Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 21, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1491 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
CONGRESSMAN ROY BLUNT
BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND
THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT -
H.R. 987, THE WORKPLACE PRESERVATION ACT
BODY:
Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Ballenger
and the members of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections for inviting me to
testify regarding bipartisan legislation that 21 of our colleagues and I
recently introduced, H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act. In the last
month, support for H.R. 987 has grown to over 90 cosponsors. I would also like
to thank Dr. Michael Vender and Dr. Stanley Bigos for appearing today to testify
before the Subcommittee.
I am here today to discuss the issue of ergonomics,
and specifically legislation I have introduced to require that a sound
scientific study precede any ergonomic regulation drafted by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
As I expect we'll
hear today in the testimony of Drs. Vender and Bigos, there continues to be
significant debate in the scientific and medical communities over what
constitutes and how to treat so-called ergonomic disorders. In an effort to
identify the possible causes and cures of these disorders, last fall Congress
and the President agreed to spend nearly $1 million of the taxpayers money on a
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the relationship that
may exist between workplace tasks and repetitive stress injuries (RSI's).
This comprehensive study is expected to be completed in 18 - 24 months. In
fact, just last week the NAS appointed the independent panel of specialists that
will conduct this study. I'd like to submit their names and qualifications for
the official record today.
Unfortunately, OSHA intends to ignore this
first-of-its-kind study by rushing forward with the promulgation and issuance of
an ergonomics regulation. In fact, OSHA released an ambiguous
and ill-defined draft ergonomics regulation on February 19,
1999.
In response this premature action by OSHA, H.R. 987, the Workplace
Preservation Act, was introduced on March 4, 1999. This bipartisan legislation
is simple and straight-forward: it will require OSHA to wait for the completion
of the NAS study before promulgating a rule on ergonomics. H.R. 987 currently
has the support of over 90 bipartisan cosponsors.
I appreciate this
opportunity to discuss H.R. 987 and why I believe that if OSHA were to implement
their draft ergonomics regulation today it would cost billions
of dollars and, more importantly, may eliminate thousands of jobs while failing
to assure the prevention of even one injury.
NIOSH Report and NAS Workshop
The crux of the problem with drafting an ergonomics
regulation today is the complete lack of consensus in the scientific
and medical communities as to the causes and cures of ergonomic injuries.OSHA
contends that the results of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) report and a two day National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop
constitute solid scientific evidence on which to base a comprehensive
ergonomics regulation. In reality, neither of these studies
even come close to providing an adequate basis for a regulation.
The two day
NAS workshop was never intended to allow for an in-depmprehensive analysis of
the ergonomics issue. The NAS report itself actually acknowledges the fact that
further research would be needed to promulgate an effective regulation. The
report states that, "Although the research base contains valuable information
and shows consistent patterns...additional research would provide a better
understanding of the process involved."
The NIOSH report cherry-picked
studies it found beneficial--repeatedly emphasizing findings which agreed with
NIOSH's position. An analysis of the NIOSH report by Dr. Richard Blume and Dr.
Howard Sandlet, both respected physicians in the field of occupational medicine,
concluded that NIOSH failed to use generally accepted methods of research when
conducting their study and that it would be deceptive for NIOSH to publicize
their report as "comprehensive" and representative of the state of knowledge
surrounding ergonomics.
Both the NIOSH report and the NAS workshop failed to
examine and answer fundamental questions such as: How many repetitions are too
many? How heavy a lift is too heavy? How much lifting causes back pain? What are
the possible effects of non-work factors such a poor physical fitness, a worker
who smokes, a worker with diabetes, a worker with an unrelated injury or a
worker who plays video games twenty hours a week?
OSHA's Draft
Having
the answers to these questions should be the first step OSHA takes in drafting a
reasonable and scientific regulation. In reality, OSHA's draft regulation fails
to provide adequate answers to any of these basic questions. The result of OSHA
proceeding on an ergonomics standard without answers to these basic causal
questions is clearly reflected in their draft proposed regulation released on
February 19.
OSHA's draft standard would order the redesign of work
environments, require the use of experimental tools, and automate procedures
which may, in effect, eliminate jobs.
My primary concern with the draft
Standard as written is my belief that it will ultimately force employers to
replace workers with machines out of their fear of being cited by OSHA. The
requirements for employers in the draft standard are ill-defined and ambiguous.
For example, the draft regulation states that employers "must identify,
evaluate and implement feasible control measures to control the WMSD (work
musculoskeletal disorder) hazards." Of course, OSHA puts the burden on the
employer to decide what "feasible" means and fails to define what specific legal
requirements exist for employers.What if an ergonomist recommends that the owner
of a local florist shop implement devices to mechanically arrange flowers that
may reduce workplace injuries by 5 percent at a cost of $1 million to the
employer? Does the employer have to follow this recommendation? To what extent?
Even if the ergonomist is unsure it will make any difference? What will OSHA
consider a "feasible" action taken by the employer?
I don't believe that
OSHA can answer these questions. The only fully effective way for employers to
comply with OSHA's definition of "feasible" may be to "eliminate potential
exposures" in OSHAese or in laypersons terms --jobs.
Conclusion
So why
is OSHA in such a rush to promulgate an ergonomic standard? It is not because
these types of injuries are going up because, in fact, repetitive stress
injuries (RSI's) are on the decline. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reports that RSI's have dropped 17 percent over the past 3 years (1995-1997) and
that overall RSI's make up just 4 percent of all workplace injuries and
illnesses. The overall work injury and illness rate is at its lowest level since
the BLS began reporting this information in 1970.
This rapid decline is no
statistical anomaly--it is a direct result of the increased attention given to
employee health and safety. The draft regulation proposed by OSHA is simply too
vague to accelerate this already rapid reduction in lost workday injuries.
Because the scientific evidence is not strong enough to answer basic causal
questions, OSHA has been forced to write an ambiguous regulation that offers no
actual solutions. As a result, the employer could follow the proper procedures
required in the regulation yet see no actual reduction in injury rate.
As
the federal agency responsible for regulating all American businesses, OSHA has
a responsibility to gather as much evidence as necessary on an issue before
attempting to impose a regulation-- evidence such as the kind that will be
presented in the NAS study. What is OSHA going to do if the results of the NAS
study ultimately do not support OSHA's standard?
Another important issue to
consider is the fact that Congress and the Administration agreed, just last
October, to spend $1 million of the taxpayers money in order to fund this study.
Now $ l million might seem like a drop in the bucket to some bureaucrats in
Washington, but I assure you that my constituents in the seventh district of
Missouri don't see it this way. If OSHA doesn't take the results of this study
into account when drafting their ergonomics regulation, what
was the point of funding the study in the first place?
Mr. Chairman, we all
share the goal of protecting American workers and improving safety in our
workplaces. That's exactly why I am urging OSHA to wait for the results of the
NAS study. It's irresponsible for OSHA to rush forward with an experimental
regulation that may actually hurt workers instead of help them. As safety
continues to be a top priority in our workplaces, OSHA should scrap its proposed
ergonomics role and support efforts to develop sound science--sound science that
will help working Americans.I again thank the Chairman for holding this hearing
and respectfully ask the Subcommittee to move the bipartisan Workplace
Preservation Act forward as quickly as possible.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 22, 1999
