Blunt Testifies: Rules Should Be Based on Facts, Not Bureaucrats
Washington, D.C. -- Missouri Seventh District Congressman Roy Blunt
urged the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections to vote to halt the implementation of experimental ergonomic
work rules that could injure employees or even put them out of work.
Blunt told the subcommittee that the regulations on repetitive stress
injuries "would cost billions of dollars and, even more importantly, may
eliminate thousands of jobs while failing to assure the prevention of
even one injury."
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is prepared to
impose new workplace rules despite scientific questions about the basis
of the rules, and a pending study by the National Academy of Sciences on
the topic.
Blunt questioned the rationale for OSHA's rush to regulate this area.
He cited statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting that
repetitive stress injuries currently account for only 4% of all
workplace injuries and illnesses. He went on to point out that the
incidents of these conditions have dropped 17% in the last three years
to the lowest level in almost 30 years. Blunt is the author of the
"Workplace Preservation Act" (HR 987) that would halt the OSHA rules
till the scientific study is finished. Blunt's measure has more than 90
bipartisan co-sponsors.
Blunt stressed that there is no consensus in the medical or
scientific community on the causes and cures for these conditions. He
was joined in his testimony by Dr. Stanley Bigos of Seattle, WA and Dr.
Michael Vender of Chicago, IL. Dr. Vender, a hand and upper extremity
surgeon, who is co-author of one of the few reviews of medical
literature on the work-relatedness of repetitive stress injuries told
the hearing, "None of the reviewed studies established a casual
relationship between distinct medical entities and work activities."
Blunt told the hearing that OSHA was reneging on an agreement reached
last year to deal with these scientific questions, "Congress and the
Administration agreed, just last October, to spend $1 million of the
taxpayers' money in order to fund a study by the National Academy of
Science. If OSHA doesn't take the result of this study into account when
drafting their ergonomics regulations, what was the point of funding the
study in the first place?"
Blunt went on to say, "It's irresponsible for OSHA to rush forward
with an experimental regulation that may actually injure workers instead
of help them. Employers could follow the federally required procedures
yet see no reduction in injury rates." The new OSHA ergonomic rules
require employers to identify, evaluate and implement measures to
control repetitive stress injuries.
It is estimated that this first-of-its-kind study to determine
whether a relationship exists between workplace tasks and repetitive
stress injuries should be completed within 24 months. The ten members of
the study panel from the National Academy of Sciences were named last
week.
Blunt said the rules also pose a threat to thousands of American
jobs. "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 standards is that it will act to force employers to replace
workers with machines out of their fear of being cited by OSHA. The
requirements for employers in the draft are ill-defined and ambiguous."
Blunt contends the OSHA's proposed ergonomic rules are based more on
wishful thinking than on confirmed scientific evidence. OSHA cites
results of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) report and a two day National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop
as the solid scientific basis for a comprehensive ergonomic regulation.
Blunt declared, "Neither of these studies even comes close to providing
an adequate basis for a regulation."
The NAS report itself acknowledges that further research is needed by
saying, "Although the research base contains valuable information and
shows consistent patterns...additional research would provide a better
understanding of the process involved. Blunt testified that the NIOSH
report cherry-picked studies it found beneficial--repeatedly emphasizing
information which agreed with NIOSH's position. An analysis of the NIOSH
report by two 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 was deceptive for NIOSH
to publicize their report as "comprehensive" and representative of the
state of knowledge surrounding ergonomics.
Blunt told subcommittee members, "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 effect of non-work
factors such as 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? Having the answers to these basic
questions should be OSHA's first step in drafting a reasonable, workable
scientific regulation."
Blunt concluded, "OSHA's draft regulation fails to provide adequate
scientific answers to any of these basic questions. That is why Congress
should insist that OSHA wait until the NAS study is complete, before
subjecting American businesses to a sweeping new set of workplace
regulations that are based on a bureaucrat's zeal rather than a
scientist's facts."