
X
surprised with the extent that employees were particularly dissatisfied.
In the Construction Section particularly, morale was as low as we have seen
in any examination of State departments. Safety employees, in the main,
were dedicated to their jobs, as they see them. However, the apparent
ambivalence about the Division's role, the lack of communications, the
apparent lack of management support for enforcement activities had all
taken their toll.
In other sections, such as Pressure Vessels and Elevators, morale was con-
siderably higher. This is possibly due to the fixed workload and the better
defined programs of these sections.
-iii-
The morale in the Industrial Section was below average. We believe the
most significant contributing factor is there were insufficient employees
to cover the industrial concerns on a reasonable cycle.
The noted low morale in Construction and in some of the other sections
may have been one cause of the large number of adverse comments received
about Division management.
Insufficient Equipment is Provided to Field Employees
Outdated and worn out testing equipment should be replaced.
At times, must borrow equipment from organizations being
inspected.
Need new, modern, specialized testing equipment.
Two State automobiles were discarded as in poor condition.
Many times it is necessary for employees to use their own or
borrowed tools.
-iv-
INTRODUCTION
The Assembly Select Committee on Industrial Safety, Assemblyman Jack R.
Fenton, Chairman, recently held a series of hearings concerning the
activities of the Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial
Relations. During the course of these hearings, numerous Division em-
ployees testified about conditions in the Division which they felt were
seriously detrimental to the achievement of Division objectives.
Major complaints made before the commission by these employees included
the following:
Division management frequently fails to "back up" its field
safety inspectors in disputes with employers over the enforce-
ment of safety regulations.
Specifically, on frequent occasions management countermands
the attempts of its field inspectors to close down certain
unsafe operations or equipment.
Management shows favoritism toward employers, particularly
larger employers.
There are an insufficient number of prosecutions recommended
by the Division, and inspector's requests for prosectuion could
be and were usually overruled at any management level.
Both staffing levels and travel funds are inadequate to do
the job.
-1-
During the course of the committee hearings, the appointed Chief of the
Division of Industrial Safety tendered his resignation, which was not
accepted pending investigation. Governor Reagan directed the Director of
Industrial Relations to conduct a study of the Division. Also, On
January 21, 1972, in order to obtain the viewpoints and perspectives of
a group from without the Department, the Audits Division, Department of
Finance, was directed to investigate the problem independently. This is
the report of that investigation.
Study Scope and Methodology
The study was a fact finding investigation as to the experiences, opinions
and attitudes of the professional employees and supervisors of the Division
of Industrial Safety. In the interest of assuring that all voices were
heard, an attempt was made to contact all professional employees of the
Division below the level of Chief, and to interview these employees at
their homes. In addition, a few clerical. employees were interviewed when
such contacts were recommended by professional employees.
A listing of current Division employees names, home addresses and telephone
numbers was obtained from the Department Director. Commencing at 6 p.m.,
Friday, January 21, attempts were made to reach all employees, at their
homes, by telephone. These calls continued through Sunday night, until
almost all Division professional employees were reached.
-2-
The following statement was made to the employees contacted:
Exhibit I
Telephone Contact Speech
The Director of Finance has asked us to contact all professional
employees of the Division of Industrial Safety. Our objective
is to learn about the operation of the industrial safety program.
We are particularly concerned with how well the recommendations
of the safety engineers are supported by Division management. We
are also concerned about the adequacy of resources assigned to the
safety program.
You are no doubt aware of the legislative hearings that have been
held on the subject. The administration is not trying to whitewash
the problems raised in those hearings. Instead, the Governor wants
us to gather additional facts, both good and bad, about the safety
program's administration. We have to find out by Monday night.
We would like to interview you this weekend about your own expe-
riences. We would like examples of how your safety recommendations
have or have not been supported. We also want your general feelings
about the adequacy of the program. If you feel it is inadequate, we
want your recommendations as to how it could be improved.
The Director of your department is aware of the study and knows that
we are telephoning you. When and where can our representative see
you?
Most employees readily agreed to be interviewed at their homes, and appoint-
ments were made for Friday evening, Saturday or Sunday. A few insisted that
the interviews be conducted on State time, these were interviewed at their
work stations on Monday, January 24. Still fewer refused to be interviewed;
no pressure was used to try to change their minds. As could be expected, a
certain number of employees were unavailable. Exhibit 2, on the following
page, summarizes the interviewing efforts.
-3-
Exhibit 2
Division of Industrial Safety
Employee Interview Coverage
Potential Number
Number of
% of Potential
Units
of Interviews
Interviews Conducted
Interviewed
Administration
18
17
94%
Construction
48
46
96
Electrical
10
10
100
Elevators
20
15
75
Industrial
67
58
87
Pressure Vessels
51
47
92
Total
214
193
90%
Interviewers were not directed to follow a specific (patterned) format.
Instead, they were given a list of questions to be answered during the
interview, but were instructed also to explore any other areas brought up
by the interviewee, which were pertinent to the issues at hand. The specific
questions, reproduced below as Exhibit 3, were designed with care to be
unbiased and open ended, with the objectives of freeing results from dis-
tortion and maximizing further responses from the Division employees being
interviewed.
Exhibit 3
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Auditor: Enter required information in space provided. Give detailed explanation
on open ended questions. Check appropriate box where additional sheets
are used. In addition, describe on reverse the general attitude of
employee.
Interview time
Date
Approximate Duration
1. Name
2. Position
3. Office Location
4. Territory
5. How long have you been in: a. Safety work?
b. Your present job
6. Describe your present job.
7. In 1971, about how many:
a. Inspections did you make?
b. Violations did you find?
C. Violations corrected by contractor?
d. Disputed violations upheld by management?
e. Disputed violations reversed by management?
8. In general how do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations
receive from your management?
