There is frequent tension between the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. Obeying the “spirit of the law” means following the intent of those who drafted it. Following the “letter of the law” means following the law as written – verbatim. Oftentimes, there is daylight between the two. Using vagaries to beat the system is one of the primary reasons why attorneys bear the brunt of a disproportionate share of profession-related jokes.
When it comes to enforcement against small farming operations, OSHA can be rightly criticized for violating the spirit of the law and indulging in extreme artistic license when it comes to interpreting the letter of the law. Here is how: every year, Congress includes what is known as an “appropriations rider” into the legislation that funds OSHA. The rider explicitly instructs OSHA to not engage in enforcement activities against small farms. The legislation reads:
… none of the [OSHA] funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Act which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer employees…
Pretty straight forward, right? The average person on the street would read that and assume Congress has clearly made farms off-limits for OSHA enforcement. But the average person on the street is not an OSHA attorney. Instead of reading the legislation to mean that OSHA cannot enforce against small farms, OSHA instead sought out means to get around this provision and they found one. Instead of labeling small grain farms for what they are, OSHA has begun to view these operations as “grain handling facilities.”
Read the rest of this post on John Dillard’s AgWeb.com Blog – Ag In the Courtroom
