HR SEMINAR PROVIDES WEALTH OF INFORMATION

Approximately thirty-five (35) OCMA members attended the Inaugural HR Seminar on Thursday, October 14, 2004, in Columbus. Ohio Representative Geoff Smith from the 24th House District (Northwestern Franklin County) was the luncheon speaker. As Chair of the House Insurance Committee, Rep. Smith is involved with key legislation affecting both health insurance and health care delivery. He also serves on the House Banking, Pensions, & Securities, Health, and Public Utilities Committees so he addresses many issues of importance to Ohio metal casters. The key points of his presentation are summarized below.

1. The availability and affordability of medical liability insurance continues to be a serious problem for both physicians and their patients. Access to quality health care is threatened as physicians scale back their practices and/or eliminate certain high-risk procedures. Although the American Medical Association estimates that two-thirds of medical liability claims are found to be without merit, the physicians affected are forced to devote both time and money to their defense.

2. In 2002, the Ohio General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 281; a comprehensive medical liability reform bill that included limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions. It is still possible that the Ohio Supreme Court could overturn SB 281, if the present make-up of the Court changes in the November elections. He encouraged the OCMA audience to support those Ohio Supreme Court candidates with a “mindset of practicing judicial restraint”.

3. In 2004, the Ohio General Assembly enacted Sub. H.B. 215 that prohibited the use of the defendant’s statement of sympathy as evidence in a medical liability action, established qualifications for expert witnesses ins such actions, regulates the use of affidavits of noninvolvement in medical claims, and regulates the collection and disclosure of medical claims data (to assess the status of medical malpractice market.).

4. Also this year, the Ohio General Assembly enacted both H.B. 292 and H.B. 342, tort reform actions that addressed the asbestos litigation crisis and the potential crisis surrounding exposure to silica and mixed dusts. These legislative actions were meant to assist those with legitimate claims without clogging the courts with frivolous lawsuits. House members are studying a bill that would cap punitive or exemplary damages, provide immunity to recreational landowners, allow evidence of seat belt use (or the lack of if), limit attorneys fees, and create a legal bill of rights for consumers of legal services.

5. Rep. Smith opposed all mandated health benefit bills that came before his committee or the Health Committee. He understands how health mandates ultimately hurt small businesses.

6. Rep. Smith is an advocate of High Deductible Health Plans & Health Savings Accounts (HSA). An HSA is a tax-favored account that allows eligible individuals covered by a qualified high-deductible health plan to pay for current and future qualifying medical expenses taxfree. The HSA allows consumers the opportunity to manage their own health care and medicare expenses.

Keith Ashmus, Frantz Ward LLP, was the first presenter for the HR Seminar. Keith was substituting for Mike Frantz and was asked to provide a legal update on those issues that will be affecting Ohio metal casters. Highlights of his presentation are presented below:

1. The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the matter of the Cleveland Bar Association v. CompManagement, Inc. On May 18, 2004, the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law concluded that CompManagement had engaged in the unauthorized practice law for appearing in person on behalf of CompManagemet clients, at formal, oral ajudicatory hearings held by the Industrial Commission of Ohio on workers’ compensation matters. It recommended to the Ohio Supreme Court issue an order finding that CompManagement engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and prohibiting CompManagement from engaging in such practice in the future.
2. Should the Ohio Supreme Court adopt the recommendation of the Board of Commisioners, there is potential for a dramatic change in the operation of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation system. Third party administrators would no longer be able to participate as actively in the system causing employers to either represent themsielves or cause them to retain counsel for representation. Such a decision would also mean that union representatives would also so longer be able to actively represent injured workers before the Industrial Commission.

3. Keith does not believe that the Ohio Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Board of Commissioners. He believes that they will fashion a compromise that will allow the BWC system to continue to use TPA’s and also allow union representatives to represent injured workers before the Industrial Commission. However, he warned that he does not have a crystal ball and stranger things have happened before. Stay tuned for the final decision.

