THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

to implement a rule without knowing exactly what the consequence

[Page: S12165]  GPO's PDF

   Finally, I do not know that I can justify to my constituents in Arkansas, and to the average Arkansas worker who makes a median income of $27,000, how the Federal Government effectively wasted $890,000 of their hard-earned tax dollars by not even waiting for the completion of this study.

   Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Bond amendment and make OSHA await the outcome of the NAS study so they can devise an ergonomics standard that will be effective in protecting American workers without unnecessarily burdening American businesses.

   I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

   Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

   Mr. HARKIN. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my friend from Missouri and the Chairman of the Small Business Committee. I heard not all but most of the opening comments by the offerer of the amendment, Senator BOND. What I heard mostly was the concerns expressed by Senator BOND regarding its impact on small businesses.

   While I happen to serve on the Small Business Committee, Senator BOND is the chairman of that committee. It goes without saying that Senator BOND has had a long and intense interest in the impact of rules and regulations on small businesses. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Senator BOND has done a very good job in protecting and defending the rights of small businesses. Quite frankly, I believe I have, too, and others on the committee. I can understand Senator BOND's concern, legitimate concern about what would happen with the small businesses.

   In that regard, I support his thrust in terms of making sure that we do not impact unduly on small businesses and that we fulfill our obligation to ensure that small businesses get the support whatever it might be, to help change and redesign a workplace that would be injurious to workers suffering from ergonomic types of illnesses.

   To say that it would have an impact on small businesses does not mean we can't do anything about it because I think we have an obligation to protect the health and the safety and the welfare of the workers of this country. Whether they work for IBM or General Motors or whether they work for a small concern that employs five people, I believe we have an obligation to be concerned about their health and their safety.

   Obviously, we also have an obligation to be concerned about the small businesses in this country. That is why I say, to the extent we can, we better be prepared to help small businesses to cut down on the illnesses and injuries to workers from musculoskeletal disorders and the results of ergonomic illnesses.

   So again, I hope this is not just the reason someone might vote against this, because of the impact on small businesses; think about the impact on the workers, what is happening to workers out there.

   I would also like to point out that if a small business has no workers with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), is not in manufacturing and does not have workers with significant handling duties, that small business doesn't have to do a thing. Millions of small businesses (drycleaners, banks, advertising agencies, shoe repair) will have no obligation to comply unless a worker gets hurt.

   Then let us have a meeting of the minds to do both. Let's protect our workers, and then meet our obligation to help small businesses. It seems to me this is the way to go.

   I know the Senator from Illinois has been waiting to speak, but let me also comment upon the fact that Senator BOND had said something about women-owned businesses, that women-owned businesses will be at risk. Quite frankly, women are at risk.

   Here is a study done on ergonomics , called A Women's Issue, from the Department of Labor. The title says: Who is at Risk? Women experienced 33 percent of all serious workplace injuries--those who required time off of work--in 1997, but they suffered 63 percent of repetitive motion injuries, including 91 percent of injuries resulting from repetitive typing or keying and 61 percent from repetitive placing. Women experienced 62 percent of work-related cases of tendonitis and 70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases. So this is a women's issue. It is women who are suffering more from repetitive injury diseases and illnesses than men are. We should keep that in mind.

   Secondly, we hear about doing a study and that we shouldn't promulgate or have these rules prior to the study being done. Well, first of all, for the record, there is no new study being done. The study being done by the National Academy of Sciences, which is referred to often, is just a study or a review of existing literature. They are not conducting any new research. All of the literature being reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences is already available to OSHA. The study the NAS is doing is a review of all the existing studies. We have studied this issue to death. There have been more than 2,000 ergonomic studies, and there have been 600 epidemiological studies done on ergonomics . We have more than enough information to move ahead in protecting workers. The study we keep hearing about is simply a study of all the studies. Let us keep that in mind.

   We have been a long time in this rulemaking process. We have had over 8 years of study. I think it is well to note, too, the first Secretary of Labor who committed the agency to issuing an ergonomic standard. It was then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, who committed the agency to issuing an ergonomic standard. We have been studying it ever since.

   Also, keep in mind, no rule has been issued, not even a proposed rule. Again, that is all we are talking about, letting OSHA go ahead with a proposed rule. That is not the end of it. Once the proposal is issued, the public, people on all sides of the debate will have ample opportunity to comment on the proposal.

   Lastly, this really does kind of break the agreement we had last year. Our word is our bond around this place. If we don't keep our word, this place disintegrates. Last year, we had an agreement made with the House Members, Congressman Livingston, who at that time was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and DAVID OBEY, who was the ranking member. They signed a letter dated October 19, 1998. What they said was: We understand that OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics late in the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear that by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent

   to block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics . It was signed by Chairman Livingston and ranking member OBEY.

