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
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.
Finally, you are going to say, if the Fortune 500 companies and the ones that talk to you are the good guys, the companies that are really trying to protect workers and understand how expensive and serious it is to have injuries in the workplace, who in the world is pushing for this amendment that would eliminate holding every business in America responsible for safety in the workplace?
My conclusion is that some bad actors out there in the business community who are not living up to the same standard as these companies are the ones behind this amendment. And the sad reality is, the larger companies, through the organizations that represent them in Washington, have joined ranks with the bad actors.
They are playing down the lowest common denominator. They are trying in a way to protect their competitors that aren't living up to the same good standards for their workers. I think that is shameful. I think it is disgraceful.
This Bond amendment--make no mistake--I want to read to you what it does--says after a lot of preparatory language:
None of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Secretary of Labor, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to promulgate, or to issue, or to continue the rulemaking process of promulgating or issuing any standard regulation or guideline regarding ergonomics prior to September 30, 2000.
In other words, turn out the lights downtown on establishing standards that you send down to businesses to protect workers.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York for a question.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for yielding.
As I go around my State of New York, I meet all kinds of people who are unable to use their hands anymore because of the kinds of jobs they have had. We have had, for instance, in New York City, workers from a variety of jobs come together to talk about the need for some kind of standard. Many have been disabled by workplace injuries and have had to limit the amount of hours they work. One woman, for instance, an editor for a local TV station, says she can't use her hands for cooking, for opening doors, or for carrying anything.
I ask my colleague from Illinois, how would this amendment
affect people in that position?
Mr. DURBIN. The Bond amendment, offered by the Senator from Missouri, would basically say to those workers: Your Government can't establish a standard to protect you in the workplace. It stops the Government from establishing a standard for workers.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if the Senator might yield for another question, I guess there is some talk about whether we need to study further; that they are not yet ready to have standards. Yet it is my understanding that scientific and medical journals have had over 2,000 articles about the need for some kinds of standard, about what the problems are, and that it is pretty clear cut that in many new kinds of industries the problems that have developed at the workplace are so real that we have far more than enough information to develop standards.
Would the Senator care to comment on whether or not the argument that we are not ready to have standards in ergonomics washes?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from New York, he is correct. Over 2,000 studies have established a causal relationship between certain work patterns and certain injuries.
I also say to the Senator from New York that this large volume I referred to earlier from the Centers for Disease Control, which is not a political organization--it is an organization dedicated to public health in America--concluded after one of their more recent studies as follows:
A substantial body of credible epidemiological research provides strong evidence of an association between musculoskeletal disorders and certain work-related physical factors when there are high levels of exposure, and especially in combination with exposure to more than one physical factor; that is to say, repetitive lifting of heavy objects in extreme or awkward postures.
So the Senator from New York is correct. The evidence is in. There is need for standard of protection.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I respect his expertise on this issue. I know he has been involved in it for a long time.
It is my understanding that in 1990 the Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole--not a member of our party, now a candidate for President--said that OSHA must take all the needed steps to develop an ergonomics standard. That was virtually 10 years ago. There has been lots of planning since. Am I correct in assuming that even at the beginning of the decade it was pretty clear we needed some kind of standard, and that we have delayed and delayed to the harm of thousands, tens of hundreds, and hundreds of thousands of workers?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from New York is accurate. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to enter into the RECORD a news release from the U.S. Department of Labor that is dated Thursday, August 30, 1990, a release from then-Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, that says as follows in the opening paragraphs:
Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole----
The same person who is now a Republican candidate for President, I might add----
*.*.* today launched a major initiative to reduce repetitive motion trauma, one of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990s.
She goes on with a quote that says:
These painful and sometimes crippling illnesses now make up 48 percent of all recordable industrial workplace illnesses. We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards, not only in the red meat industry, but all U.S. industries.
That was Secretary Elizabeth Dole, Republican administration, 1990.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD this news release in its entirety from the Department of Labor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Page: S12168] GPO's PDF
Secretary Dole Announces Ergonomics Guidelines to Protect Workers from Repetitive Motion Illnesses/Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole today launched a major initiative to reduce repetitive motion trauma, once of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses of the 1990's.
``These painful and sometime crippling illnesses now make up 48 percent of all recordable industrial workplace illnesses. We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards, not only in the red meat industry but all U.S. industries,'' Secretary Dole said.
``We are publishing these guidelines now because we want to eliminate as many illnesses as possible, as quickly as possible.