4. On October 13, 2004, H.B. 223, the rebuttable presumption law, becomes effective. Under H.B. 223, employers can deny a workers’ compensation claim filed by an employee who tests positive for alcohol or drugs on a substance test following a work-related injury.

5. If an employee tests positive or refuses to take the test altogether, he or she must prove that the presence of alcohol or drugs was not the main cause of the work-related injury in order to benefit from workers’ compensation.

6. The Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Comp (BWC) will provide employers with a written notice of this policy on the bottom of Certificates of Coverage. This notice must be posted by the employer in a location viewable by employees. Failure to do so may result in a company forfeiting its rights to protection under H.B. 223.

7. Another important accomplishment of this year’s Ohio General Assembly is the enactment of H.B. 342. This bill establishes medical criteria for cases brought contending injury from exposure to crystalline silica or mixed dusts. Keith believes that this new law will be favorable to not only employers, but also to employees. Under this new process, only those workers who are truly injured will be allowed to move forward with their complaints. The settlements for such actions may now cover the actual costs of the injured workers medical treatment. Under the old system, the employees were often short-changed because the damages awarded were split with workers who did not have medical conditions.

Brian Kelly, Frantz Ward LLP, provided insight on the new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations. The highlights of his presentation are outlined below:

1. In general, the new FLSA regulations establishes obligations regarding the following topics:
o Overtime payment
o Minimum wage payment
o Child labor standards
o Record retention.

2. Penalties for FLSA violations:
· Civil damages:
1. Unpaid wages and overtime
2. Liquidated damages
3. Attorney’s fees and costs

o Criminal penalties:
1. $10,000 fine for willful violations and six months imprisonment (for a previous offender)
2. No need to prove “intent” to violate the law.

3. Employers must pay overtime to all employees who work over 40 hours in a workweek, unless they are properly classified as “exempt”. A salary test and “duties” determine whether an exemption applies. Things that do not determine whether an exemption applies include job title, job description, salary pay method, past practice, and lack of objections.

4. New regulations increase the minimum weekly salary that an employee must receive in order to be classified as exempt from $155 per week (short test) or $250 per week (long test) to $455 per week or $23,660 per year.

5. The new FLSA regulations change the “white collar” exemptions. It includes modification of the “duties tests” in the executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales categories. Long and short tests are eliminated and one standard test is created.

6. Primary Duty definition: Employees who spend more than 50% of their time performing exempt work will generally satisfy the primary duty requirement. However, the regulations do not require that exempt employees spend more than 50% of time performing exempt work. The key is to identify the duties that are most important to a job, rather than related, peripheral duties.

7. Changes in Duties Tests: The Executive Exemption test now requires that an executive position in addition to managing a department or subdivision and directing the work of two or more employees, the employee must have the authority to hire or fire, or whose suggestions as to hiring, firing, promotion or change of status are given particular weight.

8. Changes in Duties Tests: The Administrative Exemption test now requires that an administrative employee in addition to office or non-manual work and exercising discretion and administrative judgment, the job must involve more than just following set procedures and applying them to a specific circumstance. Primary duty must include exercise of discretion and judgment with respect to matters of significance.

9. Changes in Duties Tests: The Professional Exemption test now sets forth as a primary duty the acquisition of knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning. The required knowledge may be customarily acquired by prolonged course of specialized instruction and study, but may also be acquired by a combination of intellectual instruction and work experience.

10. New FLSA regulations include a new exemption for “Highly Compensated” employees. This exemption applies to those employees earning more than $100,000 per year who customarily and regularly perform one or more of the exempt duties of an executive, professional or administrative employee.

11. What is the expected impact of these changes? .

· Total first year implementation costs to employers are estimated to be $738.5 million;
· $627.1 million is related to reviewing the regulations and revising overtime policies;
· $111.4 million is related to conducting job reviews;
· Transfers from employers to employees in the form of greater overtime pay or higher base salaries are estimate to be $375 million per year;
· Total costs to employers are estimated to be $1.1 billion and $375 million per year thereafter.

