San Diego, CA -- U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-San Diego) today condemned the Clinton Administration's new 1,000-plus page mandate on workplace "ergonomics," saying that "even the President's own Small Business Administration says it will cost small business billions of dollars."

Cunningham said that "every American supports and needs a safe workplace. And in recent years, workplace injuries are down, even though employment is way up.

"There is already a market-oriented workplace safety program in existence in every state and every community," said Cunningham, a member of the House panel that provides the Labor Department's budget. "It's called workers' comp insurance. Safe workplaces pay lower rates. Unsafe workplaces pay higher rates. Every employer in America reads the handwriting on the wall. As a result, workplaces are safer than ever."

The lawmaker added that employers' workplace safety improvement is due to two other factors. "Aside from workers' comp, employers have a human interest and a business interest in safe workplaces. The human interest is that they know their employees and their families by name. The business interest is that in a tight labor market, lost work days due to injury cost big money in lost productivity. Of course, there's always room for improvement -- the good news is that employers are doing it on their own, without more big government."

By contrast, the new ergonomics rule from the U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) represents a "1,000-plus page, top-down approach that just won't work for workers. What small business person can assure compliance with a 1,000 page rule from Washington, D.C.? The trial lawyers and the unions who have been pushing for this for years will have a field day.

"In fact, this new rule is so big, someone's likely to suffer a back injury just lifting it," said Cunningham. "It is a big, new hunting license for big government and trial lawyers to declare open season on law-abiding employers with safe workplaces and deep pockets. We need to build public support against this big-government assault on Americans."

Additional reasons Cunningham cited for opposing this rule include:

· Lack of scientific justification. The Washington Post reported on July 2, 1997, that the government's own review of the field of ergonomic repetitive stress injuries acknowledges that "all of the disorders can be caused by off-the-job events."

· Congressional opposition. Last August, the House voted for the Workplace Preservation Act, intended to block OSHA from pushing this rule until it is scientifically justified.

· Small Business Administration opposition. The SBA says OSHA's new rule will cost up to $18 billion a year -- several times higher that OSHA's estimated impact -- in new costs, without a proven benefit.

· Strong small business opposition. Small business are creating most of America's new jobs. And 79 percent of the membership of the National Federation of Independent Business opposes this rule.

 

###

Back  Washington, DC: (202) 225-5452  Escondido, CA: (760) 737-8438  Web: www.house.gov/cunningham/