Additional Sheet
9. Can you give us some examples where your recommendations were not supported when
you feel they should have been? (Get approximate dates, job and firms involved,
description of incident, safety engineer's recommendations, management action
and by whom.)
Additional Sheet
10. What percent of the time would you say your recommendations were not followed when
they should have been?
Additional Sheet
11. In your opinion, did any of the incidents described result in the injury or death
of employees? (Elaborate)
Additional Sheet
12. Do you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable treatment
from the department? Please give examples.
Additional Sheet
13. How adequate are the travel funds at your disposal?
Additional Sheet
-5-
14. How adequate is the equipment at your disposal?
Additional Sheet
15. How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the industrial
safety program? Why?
Additional Sheet
16. In your opinion how well managed is the program? Why?
Additional Sheet
Auditor's Name
When all of the interviews were completed, the interview reports were reviewed
carefully by Audits Division supervisory personnel, and the field interviewers
were questioned to be sure that all important information was captured.
The results of the interviews are summarized in the balance of this report,
by Section. Our overall findings and conclusions are given in the Executive
Summary which precedes this report section.
FACTS ABOUT THE DIVISION
The Division of Industrial Safety is in the State Department of Industrial
Relations. It operates under the authority of Labor Code, Division 1,
Chapter 6, Section 142, and Division 5, Part 1 through 7, which direct it to
administer and enforce safety standards, investigate accidents, participate in
educational activities and formulate statewide safety standards.
The overall program of the Division, then, provides for field safety surveys
of places of employment to bring correction of unsafe conditions through
code enforcement, to improve safety performance through education and con-
sulation, to investigate accidents and complaints; and to develop, maintain
-6-
and publish codes of safety standards and assist this endeavor. This
overall activity is accomplished through eight program elements, staffed
and funded as indicated in Exhibit 4, below:
Exhibit 4
Program Elements - Division of Industrial Safety
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
70-71
71-72
72-73
1970-71
1971-72
1372-73
Continuing program costs
281.9
277.2
276.8
$4,934,440
$4,968,098
$5,003,773
Workload adjustments
-
23
-
383,063
I
-
Totals, The Prevention of Industrial
Injuries and Deaths to California
Workers
281.9
300.2
276.8
$4,934,440
$5,356,161
$5,003,773
General Fund
4,893,150
4,922,098
4,957,773
Federal funds
-
388,063
-
Reimbursement
41,290
46,000
46,000
Program Elements:
A. Safety for employees in construc-
tion
58.1
63.1
60.1
$1,051,459
$1,119,543
$1,077,221
B. Safety for employees exposed to
electrical hazards
14.4
13.3
13.3
268,314
234,260
238,386
C. Safety for employees while using
or repairing elevators, escalators
or aerial tramways
30.8
30.3
30.1
518,492
553,387
571,276
D. Safety of employees from radia-
tion, dusts, fumes, vapors, gases.
etc.
12.2
10.4
10.4
224,919
187,890
186,407
E. Safety for employees in industrial
plants and operations including
mineral industries
83.7
87
80
1,456,830
1,526,602
1,433,904
F. Developing and coordinating Cali-
fornia OSHA projects. cataloging
California Health and Safety
Codes. and comparing state and
federal health and safety laws
13
233,484
1
-
-
-
G. Safety for employees from pressure
vessel failure or malfunction
78.5
79.7
79.5
1,346,595
1,423,406
1,435,636
H. Education and engineering research
activities for industrial safety
4.2
3.4
3.4
67,831
77,499
60,943
The Division of Industrial Safety is organized into seven operating sections
and functions out of its San Francisco headquarters and 21 field locations.
Overall management comprises a Chief, (appointed) Assistant Chiefs,
Northern and Southern (civil service) and an Assistant to the Chief (appointed).
Each of the program elements, except Environmental Safety, is headed by a
Supervising Safety Engineer (civil service) and each of the five major
inspection programs (pressure vessels, industrial, elevator, electrical,
and construction) have their own field organizations supervised by Senior
Safety Engineers. There are no area supervisors in the field offices to
coordinate division activities in the geographic regions. Field engineers
report through their own chain of command, by section, to San Francisco
headquarters.
-7-
Exhibit 5, below, is the overall Division organization chart. Charts for
each section, as appropriate, are included in the appropriate report
section.
Exhibit 5
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY BOARD
HAS JURISDICTION OVER ADOPTION
CHIEF
OF SAFETY RECULATIONS, INCLUDING
THE HOLDING or PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ASST. CHIEF
ASST. CHIEF
ASST. TO
THE
NORTHERN
SOUTHERN
CHIEF
ADMIN ASSISTANT 11
STATEWIDE
ADMIN SUPERVISION
OFFICE FACILITIES
SUPERVISING CLERKS
L.A. & S.F.
CLERICAL SERVICES
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
PRESSURE VESSEL
INDUSTRIAL
CLEVATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
ELECTRICAL
CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH AND
SECTION
SECTION
SECTION
ENGINEERING UNIT
SECTION
SECTION
EDUCATION
O
SECTION
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
SENIOR
SENIOR
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
SUPERVISING
o
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
H ENGINEER
H ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SAFETY ENGINEER
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
SENIOR SAFETY
o
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
INFO OFFICER I
O
o
2-SAN FRANCISCO
I-SAN FRANCISCO
1-SLN FRANCISCO
12
ASSOC. HP
ASSOC. HP
1-SAN FRANCISCO
1-3AY FRANCISCO
1-0AKLAND
1-OAKLAND
1-L05 ANGELES
ASSOC. IH ENG 2 IH. ENG ASSOC
1-SACRAMENTO
o
o
1-BAKERSFIELD
1-FRESNO
1H ENG ASSCC
O-LOS ANGELES
2-LOS ANGELES
2-L05 ANGELES
1-3AN JOSE
1-SAV DIEGO
0
o
1-SANTA ANA
2-LOS ANGELES
1-C-9KLAND
1-5ANTA ANA
o
TECHNICAL STAFF SERVICE
EDUCATIONAL STAFF SERVICE
NOTE: THIS CHART COVERS ONLY SUPERVISORY LEVELS OF THE LINE ORGANIZATION. BEE
INDIVIDUAL OSGANIZATION CHARTS FOR.SAFETY ENGINEER ASSIGNMENTS WITHIN. EACH SECTION.