12. Criticism of the New Regulations:

· Loss of overtime eligibility by current non-exempt workers;
· Lack of inflation indexing for new salary level;
· Potential for overuse of team leader position;
· Likely political actions directed toward the new regulations

13. Strategies to Avoid FLSA Exemption Problems:

· Classify employees correctly;
· Evaluate classifications regularly;
· Reclassify and make adjustments as required;
· Implement policy regarding deductions and complaint procedure for violations.

14. Other resources on the Part 541 exemptions are available at www.dol.gov\fairpay

· Regulations;
· Preamble;
· Fact Sheets;
· Field Operations Handbook;
· Frequently Asked Questions.

To ask a specific question or register a comment call toll-free 1-866-4US-WAGE or e-mail at fairpay@dol.gov.

The PowerPoint presentation of Brian Kelly is available from the OCMA office. If you would like a copy, please call at (614) 876-5100 or e-mail at ohiocastmetals@sbcglobal.net.

Bob Rude & Scott St. Clair, BWC, provided an overview of key issues affecting the workers’ compensation program. Highlights of their presentations are presented below:

1. Why Implement a Drug Free Workplace Program?

· America has a drug problem, 5% of the population consuming 60% of the supply of drugs;
· Nearly three-quarters (74%) of drug users are employed. Ninety (90) percent of alcoholics are employed.
· In any U.S. workforce, 15-17 % are users of drugs and/or alcohol;
· Drug and/or alcohol users cost employers an average of $7,000 – 25,000 per year.
· Workplace drug users are 33-50% less productive than non-users. They are also 3-4 times as likely to be involved in workplace accidents and incur 300-400% more medical costs for themselves and their dependents.
· Finally, injuries occurring while employees are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are generally 150% more severe and 40% of the time, the injury involves a co-worker. Employees using drugs and/or alcohol use benefits eight (8) times as often as non-drug and alcohol users and are more than five (5) times as likely to make a workers’ comp claim.

2. The BWC Drug-Free and Drug Free EZ programs provide the following discounts to employers participating in these programs.

· An employer with a written substance policy who is prepared to test employees for drugs and/or alcohol in the following situations: pre-employment or new hire, reasonable suspicion, and post-accident can receive a discount of ten (10%) percent.
· An employer who has the programs outlined above who is also willing to randomly test 10% of the employee population can receive a discount of 15%.
· An employer prepared to test 25% of the workforce can receive a 20% discount.

3. Transitional Work is not
· Light Duty
· Non-Productive Busy Work
· Punishment for Being Injured

4. Transitional Work is an effective way to safely return an injured person to work as they rehabilitate into their normal job.

5. The Ohio BWC has created a new program to help businesses both large and small. The program, Transitional WorkGRANT$, enables businesses to apply for a grant to set up a transitional work program. The WorkGRANT$ program provides up to 80 percent of your program development costs up to a set limit, if you are eligible. Your remaining 20 percent investment could save you thousands of dollars in disability costs.

6. The Transitional Work program returns workers to their jobs without interruption of employment. Generally a 60 to 90 day time frame. The program gradually, advances the worker back to his/her normal duties.

7. What is the Impact of the Transitional Work Program?

o Reduced payment of lost time compensation/disability costs
o Decreases impact on reserves;
o Positive impact on premiums and experience rating;
o A win-win situation for employers and employees.

8. Transitional WorkGRANTS Process includes a program narrative addressing;

o Corporate Analysis;
o Function Job Analyses;
o Employer/Employee relation/training;
o Policy/Procedure development;
o Program Evaluation.

9 Labor & Management Factors:

o The transitional work program must be a formal part of any bargaining agreement;
o It must be a voluntary program;
o Work assignments are not assigned to another worker;
o In source jobs
o Workers maintain their shifts;
o Labor Management Cooperative Program.

9. The Transitional WorkGRANTS Program requires that the participating company work with a Transitional Work Developer. All transitional work developers must be accredited vocational or medical case managers, physical or occupational therapists, and have transitional work experience. They also must successfully complete BWC’s orientation session.