   I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. Obviously, we are on an appropriations bill. I was involved in the discussions on that last year. The agreement was made to go ahead and let the National Academy of Sciences do a review--that is all it is; it is not a new study--of the studies that have already been done.

   Let's keep that in mind; this is not a new study. During that time, OSHA was not prevented from going ahead and issuing a proposed rule--not a final rule, a proposed rule, which I have pointed out, then, allows everyone to have their input and allows us in Congress to see it. Again, people talked about this study, and we had this agreement. We should live up to the agreement.

   They talk about the cost. Here is a whole packet--I will have them here if anybody wants to read them--of ergonomic changes made by companies, both large and small, to help reduce the significance and the number of injuries. These are what companies on their own did.

   One caught my eye. This is from Sun Microsystems. They make computer equipment and systems in California. Problem: In 1993, the average work-related musculoskeletal disorder disability claim was $45,000 to $55,000. The solution: Sun Microsystems purchased ergonomic chairs and provided education and work station assessments to all who requested them. The company also encouraged workers to adopt proper posture while working with computers. The impact: The average Ðrepetitive-strain-injury-related claim dropped from $45,000 to $55,000 in 1993 to $3,500 in 1997.

[Page: S12166]  GPO's PDF

   Does it work? Yes, it does. It works well. We ought to get on with it. Let OSHA issue their proposed rule. These delays hurt workers. More than 600,000 workers lose work each year because of ergonomic-related injuries. These are our cashiers, nurses, cleaning staff, assembly workers in manufacturing and processing plants, computer users, clerical staff, truck drivers, and meat cutters.

   This amendment should be defeated because the workers of this country deserve to have their health and their safety protected.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUNNING). The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. BOND.

   During the course of this debate, we will hear many terms, which sound technical in nature, about the issue at hand. It has been described as ergonomics , musculoskeletal disorders. I think we ought to try to get this down to the real-world level of what this debate concerns.

   I have before me a study from the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relative to this particular problem. They state, early in the study, the term ``musculoskeletal disorders'' refers to conditions that involve the nerves, tendons, muscles, and supporting structures of the body.

   Another definition says: Ergonomic injuries have many names. They are called musculoskeletal disorders, repetitive stress injuries, cumulative trauma disorders, or just simply strains and sprains. These injuries occur when there is a mismatch between the physical requirements of a job and the physical capacity of a worker.

   I wanted to make sure we said that at the outset, so those who are following this debate will understand that what is at issue is not a highly technical, scientific issue but something that every one of us who do manual chores at home or at the workplace understands. If you sit there and have to peel a bag of potatoes, when it is all over your hand is a little sore. What if you had to peel a bag of potatoes every half hour, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, 12 months a year? How would your hands react to it? That is what we are talking about--ergonomics ; musculoskeletal disorders.

   I note that the Republican majority wants to limit this debate. They have asked on two occasions that we agree to a limitation. I hope they will reflect on the fact that we are talking about injuries that occur to 600,000 workers a year. It is only fair to those workers, when we consider this amendment by Senator BOND of Missouri, that this debate reflect the gravity of the issue. I will not make a unanimous consent request at this time, but I think it is reasonable that we allot in this debate perhaps 1 minute for every 250 workers who were injured each year by one of these conditions.

   That is 1 minute of debate for every 250 workers. By my calculation, that comes out to about 24,000 minutes, and it turns out to be a 40-hour work week. Wouldn't it be interesting if the Members of the Senate had to stand in their workplaces 4 and 5 hours at a time debating this amendment and then talk about the aches and pains they suffer. Imagine the worker who puts up with that every single day.

   Each of us in the Senate brings our own personal experiences to this job. I am sure there are many colleagues in support of this amendment who have been engaged in manual labor. I oppose this amendment. I have had the experience, in my youth, of some pretty tough jobs. My folks were pretty adamant that I take on tough jobs so I would want to go back to school and finish my college and law school education.

   Well, it worked. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, and spent several summers working in the stockyards, sometimes working the graveyard shift, from midnight until 8 in the morning, and other times during the day. I did all sorts of manual labor, such as moving livestock, cleaning up in areas that needed to be cleaned up. It was a lot of hard, tough work. At the end of each summer, I was darn glad to go back to school.

   But there were two jobs I had that educated me more than others about the workplace, and dangers, and why this debate is not about some dry concept but about real people who get up every single morning, pull themselves out of bed, brush their teeth, and head off to work to earn a paycheck to pay for their families' needs and maybe to realize the American dream.