DECEMBER 1971
-8-
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
Unit Organization
The Administrative Unit of the Division of Industrial Safety is comprised
of top management (Chief, Assistant to The Chief, 2 Assistant Chiefs,
Administrative Assistant), as well as the Research and Education group and
the Environmental Engineering group, for a total of 16 positions. Eleven
of these positions are located in the San Francisco office and 5 in the
Los Angeles office.
Study Coverage
The Division Chief was not interviewed, but all other 15 employees were.
Workload Data
Within this group, many of the employees are supervisory and do not regularly
make inspections. For those employees regularly making inspections, work-
load statistics gathered during the interviews were not felt to be valid.
Employees were interviewed on the weekend and hence, no accurate statistics
were available. Several employees would not venture guesses and others made
only gross approximations.
Management Support
As would be expected, this group, which was primarily a management group,
generally is supportive of present management practices, with some exceptions.
When questioned about the level of support their recommendations receive
from top management, the following responses were elicited:
Excellent
10
Satisfactory
3
Unsatisfactory
0
-9-
Favorable Treatment of Employers
On the question of employers receiving unwarranted favorable treatment
from the Department, only two felt that this was the case, and neither
could (or would) give specific examples.
Travel Funds
This group almost unanimously agreed that travel funds are adequate. One
employee felt more funds were needed (to attend professional conferences).
Equipment
The group was split on the question of equipment; adequate, 5; inadequate, 8.
Generally speaking, Environmental Engineering group employees felt the
greatest need for additional modern, specialized testing equipment.
Staffing Levels
Eight employees felt strong needs for additional staff, while only four
felt staffing was adequate.
Overall Management
With respect to overall program management, 4 felt it was excellent, 4 called
it adequate and 3 found it unsatisfactory. Four employees did not respond.
Interesting comments were made by several employees. The Information and
Education Offices believes the Division is divided into two factions, with
Division administrators generally being pro-management and the safety engineers
being pro-labor. This, he states is resulting in in-fighting which seriously
affects Division effectiveness, even though each group thinks it is doing
what is best. This individual also stated that several safety engineers were
incompetent and would have been fired long ago were it not for powerful labor
protection.
-10-
Another high level employee, who asked to remain anonymous, felt overall
Division management was quite poor. In his opinion, lines of authority
were unclear, discipline lacking and no leadership existed. He commented
that the Chief just wants to be a "good guy". It should be noted, however,
that several other employees felt management was excellent.
-11-
CONSTRUCTION SECTION
Staffing and Organization
The needs, objectives, workload measures and inputs of this program element are
shown in Exhibit 6 below.
Exhibit 6
A. Safety for Employees in Construction
Need
In 1969 the construction industry had an injury rate of 74.4 injuries per
thousand workers, more than twice the overall rate for all industries of
31.6. The 1969 construction disabling injury total was 22,308 of which
134 were fatal. In 1968 there was an injury total of 21,072, a rate of
72.5 injuries per thousand workers, and a fatality total of 116.
Objectives
To prevent employee injuries at construction projects.
Output
Actual
Estimated
Estimated
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
Unsafe conditions corrected
33,708
33,400
36,700
Accidents investigated
607
600
660
Special calls
6,210
6,150
6,760
Complaints and requests investigated
2,089
2,070
2,280
Safety speeches
103
102
112
General Description
This element involves conducting of field surveys by division engineers specializing
in construction safety, for the purpose of bringing about corrections of unsafe
practices; the investigation of accidents and establishment of preventive programs;
the investigation of complaints and requests; the delivery of safety talks and
educational materials; the preparation of proposed construction safety standards
for possible board adoption as administrative law.
Input
Actual
Estimated
Estimated
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
Expenditures
$1,009,785
$1,033,509
$1,069,512
Personnel man-years
60.7
60.1
60.1
Source: Governor's Budget 1971-72, pg. 284.
-12-
An organization chart follows (Exhibit 7). Note the geographic distances
between the supervisor and the engineers in some areas.
-13-
EXHIBIT 7
Construction Section
State of California
Organizational Chart
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Industrial Safety
CONSTRUCTION
SUPERVISOR
Former
-14-
Russell
Champion
Boettcher
Crabtree
Jepson
Wharff
S.F.
OAK.
SACTO.
LA
LA
S.D.
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
SSE
(3)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(6)
(9)
(2)
STA. ROSA (1)
SAN JOSE (2)
SF
OAK.
FRESNO
MODESTO (1)
SACTO.
CHICO
EUREKA
VENTURA (1)
STA. BARB. (1)
BAKERSFIELD (1)
LA
LA
S.D.
STA. ANA (4)
S. B'DNO (2)
Scope
In this review, we contacted 46 professional employees headquartered in
16 localities. Thirty nine were safety engineers and seven were in
supervisory capacities.
Number of Inspections and Violations Reported
We asked how many inspections were made and how many violations were
reported. These statistics vary widely. Frequently employees indicated
they were relatively meaningless because there is no standard method of
counting violations.
When we asked whether disputed violations were reversed by management, we
received strong indications that many violations are not reported, because
the engineers have little faith that management will support them. There
were frequent comments that Division management does not want controversial
items reported, so consequently the engineers do not report them. Instead,
the man in the field frequently handles the violations themselves, or lets
them go uncorrected.
