By Dave Lisowski
Labor, or the lack of it, may be the most common topic in the floriculture and nursery industry today. You can't ask any fellow manager, "How's it going?" without hearing about the problems he or she is having finding and keeping good employees.

And while we business owners are struggling to hire and keep good employees, our government may be compounding the problem by trying to play a more direct role. In Washington, D.C., both Congress and federal agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration seem to be taking an activist approach that could make life more difficult for business -- without further benefiting our employees.

As chairman of the Society of American Florists' Government Relations Committee, I work with SAF's lobbyists as they strategize industry action on this important issue. But even with our strong lobbying presence and concerted industry action, it appears to me that Congress could act this year in ways that actually make this whole situation worse. Consider these predictions coming out of Washington.

It's an election year. This fact, combined with a general lack of bipartisan cooperation between Republicans and Democrats in this Congress, could very well mean gridlock for most labor legislation this year. However, because it is an election year, we are very likely to see legislation to increase the minimum wage.

Wage increases

The last minimum-wage increase was in 1996. In two increments it boosted the rate by 90 cents to $5.15 an hour effective Sept. 1, 1997. It is likely that most growers, wholesalers and retailers in our industry are already paying more than $5.15 per hour to their employees. In fact, several states have set their minimum levels above the national one.

However, any business owner knows that an increase in the minimum wage has an inflationary effect on the salary levels of everyone in your company. That inflationary pressure is, of course, the chief reason behind most of the opposition in our industry to increasing the minimum wage.

Nonetheless, at the end of last year, Congress had pretty much agreed that the minimum wage would be increased -- the only disagreement was over what kind of "sweetener" tax-cut package would be included with that bill. The House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan bill hiking the wage $1 over three years, and including estate tax relief, which is an important SAF priority. The Senate adopted a similar amendment, but with fewer tax breaks and no estate tax relief.

The Senate has passed a bankruptcy reform bill including an amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1.00, in three steps over three years. Some small business tax relief was included: 100 percent deductability for health insurance for the self-employed, and a repeal of the temporary 0.2 percent federal unemployment (FUTA) surtax. But the Senate included no estate tax relief. The House first appeared to be taking tax packages one-by-one, with the comparatively easy issue of repealing the marriage penalty as a top priority. Now, as I write this article, I read that the House has also moved to pass a minimum wage hike/tax cut package. The House bill increases the minimum wage by $1.00 over two, rather than three years. If the bill is signed into law by President Clinton, the minimum wage could increase to $5.65 an hour as early as April 1, 2000 -- ultimately reaching $6.15 per hour on April 1, 2001. Of course, the House and Senate bills must be reconciled -- so the increase is unlikely to happen so soon.

The House bill includes limited estate tax relief and 100 percent deductability of health insurance for the self-employed, along with several other important provisions. The Senate version does not contain provisions to reduce the estate tax burden, nor does it restore the installment method of accounting to report income from the sale of a business. But the biggest hurdle to compromising the two bills is the difference in phasing in the minimum wage increase: over two years (House) or three years (Senate). Until the House backed the two-year increase, the bill was likely to be vetoed by the President. Now, however, they it certainly seems possible that, when the dust settles, we could see a minimum wage increase without the kinds of tax cuts that might have sweetened the package last year.

OSHA's aggressive agenda

If you haven't read about OSHA's proposed ergonomics rule, you need to. Last fall, two days after Congress left town for the year and in spite of congressional opposition (although Congress could never quite summon the will to pass legislation prohibiting OSHA's action), OSHA published its proposed ergonomics rule. SAF members who reviewed the original draft in 1995 concluded that the costs and paperwork requirements would constitute a major burden for most small businesses in the floral industry. The current version appears to be significantly worse.

Of course we're all concerned about worker health and safety. Most of us devote significant time and resources to trying to improve conditions for our workers, not only because it makes good business sense, but because it's the right thing to do.

But in this instance, OSHA is insisting on proceeding with the regulations before the completion of a National Academy of Sciences study on the scientific evidence underlying the issue. If there truly is a problem for our workers, we need to know it. But requiring mountains of paperwork and OSHA compliance with no guarantee that it will improve worker conditions or, for that matter, whether or not there is even a problem, doesn't seem to make any sense.