10. Bob Rude also presented a brief overview of the various discount ratings including group, premium discount program plus, and retrospective rating. More information about these ratings can be found at the Ohio BWC website, www.ohiobwc.com or by calling your local BWC office.

The keynote address of the seminar was presented by Adrienne Vichill & John Wain, The Alpha Group Agency, regarding consumer driven health plans and health savings accounts or HSA’s. The highlights of their presentation are presented below:

1. The U.S. health care system continues to confound those who are interested in providing health care to everyone at a reasonable cost. Since 2000 the number of uninsured Americans has increased from 14.2 % of the eligible population to 15.5% or more than 45 million persons. Simultaneously, the cost of health benefit costs have soared by double digit increases peaking at a nearly 15% overall increase in 2003.

2. This crisis is caused by both the misuse of the healthcare system by the insured and a classic supply/demand problem. Demand greatly exceeds supply thus driving prices higher.

3. A possible solution to the problem is to hold the consumer accountable by putting the money available for health care spending back in the consumer’s hands. This theoretical approach anticipates that under this scenario the consumer would shop for health care as he/she does for other goods & services i.e. for quality and price. The consumer would also have the incentive to stay healthy. Health care providers would also have the incentive to provide high quality healthcare at the lowest cost.

4. Employers who are facing ever increasing health care costs have responded by making plan changes and passing on higher costs to their employees through higher deductibles and cost sharing. HSA’s will allow employers to make changes to the plans, but allow some of the contributions to a tax protected HSA which can help with out of pocket expenses. Employees will also be able to contribute on a tax-deductible basis to the same HSA account. Health insurance companies are reacting to this new demand by creating the catastrophic, high deductible coverage and tailored qualified plans.

5. The Basic HSA Concept is:

a. A qualifying high deductible health plan which is intended to cover serious illness or injury after the deductible is met.
b. A Health Savings Account, which pays for routine or small expenses until the deductible is met.

6. The HSA account grows over time (assuming the amount is not exhausted each year) and is tax protected. As an example if an employer chose to alter the $7200 presently paid for a typical employee to the insurance company and create an HSA plan it would work like this. The employer would now pay $3000 annually to the insurance company providing the qualified high deductible insurance plan and contribute $4200 to each individual employee’s HSA account. Depending upon the use of the HSA account proceeds, over a five-year period the balance of the HSA could grow to more than $20,000. Importantly, the contributions are tax-free to the employee and they are rolled over every year.

7. An eligible individual for an HSA is one:

a. Who is covered under a qualified high-deductible health plan (HDHP) on the first day of the month;
b. Who is not covered by any other health plan unless it is also an HDHP;
c. Who may not be claimed as a dependent on another’s tax return
d. And is not covered by Medicare.

8. What is a qualified health plan (HDHP)?

a. Single policy: Minimum deductible of $1000 and maximum out of pocket of $5000.
b. Family policy: Minimum deductible of $2000 and a maximum out of pocket of $10,000.
c. An aggregate deductible provides for a total deductible of $5,000 for the entire family where one member of the family can be responsible for the total deductible. An embedded deductible contains an individual deductible for each family member of $2000. In this case the individual deductible is a maximum of $2000, but the total family deduction for a family of four is $8000.

8. Defining Out-of-Pocket Maximum:

a. Included: deductible, co-insurance, and co-pays.
b. Not included: money or penalties for a service not pre-certified; money or penalties for non-network providers; amounts over the usual, customary, & reasonable amounts; and amounts for ineligible expenses such a cosmetic surgery.

9. Prescription Drug benefits are considered additional coverage and cannot be provided under an HDHP or as separate coverage.

10. Plans cannot provide benefits before the deductible is met, except for preventive care, permitted insurance, or permitted coverage. Permitted insurance includes dental, vision, supplemental insurance such as Colonial or AFLAC. Preventive care benefits can include:

a. Periodic health evaluations;
b. Routine prenatal and well-child care
c. Immunizations
d. Tobacco cessation programs;
e. Obesity weight-loss programs;
f. Screening services for conditions that you do not have.