   One job I had was on a railroad. It was considered a clerical job. It involved a lot of moving back and forth, sometimes in the middle of the night, in Brooklyn, IL, between

   trains that stopped. I was a bill clerk walking up and down with a lantern, trying to keep track of these trains. One night, in the middle of the night, I climbed a ladder on the side of one of these gondolas to see if it was empty or full. As I started to jump down from that ladder, my college graduation ring caught on a burr on the ladder, causing a pretty serious injury and a scar I still carry. That was a minor injury. I was back at work in a few days. Some workers aren't so lucky.

   But the job I had really educated me about this issue, so I understand it personally. I hope my colleagues can come to understand it. It is a fact that I worked four straight summers in a slaughterhouse, the Hunter Packing Company of East St. Louis, processing hogs and pork products. We were unionized, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workers of Greater North America, and we had a contract. Thanks to that contract, I think I received $3.50 an hour, which, in the early 1960s, was a great wage for a college student. I could finish that summer and take $1,500 back to school and do my best to pay my bills. My kids, and a lot of college students today, laugh when they consider that amount of money, but that was a large amount of money in my youth. When you came to the slaughterhouse as a college student, you expected the worst jobs, and you took them if you wanted to make the salary you needed. So I worked all over this slaughterhouse.

   The union had entered into an agreement with the company, Hunter Packing Company, which said: You will work an 8-hour day, but we define an 8-hour day in terms of the number of hogs that are processed. If I recall correctly, our contract said we would process 240 hogs an hour, which meant slaughtering or processing on 2 different floors, 2 different responsibilities.

   Some people who worked there said: Wait a minute, if 240 hogs equals an hour, and we are supposed to work 8-hour days, and at the end of the day we are supposed to have processed or slaughtered 1,920 hogs, if we can speed up the line that carries these hogs, or speed up the conveyor belt that carries the meat products, we might be able to get out in 7 hours.

   So it was a race every day to get to 1,920 hogs. Hundreds of men and women who were standing on these processing lines were receiving that piece of the animal or piece of meat to process it, knowing another one was right behind it, just as fast as they could move--repetitive action, day in and day out.

   I saw injuries in that workplace because of the repetition and the speed. I can remember working on what we called the ``kill floor,'' where the first processing of a hog took place. I worked next to an elderly African American gentleman, a nice guy. He joked with me all the time because I was this green college student doing everything wrong. One day, I looked over as he slumped and fell to the floor; he passed out.

   I can recall another day when I was working on a line where they were putting hams on a table to be boned and then stuck into a can so we could enjoy them at home. These men were--it was all men at that time--paid by the ham. The faster they could bone the hams, the more money they made. The knives they used were the sharpest they could possibly get their hands on. They covered the other hand with a metal mesh glove, and they would set out to bone the ham as quickly as they could. There were hams flying in every direction and hands flying in every direction. The next thing you know, there were injuries and cuts.

   Of course, if your hand is cut and you work as a piece worker, you really don't make much money until it heals. You can't go back too soon into an environment with a lot of meat juices and water because it won't heal. I

[Page: S12167]  GPO's PDF

   These images are as graphic in my mind today, in 1999, standing on the floor of the Senate, as they were in my experience as a kid in that packing house. As I looked around at the men and women who got up every single day and went to work--hard work, dirty work, but respectable work--and brought home a good paycheck for a hard day's work, I saw time and time again these injuries on the job.

   The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. BOND, says to the Federal Government--in this case, it says to the Secretary of Labor--not to study and not to come up with regulations that would protect workers in the workplace from repetitive injuries.

   It is a common question in legislatures and on Capitol Hill: Who wants this amendment? Who is pushing for this amendment? Who would want to leave millions of American workers vulnerable in the workplace from repetitive stress injuries when we know that over 600,000 workers a year are injured? Who is it who wants to stop or slow down this process?

   Well, I am virtually certain it is some business interest. I don't know which one, because the curious thing is that every business that comes to talk to this Senator, or others, is quick to say: We care about our workers. We put things in place to protect our workers. We don't need the Federal Government to

   come in because safety in the workplace is No. 1 at our plant.

   I hear that over and over again. I don't dispute it. When I talk to you a little later on about some of the companies that have responded to this particular challenge, you are going to find big names, Fortune 500 names, such as Caterpillar Tractor Company of Illinois, a big employer in my State. I am proud of what this company makes and exports around the world. You will hear about what they have done to deal with the problem. Chrysler Motor Company in Belvidere, IL. I have been there. We will talk about what they did.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents