Ergonomics Proposal: A Cabinetmaker’s Nightmare
A political and economic quagmire, a second study by the National Academy of Science (NAS) is underway to finalize what can be mutually agreed upon between OSHA and industry as the firm science of ergonomics. The original NAS study, completed in August of ’98, was congressionally funded at $490,000. The second will not be wrapped up until January of 2001. Labor unions demand higher compensation for musculoskeletal injury. Manufacturing cringes at thoughts of rising insurance rates. Republicans and Democrats both want credit for its resolution. Meanwhile, chiropractors and occupational therapists anxiously await potentially monumental increases in revenue.
Ergonomics proposals for manufacturing regulation have been on the congressional front and back burners periodically for over ten years. Recently, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration published one totaling 30 pages, with about 1,000 pages of supplemental information. "An average of 300,000 workers can be spared from painful, potentially disabling injuries and 9 billion dollars can be saved each year," announced Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman on November 22. No one questions the value of that. For what reason does this proposal have the KCMA up in arms?
"Does OSHA really need regulation that burdens small manufacturing businesses when they can showcase known success stories and methodology that encourages industry self-regulation?" asked KCMA Executive VP C. Richard Titus. "Manufacturing is behind anything that cuts costs and increases productivity," he went on to explain citing an example from the recent proposal’s own preamble of a company whose workers’ compensation decreased by installing a conveyor belt. "OSHA low-balls the costs and exaggerates the benefits (of the proposal). We are questioning process," he added.
Under the proposal, one musculoskeletal disorder in a workplace reported to OSHA results in legal action. Employers would set up an ergonomics program and compensate an out of work employee recovering from ergonomic injury at 90% pay and 100% benefits for up to six months. If placed by the employer in an alternate duty job, a recovering worker would receive 100% of pay and benefits for six months. Current worker compensation law requires companies to pay two-thirds of gross take-home pay.
"This will encourage self-regulation," said Dave Cochran at OSHA, professor of industrial engineering at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and certified professional ergonomist. "An employer determines what is considered work related injury. Did it occur from a significant amount of time spent performing a core element of an employee’s job? This is a job-by-job, reactive standard affecting individual jobs. It does not affect an entire plant. The proposal includes a quick-fix clause allowing employees 90 days to evaluate and repair an internal problem before having to file a record of internal complaint." He added that following a comment period beginning February 22, 2000 hearings and an additional comment period, OSHA would adjust this proposed standard accordingly.
Cabinetmaking is listed among nine examples of jobs covered by the proposal. The majority of cabinetmakers are small businesses with fewer than twenty employees. The KCMA has included sessions on good ergonomic practices at recent management conferences. Many major U.S. cabinet manufacturers belong to KCMA, but 58 percent of these members report annual sales under $5 million and 60 percent are under $10 million. KCMA is the major trade association for manufacturers of kitchen cabinets and bath vanities, and suppliers of goods and services to the industry.
Please contact webmaster@modernwoodworking.com with your comments.