11. Benefits that are not considered Preventive Care include:

a. Any service or benefit intended to treat an existing illness, injury, or condition;
b. Preventive care for purposes of establishing an HSA is determined by guidance set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), rather than state law.

12. HSA contributions guidelines allow for a single contribution cap of 100% of the deductible or a maximum of $2,600. Guidelines allow a family up to 100% of the deductible or $5,150. Contributions to an HSA must be made in “cash”; they cannot be made in the form of stock or other property. Contributions can be made through a cafeteria plan. Rollovers are permitted once per year.
13. Contributions to an individual HSA can be made by the accountholder, employer, or third party on behalf of the accountholder such as a family member, beneficiary or state government. Employer contributions are subject to “comparability testing”, but employer’s contributions through a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan are not subject to the comparability testing.

14. What is the tax treatment of an individual’s HSA contribution?

a. Contributions are deductible by the eligible individual in determining adjusted gross income;
b. Contributions cannot be claimed as a dependent;
c. Contributions cannot exceed the maximum contribution.

15. What is the tax treatment of an employer’s HSA contribution?

a. Contributions are treated as employer-provided coverage for medical expenses under an accident or health plan
b. Contributions are excludable from gross income;
c. Contributions are not subject to withholding for income tax;
d. Contributions are not subject to other employment taxes including Social Security, Medicare (FICA), federal unemployment tax (FUTA), or the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.

16. What is the tax treatment of an employee’s distributions?

a. Distributions for a qualifying medical expense are tax free;
b. Distributions for non-medical purposes after age 65 are treated as ordinary income;
c. Distributions for non-medical purposes prior to the age 65 are treated as ordinary income plus a 10% penalty.

17. Individuals who establish HSAs should maintain records of their medical expenses to show that the distributions have been made exclusively for qualified medical expenses. HSA trustees or custodians are not required to determine whether HSA distributions are used for qualified medical expenses.

18. Miscellaneous: Other eligible expenses for which the HSA distributions can be used include: premiums for long-term care insurance; premiums for “COBRA”, premiums for coverage while receiving unemployment compensation; premiums for individuals over age 65 for retirement health benefits and Medicare premiums including medical supplemental insurance

The Alpha Group Agency presentation is available from the OCMA office. Please call or e-mail the OCMA office to request a copy at (614) 876-5100 or ohiocastmetals@sbcglobal.net.

John Burke, OSCO Industries, Inc., offered insight into a very close call at the OSCO Industries, Inc. plant in Jackson. The induction furnace at the plant had what John described as an eruption versus an explosion, but the danger was identical. Molten iron approximately one-half to three-quarters of the material erupted from the spout covering a large area of the melt room. Fortunately, it occurred during the third shift when the employees where on break. John presented a number of photos showing the damage caused by the molten iron.

The eruption happened 45 days after the furnace was brought on-line after refractory relining. There was no evidence of equipment failure. After cooling the furnace, the inductor & bushing were removed. Experts consulted have concluded that a hairline crack in the bushing allowed drops of water to coalesce below the bushing. The water rolled down the holes and got to the refractory were it collected. Once the furnace was brought on-line, it was only a matter of time until the pooled water caused the eruption.

OSCO Industries, Inc. is in the process of changing the evacuation routes at the Jackson plant as a result of this accident. The photos from the accident are available from the OCMA office. If you would like them e-mailed to you, please call (614) 876-5100 or e-mail at ohiocastmetals@sbcglobal.net.

Larry Boyd, Energy Industries of Ohio (EIO), provided an update on the EIO effort to obtain funding from the U.S. Department of Energy for a training program for employees in the metal processing industries including metal casting. Highlights of his presentation are presented below:

1. Ohio is the leading state in the nation in manufacturing output for steel production (95 companies), metal casting (291 companies) and forging (49 companies). These industries employ more than 60,000 individuals and account for more than $18 billion in annual sales.

