Despite strong opposition from both the House and Senate, as well as a number of employers and business organization’s, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) still plans to have its new set of standards for workplace ergonomics in place by the end of the year. The proposed regulations, first unveiled last November, have come under fire from business owners and advocates who call them “too costly, rushed and extremely vague.” Both the House and Senate have attached riders to their appropriations bills that deny OSHA the funds to implement the new standards for one year. It’s expected the President will veto the bill if the riders are retained.
Still OSHA officials contend the regulations are critical for addressing the needs of 300,000 workers who suffer from work-related repetitive strain injuries, such as carpal tunnel, and musculoskeletal disorders, including back problems, as a direct result of overuse and poor workplace design.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the reported incidence of repetitive strain injuries (RSIs) has skyrocketed from only 18 percent of occupational illnesses reported in 1981 to nearly 70 percent today – costing more than $100 billion a year in workers compensation claims and lost wages. Many people believe the numbers underestimate the problem, as many employees “work through the pain.”
Under the proposal, which comes with an estimated price tag of $4 billion, about 1.6 million employers would need to implement a basic ergonomic program.
The program would require businesses to assign someone to be responsible for ergonomics; providing information to employees on the risk of injuries, signs and symptoms to watch for and the importance of reporting problems early; and setting up a system for employees to report signs and symptoms. Full programs would be required only when one or more workplace injuries have occurred.
“This proposal includes some unique provisions to expand flexibility for employers because one size doesn’t fit all,” said Charles N. Jeffress, assistant secretary of labor for Occupational Safety and Health. “Three-quarters of general industry employers would not need to do anything until a documented, work-related injury actually occurs.”
Craig Orfield, communications director for the Senate Committee on Small Business said the proposal could spell bankruptcy for small businesses across the country.
“This is a one-size fits all proposal that is designed to take care of both General Motors type companies, the IBMs and the corner drug store kinds of businesses,” he said. “There are just too many differences between these businesses and there is no way they all have the same needs. If we need to have an ergonomics rule, we need to have one that is flexible and where adjustments can be made.”
Ed Gilroy, co-chair of the National Association of Ergonomics, an alliance of associations and businesses representing large and small businesses across the country, which opposes the standard, agreed.
“A one-size-fits-all regulation that essentially treats jobs in every company across industries the same makes no sense. The bureaucratic approach advocated by proponents for virtually every bakery, factory and office in the nation is so unworkable it would be laughable were it not for the serious consequence,” said Ed Gilroy, co-chair of the NAE. “Small businesses would be hit the hardest by such a regulation because most of them just can neither afford to invest in expensive new experimental equipment, nor can they afford the tremendous burden of deciphering another complex and confusing regulation. Many small business would simply have to close their doors.”
Gary Orr, an ergonomist at OSHA disagreed saying the program, “will pay for itself over and over again” and is the result of urging from many businesses.
“It has been the responsibility of the employer to instill ergonomics in their workplace,” he said. “What we are trying to do is really help those employers write their standards and help them do the right thing.”
Orfield and Gilroy believe the $4 billion annual cost of the program is a low estimate. According to the NAE, the American Trucking Associations figures the cost to trucking alone would be more than $6 billion a year; Food Distributors International said the cost to its members would be $26 billion; the Employment Policy Foundation estimates a staggering $100 billion a year cost to all of business; and the National Association of Convenience Stores has pegged the rule’s cost at $20,000 for every corner store across the country.
“They have clearly underestimated the cost that will be incurred,” Orfield said. “Other sources suggest that the cost of the program could be anywhere from double that to 15 times higher than OSHA suggests.”
The high costs have also led to some doubts about the validity of the program. NAE reports the number of injuries peaked in 1993 and has been declining at a rate of almost 2 percent a year.
“It is notable, these injuries are declining. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows repeated trauma injuries have declined by 17 percent in the three most recent years reported and make up just 4 percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses,” Gilroy said.
And while OSHA officials agree there has been a decline in numbers, they say it’s because some businesses have already instituted similar ergonomic rules. In fact, Orr said, it presents only a clear case for the proposed regulation.
“As the number of success stories is growing, the number of injuries is going down.”
Orfield said there is still no scientific proof the regulations will work.
“Their proposal fails to demonstrate that if the business community makes the investment in ergonomics, we will see a definite reduction in ergonomic injuries,” Orfield said. “There is no scientific proof.”
Orr disagreed with the lack of proof saying that more than 14,000 studies were used in the design of the program including a review from the National Academy of Science. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health – a separate federal agency – is expected to release its own study in 2001.
“There has been a lot of research,” he said. “And I think science is trying to catch up with what we already know, we can get hurt at work. What’s happened is that it has become difficult to measure.”
Orfield said there is also a concern the proposal also has a “very faulty trigger,” meaning that anytime an injury occurs whether on or off the job, the employer becomes liable.
“What it basically amounts to is if an employee walks through the door Monday morning with an injury, then the employer could be liable.”
Orr disagreed, saying the proposal “helps employers do the right thing” in those types of situations.
Gilroy and Orfield aren’t questioning the importance of ergonomics. In fact, they said many businesses already are regulating their employees, using better work place programs which include ergonomics. Instead, the two are asking OSHA to take more time and look at the individual needs of certain industries.
“The bottom line is that OSHA has done a shoddy job in preparing this proposal,” Orfield said. “They have neglected to take into account the day to day impacts this would have on businesses. It seems to me that OSHA is proceeding too quickly and has not done its homework.”
OSHA officials have no plans to slow down as a result of criticism.
“It’s always a matter of resources,” Orr said. “And we really believe we have the resources to have a final draft by the end of this year.”
