OSHA Speeches
OSHA's Ergonomics Proposal and Hearings.
OSHA Speeches -
Table of Contents
- Record Type: Speech
- Subject: OSHA's Ergonomics Proposal and Hearings.
- Information Date: 03/14/2000
- Presented To: 3rd Annual Applied Ergonomics Conference
- Speaker: Jeffress , Charles N.
"This document was published prior to the publication of OSHA's final
rule on Ergonomics Program (29 CFR 1910.900, November 14, 2000), and
therefore does not necessarily address or reflect the provisions set forth
in the final standard."
Charles N. Jeffress 3rd Annual Applied Ergonomics
Conference Los Angeles, California March 14, 2000
- What you don't know can't hurt you. Ignorance is bliss. A little
knowledge is a dangerous thing. We've all heard these little bits of
American folk wisdom. They sound good. But unfortunately they're not
true.
- What you don't know CAN hurt you. Being ignorant can lead to pain
rather than bliss. And a little knowledge can be helpful.
- As professionals in the field of ergonomics, you know that jobs that
involve repetitive motions, awkward postures, heavy lifting and
excessive force can lead to musculoskeletal disorders. But that's not
clear to everyone.
- A few people still insist that tendinitis, back injuries and carpal
tunnel syndrome are just the result of aging, or normal wear and tear on
the body or a little tennis on the weekends. Still others see ergonomics
not as a solution, but as a problem. And far too many are convinced that
ergonomics programs cost money rather than save it.
- The truth, as you know, is that work-related musculoskeletal
disorders are the most prevalent and most expensive injuries in the U.S.
MSDs total more than one-third of the most serious work-related injuries
each year. And you know that the way to prevent those MSDs is a sound
ergonomics program.
- That is why OSHA has proposed an ergonomics standard. Too many
people are getting hurt. Hundreds of workers have written us asking for
action. People like Mary, a nurse in Oregon. After several years, she
sustained a back injury and had to work on light duty for a year. Then
her hospital told her to find another job because they did not have
anything for her to do. Today she works at part-time jobs in different
locations and can no longer provide patient care.
- Another worker told us, "I am an ultrasonographer who has recently
been fired from my job because I had to be out with MSD. I probably
would have never had this problem if there were an ergonomics standard
present in my workplace."
- Or the trucker who pointed out, "There is no protection under
current law for employees who are subjected to heavy lifting abuse." Or
the electronics worker who told us about five surgeries in the past six
years to try to correct injuries to her hands and wrists.
- Workers shouldn't have to suffer like this. Often solutions to
mismatches between workers and their tasks are right at hand-simple,
easy and inexpensive. Reducing physical stress in the workplace is not
just the right thing to do, it's the best thing to do-for the bottom
line. But that is not obvious to everyone.
- Yesterday, OSHA opened the hearing on our ergonomics proposal. It
will run for nine weeks, first in Washington, then in Chicago, then in
Portland, Oregon, and finally returning to Washington, D.C. Afterwards,
there will be a 45-day period for hearing participants to submit
additional evidence and data and 45 more days to file final written
briefs. That's a total of 90 days for post-hearing comments.
- During the initial comment period we received nearly 7,000 comments,
and about 1,100 individuals will testify at the hearing. I know a number
of you will be participating, and we appreciate your sharing your
expertise with us. We want to develop the best possible rule, and your
input will be invaluable.
- Yesterday and today, OSHA is answering questions. NIOSH and the
other OSHA experts will present testimony and respond to questions
tomorrow through Monday, and the public after that. C-SPAN 2 was there
yesterday for news junkies, but there's been little continuing press
coverage. These long detailed discussions are essential to good standard
setting, but poor fodder for news coverage. The trade press will be the
best source for those who want to follow the hearings.
- It's obvious already that one of the major issues in this rulemaking
is cost. Some have predicted outrageous, unbelievably high costs. Our
careful, painstaking-and conservative-analysis suggests that $4 billion
is about right. So, what's the difference? And who's right?
- As you can imagine, I have a definite opinion about who is right!
But the difference is largely attributable to productivity questions.
Those who predict high costs are assuming that more people will be
needed to do the same work. Therefore, they expect a decrease in
productivity.