2. Workforces issues confronting these industries include:

a. Difficulty in attracting capable employees;
b. Existing educational programs are targeted at higher-level personnel. Many of these are disappearing;
c. At lower skill levels personnel have a lack of hands-on skills and a lack of basic educational background;
d. Existing workforce is aging and leaving the workplace.

3. U.S Department of Energy (DOE) has solicited proposals to obtain monetary grants to promote the education and training of the next generation of technical workers in plant operation and maintenance to replenish the current manufacturing workforce.

4. EIO proposal provided for a 1-2 year training program for employees in the “Metal Processing” industries including steel, metal casting, and forging.

5. Guiding principles of the EIO grant proposal;

a. An industry-guided effort to define training needs and program structure;
b. Active participation of state and national industry associations;
c. Develop a structure that allows flexible access for students and companies;
d. Leverage existing investments in training curriculum and course development;
e. Develop a program consistent with existing educational standards.

6. Possible courses include:

a. Basic metallurgy; iron/steel metallurgy and processing, non-ferrous metallurgy and processing;
b. Metal forming processes, casting, rolling, extrusion, forging;
c. Analytical systems for evaluating metals;
d. Quality systems for evaluating metals;
e. Energy assessment methodologies in the metal casting industries;
f. Energy efficiency in industrial processes;
g. Industrial safety and health for the metals processing industries;
h. Environmental management in the metals processing industries;
i. Process control in metal processing;
j. Information processing technologies in the metals industries.

7. Coursework could call for 8,14, & 16 week study broken into individual modules. Existing employees would attend individual modules. Certification in individual modules with an entire technology track. An associate’s degree may be possible.

8. Project partners include:

a. General: Energy Industries of Ohio (EIO), Stark State College, Ohio Department of Development, and Kent State University;
b. Metal Casting: OCMA, FEF, CMI, NADCA, General Aluminum, Thompson Aluminum Corporation, Tri-Cast, Ltd., and Fairmount Minerals Ltd.
c. Steel: Ohio Steel Council, Timken, Republic Engineered Products;
d. Forging: Forging Industry Association, Viking Forge.

9. Participation from the industry will be requested. Examples of opportunities for assistance include:

a. Assist in defining program content and structure;
b. Provide responses to questionnaires associated with the project;
c. Provide letter of support for follow-on funding to develop curriculum/deliver initial training.

10. The grant EIO has received is to be used putting together a plan to achieve the training program. The next step is to create an entire package that will be submitted to DOE for funding of the training/curriculum program. The deadline for this application will be March/April 2005.

ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE

Newly-appointed Chairman of the OCMA Environmental Affairs Committee, Dennis Baker, Flowserve Corporation, presented the environmental report. With the Iron & Steel Foundry MACT final, the environmental report was much reduced. Key issues are outlined below:

Iron and Steel MACT Standards

* The Iron & Steel Foundry MACT was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2004. If you are a major source (10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAPs) you should have filed a notice to the Agency. If you have not, it is overdue.

· By April 22, 2005, your scrap inspection program should be filed with the Agency. It is not clear whether it must be approved by the Agency by then, but it is clear that it must be filed by that date.

· By April 23, 2007, companies must either be in full compliance with the rules or be a minor source either naturally or by entering into a FESOP whereby the company agrees to production restrictions etc.

Generally Available Control Technology

· USEPA is preparing to introduce the Son of MACT or GACT. GACT will apply to area sources those with a potential to emit less than 10 tons/yr for a single HAP or less than 25 tons/yr for any combination of HAPs. USEPA views area sources as important contributors of HAPs especially in urban areas. The USEPA is operating under Section 112(k)(1) which states that USEPA shall “achieve a substantial reduction in emissions of HAP from area sources”. Section 112(k)(3) requires USEPA to prepare a national strategy for urban air toxics.