In part, this may be due to difference in philosophy between management
and field engineers. Much of management seems to believe that the best
job can be done by educating contractors in safe practices, while most field
engineers want strict enforcement, including prosecution of habitual offenders
or serious offenses.
Therefore, while few disputed violations were reported as reversed by manage-
ment, an apparent cause is that engineers have learned not to report items
they feel will be reversed.
-15-
Pertinent comments re reversals included the following:
"Management is not always wrong in reversing the field
engineers".
"Management reports are carefully prepared so as to leave no
options to management but to back me up."
"I go out of my way to keep my administration from getting
involved in my field work because of past sad experiences."
Level of Support for Recommendations
We asked each interviewee: "In general how do you feel about the level of
support that your recommendations receive from management?"
Responses were as follows:
Excellent
11
24%
Satisfactory
15
33%
Unsatisfactory 20
43%
The percentage of employees who felt support was unsatisfactory is, in our
opinion, indicative of major problems. In addition, many employees reiterated
that support was satisfactory only because the employees only recommended
what they believed management would support.
Pertinent comments included the following:
"Backing is inadequate. I feel responsible for enforcing
laws, yet management is passive toward backing the engineer.
My power to enforce is inadequate. 11
-16-
One Senior said that only one-third of the prosecutions
recommended by inspectors included sufficient cause for
action under existing Division policy.
Change in policy and administration were reported as resulting
in decreased enforcement powers.
Recommendations are frequently overruled without the recom-
mender's knowledge and without his being consulted.
Examples of Non-support of Recommendations
Eighteen of forty-four employees interviewed gave us examples of non-
support with varying amounts of detail.
One engineer noted that the form used to report violations formerly con-
tained a space for the engineer's recommendation to prosecute or not.
About two years ago the space was dropped.
Some employees indicated that support was received only when it was a very
serious situation.
Other pertinent comments included the following:
"Construction section engineers avoid controversial situations
by selecting the jobs and times to inspect so that violations
are not likely to be present. There would be more violations
reversed by management if inspectors reported everything."
Inspectors do not report everything because Division does not
like to prosecute.
-17-
Recommendations Not Followed When They Should Have Been
We asked about "the percent of time you would say your recommendations were
not followed when they should have been". Percentages reported varied
from 0% to 50% with 24 reporting 0% to 1%. However, many employees
reporting 0 percent also stated that they did not report what they knew
management would not support. Before they adopted this posture, rejections
were reported as having been high.
Injuries or Deaths
Ten employees cited examples of incidences of non-support of their recom-
mendations which in their opinion resulted in subsequent injury or death.
Preferential Treatment
Eighteen engineers, or 46% of the non-supervisors, felt that some employers
receive unwarranted preferential treatment, especially large, influential
companies.
Many engineers indicated that contractors do not comply as they should
because they know the Division will not prosecute. Some are habitual of-
fenders. One engineer categorized the Division as a "paper tiger".
Many felt that employers were getting unwarranted favorable treatment because
the power to prosecute is seldom used. In addition, employees complain that
the policy is not to red tag, but to be gentle.
Adequacy of Travel Funds
There is a wide variation in opinions as to whether travel expenses are
adequate:
Adequate
27
59%
Inadequate
19
41%
-18-
Many more indicated they have had inadequate allowances in the past.
However, most supervisors feel travel allowances are adequate.
The method generally used is to allot to each engineer an amount that he
may use for travel in a given month. These amounts generally are assigned
by the supervisor and vary from $125 to $200 including about $84 used
to finance auto mileage. There were indications that:
Engineers make repeat inspections around headquarters
because they do not have funds to go further into the field.
Many inspections are delayed longer than advisable because
of lack of funds.
Engineers can't make all the trips they should.
Orders are not to stay overnight at Plant X. May lose 4 hours
of work, driving 180-200 miles in one day.
Adequacy of Equipment
When asked about adequacy of equipment, 26 answered that it was adequate
while 18 felt it was inadequate. Some comments on inadequacy were:
No standard tools furnished. Bought own.
Absolute minimum in quality - in less than first class
condition.
Several felt air conditioned cars were needed particularly
in hot areas.
Lack of testing equipment. Several mentioned lack of gas
meters and noise level meters.
-19-
Staffing Levels
When asked: "How adequate are staffing levels in the Construction Sections",
the following responses were received:
Adequate
19, including 2 supervisors
Inadequate
26
Answers seem to differ among the field men depending on their understanding
of the Division's mission. Those who believe it is to "educate" felt
staffing was adequate. Those who felt their primary job was "enforcement"
felt staffing was inadequate.
One comment repeated several times was that the section was overstaffed
with Senior Engineers, but understaffed in working level engineers. Some
felt that Seniors were "not doing a job"; others felt that the job assigned
to Seniors was not worth doing as many of the duties were clerical in nature.
Some felt that the Seniors experience and talent are being wasted. Others
reported that some Senior Engineers were not well qualified.
Other comments on staffing included:
"Can't have someone on a construction job daily. Lucky to
hit the big ones once a month."
"Staffing would be adequate if we were backed by management.
As we are not, no number of staff could effectively enforce
safety regulations."
"We are low on clerical help."
"Salaries are lower than Federal and private industry".
(One said 30% lower.)
-20-
Opinion of Management
Excellent
6
Adequate
10
Unsatisfactory
30
The high incidence of dissatisfaction with Division management is unique
in our experience and warrants careful attention.
Several of the employees interviewed felt that reorganization of the Division
was necessary to correct the situation. Many felt that supervisors should
be closer geographically to the field employees. Supervisors are fre-
quently in cities far removed from the headquarters of the engineer and
communications between them are poor.
Other comments made several times included:
Employees need more training in new methods and equipment.
Management is poor because they do not prosecute enough.
Management policy de-emphasizes enforcement and emphasizes
training of contractors through education.
