OSHA Speeches
Regulations -- A WIN-WIN Proposition.
OSHA Speeches -
Table of Contents
- Record Type: Speech
- Subject: Regulations -- A WIN-WIN Proposition.
- Information Date: 07/21/1999
- Presented To: National Association of Manufacturers
- 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 OSHA Policy Subcommittee National
Association of Manufacturers Washington, D.C. July 21,
1999
- If any of you came here today expecting me to talk about the top ten
reasons why I love my job, you're going to be disappointed. It's not
because I couldn't think -- given enough time -- of 10 reasons why I
love my job. It's because I do love my job as the head of a regulatory
agency, and I want to talk about regulations, which perhaps are not your
first love.
- Is there such a thing as a good regulation? Don't answer that
question! But perhaps it depends on your viewpoint.
- Ben Franklin once said, "The shepherd drives the wolf from the
sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator,
while the wolf denounces him as a destroyer of liberty." I suspect that
you and I each see ourselves as the shepherd, and the other as the wolf.
- In the shepherd's view, the sheep are worth protecting at the
expense of the wolf, who goes hungry. This is a classic win-lose
situation.
- And that is how many people seem to view OSHA regulations.
Somebody-the worker-wins. And somebody else-the employer-loses.
- I think that's a false picture and a false analogy. Employers aren't
wolves looking to rip up innocent sheep at every turn, watching out only
for number one. Nor are workers sheep-stupid and defenseless without a
shepherd to guard them.
- Workplace safety and health regulations don't have to be win-lose.
They can be win-win. We can develop regulations that protect workers and
benefit employers as well. And we have a good track record to prove it.
- Take OSHA's cotton dust regulation, for example. In 1978, employers
said it couldn't be done. Then they turned around and did it. Textile
mills reduced cotton dust exposures and met the "impossible" limits OSHA
found feasible. The result? Byssinosis-brown lung-has been virtually
eliminated among the 100,000 workers facing cotton dust exposures 20
years ago. And productivity in textile mills has skyrocketed.
- But are regulations really necessary? Wouldn't the textile industry
have reduced dust and found efficiencies on its own? Won't smart
employers address ergonomics and set up safety and health programs just
because it makes good business sense? Won't market forces suffice? Can't
employers handle this, perhaps with a little help from consultants?
- Certainly some businesses can. Some businesses will.
But only about 30 percent of businesses have.
- About half the 95 million workers who would be covered under an OSHA
safety and health program standard don't have that protection today. How
long should we wait for their employers to wake up to the fact that
safety pays? Establishing a safety and health program to protect
employees is not only the right thing to do, it's the profitable thing
to do. Studies have shown a $4 to $6 return for every dollar invested in
safety and health.
- But too many employers still haven't seen the light. OSHA has been
talking about the importance of safety and health programs for 28 years.
We published guidelines more than 10 years ago.
- The good news is that we've made progress in combating occupational
accidents. You know the numbers. The fatality rate has been cut in half
since 1971. Injuries and illnesses have been on a downward trend for the
past five years.
- The bad news is that 6 million workers still experienced
occupational injuries or illnesses in 1997. And more than 6,000 died on
the job. These tragedies cost our nation $170 billion every year.
- If every employer adopted an effective safety and health program, we
could slash those numbers. Just look at what the exemplary companies in
our Voluntary Protection Programs have done. Each year more than 500
workplaces, representing 180 industries, are saving $110 million because
they've reduced injury rates 50 percent below the average for their
industries.
- The elements necessary for an effective program are
simple-management leadership; employee participation; hazard assessment;
hazard prevention and control; and information and training. They're
based on OSHA's 1989 guidelines and on the real-world experience of VPP
companies. We're proposing a flexible, proven approach, and I expect NAM
to support that approach, even though you will undoubtedly oppose the
regulation simply because it is a regulation.
- Webster's defines a paradox as something with seemingly
contradictory qualities. For me, NAM provides an example of a paradox.
You say a safety and health program regulation is not needed. Yet you
encourage your members to set up such programs.
- What irony! If safety and health programs aren't valuable, why do
your members establish them? And if the companies you represent have
them, why shouldn't other businesses take similar steps to protect their
workers?
- I want to make my position absolutely clear. Establishing a safety
and health program is the single most important thing any employer can
do to prevent workplace injuries and illnesses. Before I leave office, I
want an effective safety and health program to become a fundamental
responsibility of every employer in the country.
- Many of your member companies have demonstrated the value of safety
and health programs. I challenge you as an organization to change your
tune. It's time to harmonize with your practice. Let's take what the
best of American business is doing and spread it to the rest of
business.
