Ergonomics standard proposal gets mixed reviews
Where do you stand on OSHA's proposed ergonomics standard? Here's the reaction to OSHA's latest draft of the ergonomics standard proposal.
By Staff -- Modern Materials Handling, 5/1/1999
There are two sides to every story. The recent OSHA ergonomics standard proposal is no exception.On one hand, according to Charles N. Jeffress, assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), ergonomics is the most important standard OSHA will propose this year.
On the other hand, the proposal has caused a fire storm among congressmen, end users, businesses, and industry associations.
Released to the general public on February 19, 1999 on OSHA's website, www.osha.gov, the 26-page working draft reveals what OSHA believes are the answers to decreasing the number of work-related muskuloskeletal disorders (WMSDs).
WMSDs account for $20 billion in workers compensation costs each year. Nearly 650,000 workers suffer from WMSDs-serious injuries and illness caused by overexertion, repetition, or other physical stress.
The draft answers questions for business owners as to who will have to implement the program and what parameters they must go by to comply with the standard.
But a great deal of controversy surrounds the research on WMSDs. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is currently conducting research on WMSDs at the request of congress. The NAS research will be completed by 2001. But OSHA expects to finalize its standard by the end of 2000. The question remains: How can OSHA write an ergonomics standard without sufficient information surrounding the very heart of the matter-WMSDs.
A formal ergonomics proposal is expected from OSHA sometime this fall.
The draft proposal suggests coverage for workers in 1) Manufacturing operations; 2) Manual handling operations; and 3) Other jobs in general industry where there is a demonstrated WMSD problem. According to OSHA, these industries account for more than 60% of all reported WMSDs. General industry means everything that OSHA covers excluding maritime, construction, and agricultural industries.
In early March, Congressman Roy Blunt of Missouri authored the Workplace Preservation Act, a bill that would prohibit OSHA from finalizing an ergonomics standard until the NAS has completed its research.
Republican Cass Ballenger (R-NC) supports the bill. "(OSHA) will not ultimately succeed in finalizing this ill-conceived ergonomics regulation because there are simply too many gaps in the scientific and medical knowledge in this area."
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) also opposes the standard. "Our 14,000 members believe they've already done their part in reducing WMSDs," says Jennifer Krese, NAM's director of employment policy. "They know that their employees are the livelihood of their business."
One NAM member, who served on the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process, emphasizes the question of legitimacy over worker complaints. Deciphering where injuries actually occur-either on the job or at home-could be a challenging task.
Mike Jenkins, president and CEO of the International Warehouse Logistics Association (IWLA), expresses similar concern. "There's virtually no way to separate injuries that may occur off the job, but be reported as an on-the-job injury. OSHA's proposed standard specifies no clear way to protect the business owner.''
Ergonomist and professor at the University of Nebraska David Cochran, who assisted in the development of the draft, argues that there is no change in that policy from what stands now.
Jenkins cites a number of other objections to the proposal including the burdensome cost of implementing the ergonomic program.
"We can't fix every job at once," says Stephan Jones, industrial engineer of corporate ergonomics for the Lenox China company. "Most companies don't have the available capital necessary to implement the program all at once, and how much of that will OSHA understand?"
Already Lenox China has a pro-active ergonomics program in place, but Jones wonders if it is enough to satisfy OSHA.
"Companies may have to prioritize," says Cochran, "but as long as companies are making a good faith effort to reduce WMSDs, OSHA will back off."
OSHA maintains that the proposed standard is a work-in-progress. "The whole thing is open for discussion," says Cochran. The public will have several months to review the proposed rule. Interested parties affected by the rule including employers and workers, will have an opportunity to participate in public hearings.
The reasons for OSHA's ergonomics standard...
* 34% of all lost-workday injuries and illnesses are caused by WMSDs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
* In 1996, WMSDs caused 647,000 lost workdays
* WMSDs account for $1 of ever $3 spent for worker's compensation
* Carpal tunnel syndrome, a form of WMSD, leads to more days away from work than any other workplace injury
* Total yearly costs of workers' compensation costs amount to $60 billion. Over $20 million of workers' compensation costs are caused by WMSDs.
Examples of WMSDs include:
* Carpal tunnel syndrome
* Epicondylitis
* Tendinitis
* Low back pain
* Trigger finger
* Muscle strains
* Sciatica
* Carpet layers knee
* Rotator cuff tendinitis
* De Quervains' knee
* Raynaud's phenomenon
* Synovitis
Nation can't afford to wait on ergonomics
A few weeks after OSHA's ergonomics program standard proposal was released, assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, Charles N. Jeffress issued the following public announcement.
MARCH 4, 1999-"This nation cannot afford to wait any longer to address the serious issue of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Too many workers and their families are suffering needlessly, and too many businesses are having to foot the bill. We need to complete an ergonomics proposal that provides a flexible framework to help guide employers in addressing work-related muskuloskeletal disorders in a sensible, practical manner. Hundreds of employers have told OSHA that ergonomics programs have proven effective for them in reducing injuries, illnesses, and workers' compensation costs.
"It's time to hold a full, open debate on this issue through publication this fall of a formal proposal in the Federal Register. The science is sound; the public health experts agree. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American Public Health Association, and others have urged OSHA to move ahead on this issue. It's time that we
do so."
There are no other articles related to this article.Talkback
Related Content
Related Content
Sponsored Links
View All Blogs
