Is punitive approach to ergonomics regulations really necessary?
by David Welch
The ergonomics hearings are finished and now industry waits for the final standard to be developed and published. That is expected in December, which means that all industry can be required to implement ergonomic programs that adhere to the guidelines set in the final standard by as early as February 2001.
I did some research on the ergonomics proposal in an effort to form an educated opinion to relay to you in this forum. I read the OSHA studies, some of the hearing transcripts—complete with witness testimony representing various industries—the proposal itself, and I studied the arguments for and against the regulation. As a side note, the AFMA’s vice president of governmental affairs, Russell Batson, spoke out on behalf of the secondary wood products industry at the hearings.
The question that came to mind after all this research was: Is this really necessary? I understand the government’s concern with the number of claims made each year by employees who suffer from various injuries as a result of Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs). According to reports from OSHA, work-related MSDs are the most prevalent, most preventable and most expensive workplace injuries in the country. More than 600,000 employees suffer lost-workday MSDs each year, and business shells out well over $15 billion in worker’s compensation costs each year.
No business benefits from having its employees collecting paychecks while home in bed, injured. The well being of its workforce and economic benefits should be the motivation for industry to want to implement sound and comprehensive ergonomics programs. Therefore, the goals of industry and OSHA are the same.
Why, then, does OSHA seek to solve the MSD crisis with a punitive approach? Wouldn’t it make more sense, instead, to enact a rewards system for businesses that successfully implement ergonomics programs and show concrete results? Give these companies tax breaks, or better yet, regulate insurance companies to give breaks to those companies who show the willingness to show initiative. A pat on the back for a job well done does so much more than a threat if the job is not performed to someone else’s standards.
There are flaws in OSHA’s proposal as it stands now. The definition OSHA gives to ergonomics is “the science of fitting the job to the worker.” MSDs can occur to employees who perform material handling or the repetitive, forceful, awkward jobs associated with the production pace of modern work. This seems a bit vague. How many repetitions are too many? If an employee is trained to lift material using his legs instead of his back, and the employee disregards the training and in the process gets injured, should the company be penalized even more? Isn’t that employee’s injury and time away from production penalty enough?
Some back problems occur at the most inopportune circumstances. For example, I once put myself out of commission for a week by pulling a muscle while cutting vegetables for dinner. One minute I was standing there chopping away and the next I was bent over in agony. The point is that sometimes it doesn’t take much to pull a muscle.
Business owners should get online and check out the ergonomics proposal on OSHA’s website. The steps illustrated to cut down on MSD claims are valid and should certainly work. Business owners should want to implement these suggestions to keep their workers as safe as possible and keep production moving, not because they are being forced to comply.
Next Month: Associate Editor Anna Thibodeaux takes an in-depth look at the ergonomics proposal and gets reactions from industry and OSHA personnel.
David Welch
Phone: 800-633-5953
Fax: 205-391-2081
e-mail: dwelch@randallpub.com
Please contact webmaster@modernwoodworking.com with your comments.