Ergonomic confusion

Under this proposal, employers will never know when, or if, they are in compliance. We believe that OSHA should wait for clear, scientific consensus on the role of work in the development of ergonomic injuries -- and a showing that implementing an ergonomics program will reduce injuries.

You're reading about OSHA issues elsewhere in this Cyberconference, so I won't dwell on them, except to point out some potential activities that you might not have realized could be covered by the ergonomics proposal. Working in the following conditions could qualify as exposing employees to "risk factors" under the proposal:

* "Significantly hot or cold conditions," such as a storage cooler or a refrigerated truck.

* Repetitively cutting flower stems and placing them in buckets of water as workers process fresh-cut flowers.

* Lifting containers of plants to and from display or packing tables.

* Standing at a table to design floral arrangements.

SAF is commenting on the ergonomics proposal for the floral industry and is working with our friends in Congress to try to slow down the process through hearings. It is critical that the floral industry continues to put pressure on Congress urging them to continue focusing attention on this important issue.

Pesticide regulations

Most of us are aware that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken a very restrictive approach to implementing the new law we supported governing approvals of pesticides. For the floral and nursery industry, because our products are not usually foods, EPA is expected, and has actually begun in some instances, to eliminate chemicals from use by requiring extremely stringent worker protection factors.

But these protection factors are not being based on actual science. Rather, the analyses are being based on faulty assumptions or lack of real-world data about use patterns in the industry. In other words, if a chemical's label says that the product may be applied at X rate, Y times per year, and EPA has no actual use data, then it assumes usage (and worker exposure) at the maximum rate. That can put the "worker risk" over the top, and keep a product off the market.

Let me reiterate that I know that all responsible business owners are and will remain concerned about our workers' health and safety. But this EPA action really doesn't seem to be about worker safety. It is about a lack of real-world knowledge of how things are done in business. And that's where it is incumbent upon us, the business community, to get involved and provide that real-world information to the policy and decision makers.

Congress, at the urging of the agricultural industry including nursery and floriculture, is taking an increasingly active look at EPA's implementation of the law. However, the important action in this arena is also going to have to come from the industry. SAF is working with other organizations to try to improve the real-world data available to EPA and then to ensure that EPA uses that information. But that effort will only succeed if the industry is willing to participate in surveys, as well as in the vital grass-roots lobbying effort.

Other legislation of note

And that's not all. There is a flurry of other legislation. Managed health-care reform is high on the congressional agenda. The Fair Labor Standards Act is considered outdated by most business owners who are pushing for modernization in areas such as overtime, flextime, and comp time.

The Fair Access to Indemnity and Reimbursement (FAIR) Act would allow small businesses to recover attorneys' fees from OSHA if they win actions filed against them. Democratic-sponsored legislation would extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to businesses with 25 or more (beyond its current threshold of businesses with 50 employees) and allowing workers to take up to 24 hours of additional unpaid leave each year to meet family obligations.

The immigration legislation, which is of very high importance to our industry, is also discussed elsewhere in this Cyberconference, and I won't discuss it beyond urging you to inform your congressional representatives of your support for the bills.

The bottom line

What can we do? From my point of view, the most important thing every member of our industry needs to do is support what our associations are doing on our behalf in Washington. SAF and the American Nursery & Landscape Association are working diligently to represent the floral and nursery industries on Capitol Hill. But the voices of the thousands of business owners across the country must be raised in support.

I have heard that it takes at least 10 letters from constituents to get an issue "onto the radar" of a member of Congress. It certainly takes more to convince him or her to cosponsor legislation, to support a bill actively, to speak on the floor of the House or the Senate or to convince colleagues to join in support of legislation.

Our industry is a strong economic force in most congressional districts, but Congress must hear our voice among the clamor of other groups vying for attention. We cannot expect Congress to act in our interests unless we let Congress know what those interests are.

Dave Lisowski is president of DWF Wholesale Florists in Denver and chairman of the Society of American Florists' Government Relations Committee.

© 2000 Branch-Smith Publishing