Attitude of present management is "Don't Rock the Boat" -
(dont' report controversial violations).
Other comments on inadequacy were:
Division lacks leadership.
Management is excellent, however, enforcement in the construction
section cannot be accomplished within the present administration
framework.
-21-
Division lacks policy statements.
Contractor knows that field men will have difficulty getting
stop orders approved by management.
"I have never been instructed on what to enforce. In 5 years
we have had only 3 staff meetings "
Esprit de corps has dropped.
Disunity between North and South. No statewide leadership.
Not enough legal advice available.
Conclusion
Our interview in the Construction Section disclosed that this Section has
more major problems than any other portion of the Division. Morale is
exceedingly low. Communications, according to all indications, needs
substantial improvement. There is a serious split between what the safety
engineers feel to be the role of the Section (enforcement) and management's
emphasis (education). Inspectors believe that punitive actions against
employers who deviate from safety regulations have sunk to such a low level
that the Division has become "a paper tiger". Consequently, they believe
that habitual offenders ignore safety inspectors warnings and continue unsafe
practices because no actions will be taken against them.
Field inspectors also believe that favoritism is shown for major employers
and persons with political influence. This, of course, could not be verified.
-22-
Staffing levels may be too low. Certainly, small jobs far from headquarters
are infrequently inspected. However, this determination again depends upon
one's interpretation of the Division's role and about management determina-
tions as to the required frequency of inspection.
-23-
ELECTRICAL SECTION
Program Data
Safety engineers in this section conduct field surveys to identify and correct
unsafe conditions and practices; investigate accidents, complaints and requests;
and establish preventative programs. This section also proposes electrical
safety standards for possible board adoption.
Budget and Staffing
The 1972-73 expenditures are estimated at $238,386. Professional staffing com-
prises 8 Safety Engineers and 2 Supervising Safety Engineers, distributed as
follows:
Fresno
1
Los Angeles
2
Redding
1
Sacramento
1
San Bernardino
1
San Diego
1
San Francisco
3
Total 10
Both supervisors are located in San Francisco and have statewide responsibility.
Interview Coverage
All ten professional employees of the Electrical Section were interviewed in
person by members of the review team.
Inspections and Violations
The reported number of inspections and related violations varied widely among
the inspectors interviewed for a number of reasons:
Inspectors guessed at the numbers
Some "did not know"
-24-
Different areas being inspected
Probable different criteria for tabulating the number of
inspections.
Consequently, the workload data collected for this survey is of doubtful
accuracy. The information concerning employee experiences, attitudes and
opinions is considered to be valid.
Violations Reversed by Management
Only one major violation on which the Safety Engineer had been reversed by
management during 1971 was reported. Details were not revealed, except that
the violation was by a major company in the Los Angeles area.
Management Support
Field-level management support is generally considered by Electrical Section
employees to be satisfactory to excellent. However, the supervisory personnel them-
selves feel that they receive very little support from top management. Both
supervisors were quite vocal on this subject: they believe top management
"always" puts them on the defensive and "usually" overturns their decisions
in favor of employers, other state agencies (the Building Standards Commission),
and even other sections of their division.
Because of this, one supervisor seeks every opportunity to circumvent or to
not involve top management. When he must, he anticipates reversal of his
recommendations.
-25-
Examples of Non-Support by Management
Only three employees, including the two supervisors, reported incidents in-
volving electrical violations on which the inspectors were not supported by
management. Examples are:
1. Improperly installed air conditioning.
2. An unidentified job in Corona or Covina where, allegedly,
political influence was used to circumvent regulations.
3. State operations which Electrical Section employees are not
allowed to inspect.
4. Improper fuses supplied by a major manufacturer.
5. A major business firm not required to meet national standards.
Recommendations Not Followed by Management
Practically all field engineers reported that their recommendations were
accepted. The major exceptions were the two superivison engineers. One of
these reported a low exception rate, since he "did not involve management";
the other reported that he was reversed on 20 percent of all violations that
he found.
Injuries and Deaths
No known deaths or injuries resulted when reported violations were overruled
by management. However, 52 electrical fatalities occurred in 1970 due to
other reasons.
Special Treatment to Employers
The majority of the employees contacted felt the various segments of industry
received some special treatment. Some either had no proof or were unwilling to
cite specifics.
-26-
Examples of entities reported as receiving special treatment included:
Certain farmers
Utility companies
Certain manufacturers or large corporations
Some state operations
Travel Funds
Practically all employees of this section stressed the lack of adequate funds
for travel. They are limited to monthly allotments and mileage restrictions
which they believe are insufficient to allow the travel necessary to do the job.
Equipment
Most employees felt they needed additional equipment, including testing devices,
meters and gauges. At present, employees borrow these from other jurisdictions,
when obtainable.
Staffing
All section employees consider staffing levels to be totally inadequate. They
estimated that 50 men could not cover the State properly. The current staffing
of ten is reported to allow for scheduling on a crisis basis and the investi-
gation of accidents, rather than a program of accident prevention.
Program Management
Section employees report that program management is generally adequate to
excellent. Adverse criticism was confined to the aforementioned complaints of
the supervisors, staffing and travel expense level complaints, and excessive
workload.
-27-
Other Problem Areas
There appears to be a need for standardized electrical regulations and up-
dating of safety orders. Various other Division sections and other state
organizations adopt, apply and interpret regulations in conflict with the
Electrical Section.
Conclusion
Few problems exist at the field level in most district offices. The one
exception is San Francisco where the administrative offices are located.
These employees are most critical of management. However, that may be due to
their close proximity to top administrators.
It is difficult to determine if there are personality conflicts, if the
supervisors themselves are at fault, or if there is a management problem.
In attempting to determine how well the programs are managed, the major
complaint was excess workload for the amount of staff assigned. Complaints
of favoritism, while few, warrant further investigation. This is difficult,
however, without specific examples.