· The rules contain seventy (70) area source categories. Only fifteen (15) standards have been promulgated so far with fifty-five (55) categories remaining. Unlike MACT, GACT has no floor to calculate, it has more flexibility in rule making, and costs and other factors must be considered..

· USEPA believes about 500 foundries (300 iron & 200 steel) will be affected by this rulemaking. More than 70% of these companies are small businesses and 65-85% have production levels under 10,000 tons/yr. This information was taken from the 1998 survey that Ohio foundries completed.

· Emission Sources that will be studies include:

Ø Cupolas;
Ø Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF);
Ø Induction furnaces & scrap preheaters;
Ø Pouring, cooling, and shakeout;
Ø Mold & core-making;
Ø Other (scrap handling, finishing operations)

· USEPA is considering alternative GACT regulatory options and impacts. Revised control devise costing alogrithms include smaller process sizes and account for fewer average operating hours per year.

· GACT emission limits may accommodate wet scrubbers for cupolas, thermal oxidizers or condensers for TEA coldbox. Concentration vs. production-based emission limits (e.g. gr/dscf vs. lb/ton).

· GACT is likely to include overall opacity limit for a foundry’s building and vents as well as a foundry-wide emission limit. Evaluating impacts on small businesses is required under the SBREFA process. A kickoff meeting with USEPA was held at Research Triangle on October 6, 2004. Dennis participated by conference call and other OCMA members along with AFS representatives were able to attend the meeting in North Carolina.

· USEPA suggested that they plan to have the new rule completed within the next three (3) years. If you are not affected by MACT, the chances are very high that you will be affected by GACT. OCMA will be participating in the rule making process and will be looking for volunteers to participate in a subcommittee whose responsibility will be to monitor and advocate for the Ohio metal casting industry.

Silica Standard

· It appears that this year and perhaps next year will pass without any additional activity on the crystalline silica standard. OSHA does appear to be studying the questions raised by the SBREFA panel. This time table could be altered significantly depending on the outcome of the Presidential election.

Golf, Golf & More Golf

The year 2004 may not have been a great one for the American Ryder Cup team and Tiger Woods, but except for V.J. Singh, no one did better than OCMA when it came to golf. The Inaugural OCMA Golf Outing held on Monday, August 30, 2004, at the Cumberland Trails Golf Club was a great success. Participants enjoyed the golf, camaraderie, food & refreshments, and OCMA earned an addition to its bottom line of nearly $10,000. Led by OCMA Golf Committee Chairman Bud Tibbits, Hill & Griffith Company and the OCMA Golf Committee, OCMA recruited seven (7) major sponsors, twenty-two (22) hole sponsors, and eighty-three golfers! With Fairmount Minerals Ltd. providing a grand prize of a foursome at the award winning Sand Ridge Golf Club the task of recruiting golf enthusiasts was made that much easier.

The winning team comprised of Greg Tordoff, Fairmount Minerals Ltd. (a keen eyed putter we understand), Joe Cuske, Kim Myers, and Don Weirather, Griffin Wheel Company, won a scorecard playoff with a team from Richmond Castings in Indiana led by Mickey Garrity. He was joined by some of his golfing buddies, Bob Roth, Ed Dierker, and Ed Cokely. By the way, if you run into these guys on the course some day and they ask if you are interested in a game, just keep on walking!

The surprise of the day came after the awarding of the golf certificate to the winning team. Greg Tordoff generously offered his place on the team to OCMA Executive Director Russ Murray who did not get to play in the outing and dreamed of playing Sand Ridge Golf Club. Thanks Greg.

The success of the outing was beyond our expectations and we can hardly wait until next year. If OCMA Treasurer John Burke can convince Bud Tibbits to stay on as Golf Committee Chairman we are confident that next year will be even better. What do you say, Bud?

OCMA Golf Outing Committee Members

Bud Tibbits, Chairman, Hill & Griffith Company
Dennis Baker, Flowserve Corporation
Walt Chaput, GM-Powertrain – Defiance
John Kurtz, Kurtz Bros., Inc.
Bill Massey, Ashland Casting Solutions
Kim Myers, Griffin Wheel Company
Dan Salak, Foseco Metallurgical Inc.

