The Labor-Management Safety Committee
Does it really matter whether government operates in one way or another? More to the point, does it matter that OSHA adopted a regulatory alternative -- mandated self-regulation -- that differs significantly from the agency's customary inspection-and-citation enforcement strategy? As noted in chapter 1, there is good reason to believe that the CCP did make a difference not least because accident rates for CCP projects are lower than those for comparable company projects under OSHA's traditional regulatory regime. What that difference is will be the major question addressed in this chapter and the next. More specifically, two factors stand out in explaining the CCP's success: the labor-management safety committee's role, which will be examined in this chapter, and CAL/ OSHA's role in the program, which will be discussed in chapter 6.
"[T]o assist the employer, as required, in the implementation of the Cooperative Compliance Program," the CCP's Agreement of Understanding states, a "four member committee, comprised of two employer representatives, and two employee representatives, will be established." "The labor-management committee is the backbone of the program," says a CAL/OSHA official charged with monitoring one of the CCP projects. "But believe me," he is quick to add, "if you didn't have a good safety department out there and just tried to do it by the safety committee, well, you wouldn't have