-28-
ELEVATOR SECTION
Organization
Briefly, the organization of the Elevator Section is as follows. There are
a total of 22 authorized positions for the 1971-72 fiscal year.
Supervising
Senior
Safety Engineer
Safety Engineer
Safety Engineer
Northern Region
San Francisco
1
1
11
Sacramento
1
Southern Region
Los Angeles
1
6
San Diego
1
Total Positions
1
2
19
Of the 19 safety engineer positions, two are vacant; one each in both the Northern
and Southern Regions.
Responsibilities
The Supervising Safety Engineer is responsible statewide for the safety
inspection program directed toward annual licensing of about 38,000 elevators,
escalators, ski lifts and tramways. Inspections are also made when requested
by insurance companies. In addition, elevator company plans are reviewed.
Inspections resulting in observations of unsafe conditions are posted with a
red tag (Notice of Unsafe Conditions). If the inspection results in a shut-
down, a yellow tag (Notice of Shut-Down) is posted. Before a yellow tag is
posted, it must be approved by the Supervisor, Assistant Chief, and Chief.
-29-
Management Support
We interviewed the Supervisor, two Seniors, and 13 Safety Engineers. They all
indicated that they received excellent support from higher management levels.
A few cases of recommendations being reversed were reported. They are as
follows:
Universal Plaza Building--public building with home evevator
Universal Studios--illegal dumbwaiter
Bank of America Building--small superficial breaks in elevator cable
Marin County Court House--elevator machine room did not provide
sufficient working space for service and repair workers.
Bank of America Building--insufficient access to service elevator
mechanism.
Hilton Hotel--elevator motor installed halfway under a wall.
Apparently most of these reversals permitted deviations from requirements
because they did not create unsafe conditions and to make changes would be
costly and may cause unsafe conditions. Also, at times there are judgmental
differences between the safety engineer and his superiors.
There was some feeling expressed that deviations from requirements may be
granted to influential persons or organizations.
Travel Funds
All employees in this section indicated that travel funds were adequate.
Equipment
Most employees felt that equipment was adequate. However, some employees indicated
the need for testing devices (scales, voltage meters, tongue gauge, etc.). Two
state automobiles were described as in poor condition.
-30-
Staffing
All of the employees expressed a need for additional staff. Some reasons were
as follows:
Overall backlog of inspections--about 5,000.
Nine months inspection backlog in San Francisco.
Two to three months inspection backlog in Los Angeles.
Six months to a year inspection backlog in San Diego.
In San Francisco, some RR inspections deferred 16 to 18 months.
Increased workload as insurance companies discontinued inspections.
Now use division inspections.
Recruiting problems, private sector and Los Angeles County salaries
greater than state salaries.
Need more capable clerical help.
One employee thought that the 1972-73 budget request included 11 new positions;
however, he believes that they may have been eliminated.
Program Management
Most employees thought that the program was well managed. Some suggestions for
improvement were made as follows:
Increase communication from top management.
Reduce paperwork.
Increase the structure to make inspections self-supporting.
Establish a fee for reviewing elevator plans.
Establish uniform applications of inspection requirements between
Northern and Southern Regions.
Increase revenue by reducing inspection backlogs.
-31-
Attend American National Standards Association Conference and
help establish standards.
Change fee inspection of ski lifts (collected in Northern Region
but not in Southern Region).
Conclusion
Employees indicate excellent support from higher management levels. Their
concern for additional staffing appears to have merit. Backlogs of inspections,
increased workload, and recruiting problems impede program accomplishments.
Suggestions for improved program management are worthy of further considera-
tion, especially those relating to uniform application of inspection require-
ments, which should include permitted deviations, and the development of a fee
structure to make inspections self-supporting.
-32-
INDUSTRIAL SECTION
Introduction
The Industrial Section of the Division of Industrial Safety is responsible for
the safety of employees in industrial plants and operations including mineral
industries. Accident prevention is accomplished through an organized safety
program encompassing numerous activities. Aspects of the program assigned
higher priorities include inspections at plant sites and operations to bring
about corrections to unsafe conditions and practices; investigating and
reporting accidents; answering complaints or requests from employers, labor,
or interested parties to investigate what is believed to be an unsafe
condition or practice; furnishing technical advice and guidance to various
organizations including registered architects, contractors, and city building
inspection departments in order to assure new construction plans and specifications
comply with California Safety Orders; lecturing on safety subjects upon request;
and evaluating or assisting with safety programs sponsored by employers.
The Section is staffed by one supervising safety engineer, eight senior safety
engineers, one of which is a temporary appointment resulting from the Division's
involvement in the OSHA Program (Public Law 91-596, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act), and approximately 60 safety (field) engineers. These safety
engineers are spread out geographically throughout California in 19 cities.
We interviewed about 90 percent of them.
Level of Support for Recommendations
The following query was posed to all field engineers interviewed, "In general
how do you feel about the level of support that your recommendations for
corrective action received from your management?" The general consensus was
-33-
that recommendations were supported by management. Examples of the responses
are, "good, adequate, strong support, excellent, etc." One employee, however,
stated that generally recommendations are now supported, but this has not always
been the case. Another field engineer stated that during the first eight years
of employment, there were only three instances where top management refused to
back him. He also indicated that in each case he managed to get all unsafe
conditions corrected.
As a follow up to the previous question, field engineers were asked to give
examples where their recommendations were not supported when they felt they
should have been. As indicated by the preceding paragraph, almost every
response was negative. One employee said that a request for a special tag .
order was withdrawn because of political pressure from outside the division.
Another stated that a recommendation was reversed without an explanation. It
was reported that an employee lost a limb because a supervisor granted an
employer an extension of time. The incident occurred several years ago.