OCMA Golf Outing Major Sponsors

Ashland Casting Solutions
Energy Industries of Ohio (EIO)
Foseco Metallurgical Inc.
Frantz Ward, LLP
GM-Powertrain – Defiance
Hill & Griffith Company
RMT, Inc.

OCMA Golf Outing Hole Sponsors

AFS Central Ohio Chapter Keener Sand & Clay Co.
Alb. Klein Technology Group Kenton Iron Products, Inc.
American Waste Management Inc. Kurtz Bros., Inc.
Annaco, Inc. Miami-Cast, Inc.
Burnham Foundry LLC OSCO Industries, Inc.
Clow Water Systems (2 holes) Palmer Mfg. & Supply, Inc.
EPCOR Foundries The Quality Castings Company
Equipment Merchants International ( EMI) REFCOTEC, Inc.
Fairmount Minerals Ltd. St. Marys Foundry, Inc.
Harrison Ironworks Tri-Cast, Ltd.
Hickman, Williams & Co. Xenia Foundry & Machine Co.

Volunteers

Doug Rowe, OCMA President, Ford Motor Company
Lynn Bierly, OCMA Trustee, Mansfield Castings Co.
Bruce Blatzer, ICRI

OCMA PAC Golf Outings

The OCMA PAC golf outings raised nearly $1000 in 2004. Although we only had one foursome participate in the Southwest OCMA PAC golf outing held on Friday, September 10th at Royal Oak CC in Cincinnati, those who did participate enjoyed a real treat. The Royal Oak CC is one fine golf course, challenging and rewarding. OCMA Trustee Bud Tibbits sponsored our group and the rest of us were somewhat envious that Bud gets to play there on a regular basis. If we are lucky enough to return next year, you are strongly advised to save that date on your calendar. The turnout at the Northern Ohio OCMA PAC outing on Friday, September 17th was better; we had ten (10) players participate at the outing held at Eagle Creek Golf Club in Norwalk. Considering that it was the day the remnants of Hurricane Ivan blew through Northeastern Ohio, we only had a Scottish combination of strong wind and cool weather to contend with in Norwalk. It did not rain. Participants were rewarded with a tough challenge and a lot of fun. We may return in 2005, so get ready.

Join Us This Winter

· Please mark your calendars for Tuesday, January 18, 2005 for the next OCMA membership meeting. John Carey (R-Wellston) expected to be Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee next year will be our luncheon speaker. With the Ohio General Assembly facing a potential $4-5 billion deficit for next year’s budget, Senator Carey’s insights should be very revealing. Contact Russ Murray at 614-876-5100 for more information.

THE TIME IS RIGHT! FOUR MORE YEARS & A MORE BUSINESS-FRIENDLY CONGRESS. LET THEM KNOW ABOUT YOUR IMPORTANT ISSUES.

The reelection of President George W. Bush and wider Republican majorities in both the U.S. House & Senate present a unique opportunity for our Nation’s metal casters. During these next four years we must emphasize the issues of importance to our industry. These include unfair trade; OSHA initiated crystalline silica regulations, new air pollution regulations under GACT (son of MACT), rising material costs, and burdensome health care costs. If we don’t tell them about what matters to us we have only ourselves to blame. Make time to attend the AFS Government Affairs Conference.

The AFS Government Affairs Conference (GAC) will be held from Wednesday, March 9 through mid-day Friday, March 11, 2005. The normal schedule has changed to allow for Congressional visits on Thursday with congressional issues discussed on Wednesday and regulatory issues discussed on Friday. The theme of the conference will be related to building a vibrant manufacturing base with a strong metal casting industry just as our Forefathers did in the early days of our Nation. Come meet with your congressional representatives and let them know your concerns about government actions that affect your ability to stay in business. They can’t read your mind, so come give them a piece of it!

| Home | OCMA | Events |