Symposium

0 Comments | Insight on the News, August 7, 2000 | by Charles N. Jeffress, | Edward Potter

Q: Should Washington implement national ergonomic standards?

Yes: Uniform workplace protections are a win-win proposition for workers and employers.

Every day nearly 5,000 working Americans suffer painful injuries related to overexertion or repetitive motion on their jobs. The cost of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs, to U.S. employers averages $40 million to $55 million per day.

Each year 1.8 million American workers experience MSDs. Nearly 600,000 of these injuries are serious enough to cause workers to miss work, which constitutes one-third of the most serious on-the-job injuries.

Clearly, too many workers are getting hurt. Hundreds of them have written to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, pleading for help. One was a nurse who experienced a back injury that reduced her to light duty. As a result, after a year the hospital she worked for told her to find another job because, with the back injury, there wasn't enough work that she could do at the hospital. Today she works at part-time jobs in different locations and no longer can provide patient care.

Another example is an ultrasonographer who told OSHA she was fired when she developed an MSD. She wrote, "1 probably would have never had this problem if there were an ergonomics standard present in my workplace." Then there was the trucker who pointed out, "There is no protection under current law for employees who are subjected to heavy-lifting abuse," and the electronics worker who had five surgeries in the last six years to try to correct injuries to her hands and wrists.

The tragedy, as so many of these workers understand all too well, is that many of these injuries could be avoided. But too few employers have addressed the problem of physical stress in the workplace. That is why OSHA must promulgate an ergonomics standard.

Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker. It's the solution to the problem of MSDs. It's about protecting the body from unnecessary wear and tear on the job. That means working smarter and safer, using equipment for lifting when possible, avoiding awkward postures and eliminating excessive force. That's good for workers and for employers.

It's also good for the bottom line. Good ergonomics is good economics. Major companies such as 3M, Ford, Kraft, Xerox and Fieldcrest Cannon have proven that ergonomics programs pay off. Smaller operations such as Enid Memorial Hospital in Oklahoma, Hayden Beverage Company in Idaho, Lovely Hill Nursing Home in New York and Checks-in-the-Mail in Texas have reduced MSDs by 50 to 75 percent and reaped significant savings. Unfortunately, far too many employers have failed to follow these leaders in instituting the best ergonomics practices for their companies.

Everyone knows it's foolhardy and downright dangerous to push equipment beyond its rated capacity. That's a surefire recipe for a malfunction or breakdown. The same is true of the human body. Pushing people beyond their physical capacity leads to lower productivity and a higher risk of injury. Taking into account the physical capacity of workers just makes common sense. And, surely, people are more valuable than machinery.

OSHA has been concerned about MSDs for two decades. More than 15 years ago, we began offering training on ergonomics. In the mid-1980s, we solicited comments on ways to reduce problems associated with manual lifting.

In the late 1980s, OSHA worked with the auto industry and meatpackers to address injuries experienced by their workers. In 1990, the agency published ergonomic guidelines for the red-meat industry that are still in widespread use today.

In 1991, OSHA was petitioned to develop an ergonomics standard as soon as possible. In 1992, under President Bush, we began the rulemaking process in earnest. But in 1995, as we began discussing a draft with stakeholders, Congress stepped in to block further consideration of the rule. For three years, congressional riders prohibited the agency from proposing an ergonomics standard. Then, in 1999, Congress dropped the riders and leaders in the House pledged not to seek another delay. But the House has broken that promise and, along with the Senate, passed an appropriations rider to bar OSHA from acting on ergonomics for yet another year. President Clinton has promised to veto that bill.

It's critical that we publish a final standard without further delay. The scientific evidence linking MSDs to work is strong and substantial. OSHA has reviewed and included in the rulemaking record more than 14,000 scientific studies. The jury is in on this issue. The verdict has been rendered: MSDs are directly related to work, and we can take steps to prevent them.

In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health analyzed 600 epidemiologic studies and found a strong association between work and MSDs. In 1998, at the urging of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences completed a similar study. That study verified that ample sound scientific evidence links back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other MSDs to work.