- In fact, employers that have instituted ergonomics programs have
found the opposite to be true-productivity has increased. That's because
physical stress declines, workers are on the job more and their
productivity is higher. That's a combination that leads to lower costs,
not higher costs.
- Of course, this is no surprise to you. You know that good ergonomics
is good economics. You know that ergonomics began as an effort to
streamline work processes and improve efficiency.
- But some people just don't get it-or don't want to get it. These are
the people who say there's no science in the face of 14,000 studies.
That's simply not true.
- At this point, examples of specific solutions aren't enough. We need
to remind American businesses and the American public of the origins of
your discipline. You didn't begin as the comfort patrol. You started as
efficiency experts. And you find ways to save employers money while
improving working conditions for employees.
- We know better than to push equipment beyond its rated capacity.
That's a surefire recipe for malfunction or breakdown. Clearly, not a
smart move.
- Then why would we try to push our workers beyond their physical
capacity? That makes no sense either. It's costly to business and
painful to workers.
- Ergonomists add value. How? By reducing human pain and by cutting
costs. And it's time to do a better job of getting that message across
to American business. It's time to focus on the broader picture.
- Ergonomists need to put their capabilities in proper perspective.
You have a selling job to do. You need to see that ergonomics regains
its reputation as a productivity science.
- As ergonomists, you're not just fixing problems. Your broader
mission is to boost the bottom line. That's the basis for your
profession and your services. Be sure employers understand that you
offer a broader benefit than simply correcting conditions likely to lead
to injury.
- Even as we're in the midst of a fierce debate over costs and
benefits, I find myself looking down the road-five or ten years. And I
can't help but think that from that vantage point-beyond the current
political furor-everyone will realize what a practical, pragmatic
standard this is. And wonder what all the fuss was about.
- Certainly that's been the case with cotton dust. And hazard
communication and bloodborne pathogens are now recognized as reasonable
approaches to serious workplace hazards. That will be the case with
ergonomics as well.
- What we have proposed is a simple, logical approach. If a worker
gets hurt, employers should respond. They should fix the problem so it
doesn't result in injury again. That's a sensible, responsible plan.
- We haven't suggested retooling or remodeling the entire factory. We
just want employers to respond to problems as they arise.
- And we want to catch problems early, before irreversible damage
occurs. That is the purpose of Work Restriction Protection. OSHA's
ergonomics proposal relies on workers to report injuries. WRP protects
income and benefits so that workers don't have to worry about being
penalized for telling their employers they've gotten hurt.
- More than any other OSHA standard, the ergonomics proposal depends
upon individual workers coming forward promptly. Employees will only do
that if they're sure that reporting an injury won't lead to financial
loss. WRP provides that reassurance.
- As you know, OSHA's proposal covers only general industry. We said
we would focus on the jobs where the risk is greatest and the solutions
well known, and we have done that.
- But MSDs occur in other industries as well. OSHA's Advisory
Committee on Construction Safety and Health has developed some
guidelines that can help contractors. We have put those guidelines on
our website at http://www.osha.gov/
under ACCSH products on the construction page.
- The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has taken
the lead in the shipyard industry with a three-year project to study MSD
risks in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. We're also
interested in information you can provide for other industries. We know
there's more work to be done in ergonomics.
- This summer we will be publishing our updated recordkeeping rules.
Those rules will provide a clear statement of when and how MSDs are to
be recorded. OSHA will be offering training focused on recordkeeping
during the second half of this year. Those of you involved in
recordkeeping will want to take advantage of this training.
- You know, everyone worried about how Year 2000 would begin. As it
turned out, the year opened with some colorful fireworks and very few
computer problems. And everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
- Our ergonomics standard will be the same way-lots of worries ahead
of time, some fireworks at the beginning. But I expect a pragmatic
adoption by American business of ergonomics programs. We know these
programs work. You know these programs work. It's only a matter of
tapping the creativity and ingenuity of American business to tailor
programs appropriate to the workplaces where they are needed.
- On average, every day 865 Americans experience one of these painful
injuries-and about 290 have to take time off to recover. MSDs waste time
and money. They can disable bodies and destroy lives. It's past time we
took action to prevent them.
- I thank you for your support and encouragement. I welcome your
participation in our rulemaking. And I look forward to working with you
in the future as we seek to solve the problems that lead to MSDs.
OSHA Speeches -
Table of Contents |