- I'd also like to see you adopt a more reasonable position on
ergonomics. That's my other top standard-setting priority. Work-related
musculoskeletal disorders continue to represent a very real and
significant problem in our country. More than one-third of all serious
occupational injuries and illnesses stem from overexertion or
repetition. That's more than 600,000 each year. These injuries cost
businesses $15 to $20 billion annually in workers' comp costs alone.
Have you heard these numbers before?
- Yet NAM's approach to ergonomics is similar to its stand on safety
and health programs. You put the principles into practice but preach
against the proposed regulation. In fact, you don't even want a proposal
to reach a public forum for debate.
- The scientific and medical communities view the situation
differently. Health and safety professionals believe we need to delay no
longer in addressing musculoskeletal disorders. We've been urged to move
forward with a standard by a long list of groups, including:
- the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
- the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
- the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses,
- the American Occupational Therapy Association
- the American Nurses Association,
- the American Public Health Association,
- the American Society of Safety Engineers,
- the American Industrial Hygiene Association,
- and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
- The science on workplace ergonomics has been repeatedly verified.
More than 2,000 studies have been done in the past 75 years, including
two literature reviews by the prestigious National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health and the National Academy of Sciences.
Both these organizations have concluded that there is clear evidence
that poor ergonomic conditions are causing injuries in the workplace and
that there are solutions that work.
- Congress has funded yet another study, to be completed in the Year
2001, and I welcome that and the many other studies of ergonomic
solutions that are underway. But what is clear is that we know enough to
act now. And we need to act now. We don't need to wait another two years
while 1.2 million more American workers experience these painful and
potentially disabling injuries.
- The bottom line is this: ergonomics programs work. You know that and
I know that. They reduce injuries. They improve employee morale. And
they save money for employers. Good ergonomics is good
economics.
- I don't understand why that message is so difficult to understand
here at 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's clear to the scientists. It's
clear to the doctors and the nurses. It's clear to the safety and health
professionals. And it's clear to workers and their representatives.
- Our ergonomics proposal is now at OMB for review. We expect to
publish it in the Federal Register this fall. I hope at that point you
will provide constructive assistance to help us craft a flexible,
practical rule.
- As I said at the beginning, we want to take a win-win approach. I
challenge you to drop your no-win strategy of delaying debate on the
merits of an OSHA ergonomics rule. That's a losing approach-for
employers and employees alike. I urge you to play a productive, not a
destructive, role in this process.
- About the same time we publish our ergonomics proposal, we will
issue our final recordkeeping standard. It will take effect in January
2000. States running their own OSHA programs will issue comparable
standards with the same start date so we can all move forward together.
- The new rule will offer clearer definitions of work-relatedness, a
better explanation of what constitutes light duty and a much improved
and simpler recordkeeping form. We would welcome NAM's assistance in
getting the word out to your members about the changes in recordkeeping
requirements.
- When it comes to OSHA, mega-penalties and controversies over
proposed standards make the news. But there's more to our agency than
those high profile issues.
- Under the Clinton Administration, the agency has emphasized
partnership. We've increased by nearly five-fold the number of companies
in VPP over the past seven years. We've also developed a wide variety of
other partnerships such as the vertical partnership we have with ConAgra
Refrigerated Foods-establishing effective safety and health programs in
every plant they own.
- We also have industry-specific partnerships such as SESAC for steel
erectors in Colorado and the Roofing Industry Partnership for
contractors in Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin. C.A.R.E.-which stands for
Construction Accident Reduction Emphasis -- is a construction industry
partnership established this spring to prevent fatalities in Florida.
- These cooperative partnerships typically include training and
education and assistance in establishing and evaluating safety and
health programs. They leverage OSHA resources while providing valuable
assistance to employers that do not have full-time safety and health
staff. The key, of course, is that they reduce injuries and illnesses in
the workplace. In fact, they have been so successful that I have
directed every one of OSHA's 67 offices around the country to establish
one in their area.
- We also have worked on partnerships at the national level-with the
Associated General Contractors, for example. Would that we could find
some common ground with the National Association of Manufacturers that
would nurture a partnership as well. If you're willing, I'm willing.
- The new millennium is just around the corner. Over the past few
years, we've been caught up in a heady prosperity-the rise of the stock
market, the drop in unemployment. The news has been good, and consumer
confidence and optimism are high in America.
- I'm optimistic that as we turn over the calendar for the Year 2000,
we turn over a new page in worker safety and health as well. My vision
is unchanged. I still want every worker to go home whole and healthy
every day. And I hope the new standards we are promulgating and the new
partnerships we are forging will bring that vision closer to reality in
the century ahead.
OSHA Speeches -
Table of Contents |