When we asked employees to give us examples of where and when their recommendations
had not been supported by management, we received 52 answers stating they had no
examples; that management had always supported them or had convinced them that an
alternative recommendation was more feasible.
The examples cited by the six employees who said their recommendations had not
been supported when they should have been included:
Cotton gin sound levels are above legal requirements and employees
had not been required to wear ear protection. The engineer's
supervisor would not support him in requiring compliance.
About 1969, an engineer wrote requirements for a firm to (1) install
safety railings in certain areas and (2) a method of handling combusti-
ble coal dust. A supervisor subsequently went to the employer,
-34-
conducted an inspection and rescinded the engineer's requirements.
The reason was not explained and the engineer was not present during
the inspection by the supervisor.
One engineer stated that in the first eight years of his employment
there were three instances of management not supporting him when
they should have. In two of those cases, he obtained compliance
without support from management. He states now he tries not to seek
support of management, relying only on his own devices.
An office building did not have exit railings. A special tag order
requested was withdrawn. The engineer believes it was because of
pressure put on management.
A country club was cited for 56 violations. The engineer was not
supported. He believes it was because of pressure put on management.
Cases Which Resulted in Injury or Death
Of the 50 field safety engineers interviewed by our staff, we asked each if,
in their opinion, there had been instances where their recommendations had not
been supported by management of their section or division or followed by
employers and as a result there had been an employee injured or killed. We
received 47 "no" answers and three "yes" answers.
In one instance, involving an exposed shaft on a cotton gin, an employer was
under written requirement to correct the matter. Before reinspection and
before correction, an employee's clothing caught in the shaft. The employee
was thrown clear when his clothing tore and he received only bruises and cuts.
In the opinion of the engineer, the employee would have been killed had the
clothing been stronger.
In another instance, about five years ago, an employee was killed by a mower
along a freeway grade south of Red Bluff. The engineer attributes his death
to the failure of the division to require roll-over bars on mowers.
In another instance, again several years ago, an employee lost a limb because
a division supervisor refused to go along with the safety engineer's decision to
issue a "show cause" order. The supervisor gave the employer a time extension
instead.
Within the time constraints our staff worked under, we were not able to analyze
or even verify the positive answers. We note that two of the instances cited
to our staff happened some time ago.
Feelings of Employers Getting Unwarranted Favorable Treatment
Do you have any feelings that employers are getting unwarranted favorable
treatment from the department? In response to this question, we received
these answers:
Yes
5
No
47
No Opinion
6
There is a reluctance to issue show cause letters to employers. Such orders
would cause employers inconvenience and result in increased costs. Violations
are reported and rereported without penalties being inflicted. Certain large
employers seem to be favored. Chances are good that field personnel can be
reversed if appeals are made to headquarters.
Examples of comments made by division employees were:
Cotton gins operate at excessive sound levels but most cotton gin
operators are very hard of hearing.
A crane manufacturer situated in San Francisco did not have to
comply with field findings in Long Beach on two of its cranes.
An unsafe ladder in a mine can be corrected over a four- to six-
month period.
Prosecution of employers is dependent on foot-dragging district
attorney.
Stockton hospital has unsafe smokestack.
Los Coyotes Country Club findings were dropped after pressure from
State Senator.
Adequacy of Travel Funds
The answers to the question, "How adequate are travel funds at your disposal?",
were as follows:
Adequate
45
Inadequate 10
No Opinion
3
Mixed feelings exist on travel funds. Men in isolated locations covering large
areas felt travel funds were insufficient. Employees seem to be satisfied
if their work is within easy commuting distance. Field men tend to believe
supervisors should get out of office more often.
Examples of these mixed feelings were:
Infrequent staff meetings are held due to lack of travel funds.
Advised to limit travel as much as possible in his 12 northern
counties.
-37-
Limited to 1,200 miles in Los Angeles area per month but
adequate.
Cannot cover territory and assigned areas of responsibility.
Travel with Bureau of Mines forces division to provide sufficient
travel funds.
Funds for outlying areas are inadequate.
The word is watch travel expenditures and overnight trips.
Funds are only one-half of what is needed.
Adequacy of Equipment
How adequate is the equipment at your disposal? The answers were:
Adequate
27
Inadequate 27
No Opinion 4
The above tabulation shows that the safety engineers are about evenly divided
in their opinion as to the adequacy of equipment to do their work. However,
this division is misleading as most of the men stating that equipment was
adequate were from the large metropolitan offices. In the smaller, more
isolated offices, the inadequacy of equipment becomes more apparent. In part,
this inadequacy may be in the use and distribution of available equipment
rather than in statewide deficiencies.
Some of the items listed to be in short supply are:
Sound and noise level meters (most frequent)
Projectors and visual aid equipment
Industrial hygiene testing equipment
-38-
Light meters
Velometers
Photographic equipment
Mine gas testors
A few men stated that they had to borrow equipment from employers to make their
tests or have local government make their tests. One man stated that he had
personally invested $2,000 in photographic and projection equipment, a typewriter
and a tape recorder.
The responses show that there is a real need for the Industrial Section to
survey its equipment needs and correlate these needs with available equipment
in the division or in the department.
Adequacy of Staffing
How adequate do you feel staffing levels are in your portion of the industrial
safety program? The responses were:
Adequate
15
Inadequate 42
No opinion 1
The consensus of the safety engineers is that the Industrial Section is
grossly understaffed. The general feeling is that workload has grown immensely
in the last twenty years with no increase in staff. There was also a feeling
that the Construction Section gets a greater proportion of staff. Some of the
comments were as follows:
Too much industry to be covered by the present staff.
Takes ten years to cover territory once.
-39-
Many more inspectors could be used if all the high risk areas
are to be inspected every few years.
Not half enough men in the field.
Staffing needs to be tripled.
Must cover the territory of four men.
Respond mainly to fires--need 100 percent increase.
So shorthanded not able to answer complaints within five days.
Paperwork ties up professionals--need more clerks.
Management of Program
We asked all employees interviewed the questions "In your opinion, how well
managed is the program? Why?" The responses received were as follows:
Very Good or Excellent
10
Satisfactory or Adequate
30
Unsatisfactory or Inadequate
12
No response
6
Total
58
In response to the question "Why?", we received a wide variety of responses.
Quite often, comments made by those interviewed did not appear consistent
with their overall evaluation of the management of the program.
On the positive side, a most frequent answer given had to do with either the
dedication or skill of particular individual managerial personnel and,
frequently, comments were made to the effect that management had recently
improved or was in the process of improving.
On the negative side, several specific comments were made. Included
in these were:
Management does not protect safety of workers. Frequently
cited was "management's failure to support safety orders
on Roll-Over protection devices."
Management is subject to "political pressure," Frequently
cited was the ability of large employers to influence
legislators to ask the division to relax or rescind a
requirement.
The field engineers receive little input from management. Management.
is not sensitive to the needs of lower ranks.
The unit cannot compete salarywise with other organizations
and salary ranges between classes are too compacted. They
cannot attract many good employees and there is no good
incentive for promotion. As a result, too many new hires
are retirees from another career, frequently the military.
There is an inadequate number of personnel, inadequate equipment,
and inadequate travel funds. As a result, the energies of the
unit are used in putting out "fires" and they do not have the
resources to plan and execute an overall good safety program.
Department and division management are so subject to political
pressure that they do not make and vigorously defend adequate
budget requests.
-41-
Based on our review, we conclude there is a fairly wide-based dissatisfaction
in the unit with management at the division and department levels and with
other agencies of state government.
Other Comments
There were a number of comments made in addition to responses to specific
questions which are useful to gauging the morale and the feelings of the
employees in the organization. These include:
Top management has never been exposed to actual field conditions
and is inexperienced in dealing with problems.
Not enough communications from top to bottom of organization.
Unsafe conditions which should be taken to enforcement are not
written up because of nonenforcement climate.
Violations are statistics which are inflated through
administrative pressure--playing numbers game with workload
statistics for budgetary purposes.
Great need for method to identify high risk industries and
areas for special attention.
A "show cause" order is a weak enforcement instrument fines
would be more effective.
PRESSURE VESSELS SECTION
Section Objectives
The objective of this unit is to prevent employee injuries caused by pressure
vessel failure or malfunction. The unit conducts field inspections of pres
sure vessels and makes shop inspections of new pressure vessels.
Organization
Offices are located in Bakersifield, Chico, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Modesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San
Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa and Stockton. The section is
headed up by a Supervising Safety Engineer with a staff of 7 Senior Safety
Engineers and 47 Safety Engineers.
Study Coverage
The interview teams directly contacted the Supervising Safety Engineer, all
7 of the Senior Safety Engineers and 40 of the 47 Safety Engineers.
Workload Data
Most of the interviewed employees are inspectors. Even so, it would seem that
the workload statistics obtained from them may not be valid because the employees
were interviewed on the weekend and could only give approximations.
Management Support
One fact that came out very clearly was that violation decisions made by the
field staff in this section were almost never reversed by top management. Not
one example could, or would, be given where an employee recommendation was not
supported by supervisors.
When the employees were asked how they felt about management support of their
recommendations, the employees responded in this manner:
Excellent
19
Satisfactory
27
Unsatisfactory
0
In no case did an employee feel his recommendations were not followed over
one percent of the time.
Injuries and Deaths
One employee reported that on one occasion, a vessel owned by a major oil
company blew up, killing 3 people. His investigation revealed that illegal
repairs had earlier been made to the vessel. Although his findings were re-
ported on "up the line" no further action was taken. This employee still felt
management was doing a good job. With the limited details available, we do
not feel justified in disputing his opinion.
Unwarranted Favorable Treatment
The question as to whether employers are getting unwarranted favorable treat-
ment from the department elicited the following responses:
Yes
2
No
42
Both employees responding "yes" were from the Bakersfield office. One felt that
this was not done intentionally, however, and the other felt it was due to
understaffing.
Travel Funds
This unit consists primarily of field inspectors. The question on the adequacy
of travel funds was answered thusly:
Adequate
28
Inadequate
16
-44-
Some employees felt that they were not able to make enough inspections because
of travel fund restrictions; most did not feel this way.
Equipment
When asked how they felt about the sufficiency of equipment, 34 employees re-
sponded that it was adequate and 11. that it was inadequate. Most of the
"inadequate" responses were centered in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
area. The complaints concerned out-dated or worn out testing equipment.
Staffing Levels
The question on adequate staffing levels split the group almost down the middle:
Adequate
23
Inadequate
24
The employees from Bakersfield, San Diego and Santa Ana were unanimous that
staffing was inadequate. Their general feeling was that there are sufficient
supervisors, but more field inspectors and clerical staff were needed.
Program Management
Employees in this unit almost unanimously agreed that program management was
satisfactory:
Excellent
10
Adequate
34
Unsatisfactory
1
The only comment made by the employee responding "unsatisfactory" was that com-
munications between division sections and between top management and employees
was poor.
One supervisor in the Southern California area would not respond directly to
the questionnaire, but made comments such as:
Some people are afraid to talk
Supervision is very weak
Communications are bad (several others also made this point)
Suspects contractors are bribing employees
Tremendous waste in the Construction Unit
Records disappear from files
Lack of support for inspectors
Top management acts like it's retired
This individual could not, or would not, provide any specific data. Several of
his comments were directly contradicted by the results of our questionnaire.
Conclusions
In general, it appears to be the concensus of most employees that this unit
is well managed and has relatively few problems. Several employees
commented that Construction was the only unit in the division to have serious
problems.