``The Department is committed to taking the most effective steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic hazards on an industry-wide basis. Thus, I intend to begin the rulemaking process by asking the public for information about ergonomic hazards across all industry. This could be accomplished through a Request for Information or an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consistent with the Administration's Regulatory Program.
``We are emphasizing the need for employers to fit the job to the employee rather than the employee to the job,'' Secretary Dole said. ``This involves such measures as designing flexible work stations which can be adjusted to suit individuals and relying on tools developed to minimize physical stress and eliminate crippling injuries. It begins with organizing work processes with the physical needs of the workers in mind.''
Repetitive motion trauma, also referred to as cumulative trauma disorders (CTD's), are disorders of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems resulting from the repeated exertion, or awkward positioning, of the hand, arm, back, leg or other muscles over extended periods daily.
They include lower back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, (a nerve disorder of the hand and wrist), and various tendon disorders, among others.
``We are initially focussing on the red meat industry because its problems are well-documented and very severe,'' Secretary dole said.
The guidelines for the red meat industry, being issued in the form of a booklet by the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), were developed to assist employers in the industry in developing ergonomic hazard abatement programs.
``The message in the guidelines is simple: repetitive motion illnesses can be minimized through proper workplace engineering and job design and by effective employee training and education,'' Secretary Dole said. ``The guidelines list the keys for success: commitment by top management, a written ergonomics program, employee involvement and regular program review and evaluation.
``We will be closely monitoring and assessing the success of the Red Meat Guidelines in addressing ergonomic hazards to give us more information on which to proceed as we deal with these issues on an industry-wide basis.
``We owe a debt of thanks to the United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO; the American Meat Institute, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for their expert assistance in developing these guidelines. Their willingness to join with us in finding and implementing solutions to ergonomic problems has been most encouraging.''
Assistant Secretary of Labor Gerard F. Scannel, who heads OSHA, said his agency would begin an inspection program early next year in the red meat industry as another phase of the special emphasis program initiated by the issuance of the guidelines.
He said the special emphasis program for the meat industry has been designed to ensure that the well-recognized ergonomic hazards in the industry are being adequately addressed and that ergonomic programs are in place in all major meatpacking plants.
Each red meat plant in the U.S. will be sent a copy of the meatpacking guidelines. As part of the special emphasis program, employers will be offered the opportunity to enter into agreements with OSHA to abate their ergonomic hazards.
Though those who sign such an agreement will be subject to monitoring visits and OSHA inspections in response to complaints, they will not be cited or penalized on ergonomic issues if the monitoring visits show a comprehensive effort and satisfactory progress in abating such hazards.
Scannell said that while the guidelines are advisory, ``compliance with them could demonstrate to an OSHA inspection team that an employer is committed to addressing ergonomic hazards.''
Scannell said the guidelines include a list of questions and answers about common problems to provide more specific assistance to small businesses.
``Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants,'' the official title of the booklet, builds on the cooperative approach of OSHA's safety and health program management guidelines issued in January 1989. Although strict adherence to today's guidelines is not mandatory, OSHA believes following them can produce significant reductions in repetitive motion illnesses.
The recommended program begins with analysis of the worksite to identify potential ergonomic problems. Ergonomic solutions may include: engineering controls such as proper work stations, work methods and tool designs, work practice controls such as proper cutting techniques, new employee training, monitoring adjustments and modifications, personal protective equipment such as assuring proper fit of gloves and appropriate protection against cold and administrative controls such as reducing the duration, frequency and severity of motions; slowing production rates; limiting overtime; providing adequate rest pauses; increasing the number of workers assigned to a particular task; rotating workers among jobs with different stressors; ensuring availability of relief workers; and maintaining equipment and tools in top condition.
Further, meatpackers need to develop an effective training program to explain to employees the importance of working in ways that limit stress and strain, and the need to report symptoms of CTDs early so that preventive treatment can forestall permanent damage.
Employers must also instruct employees in the proper techniques for their individual jobs. Annual retraining is necessary to assure that employees continue to do their jobs correctly.
An effective ergonomics program also includes medical management with trained health care providers to work with those implementing the ergonomics program and to treat employees. The guidelines describe helpful steps including periodic workplace walkthroughs, symptoms surveys and lists of light-duty jobs for employees recovering from repetitive motion injuries.
They stress the importance of a good health surveillance program; the need to encourage early reporting of symptoms; appropriate protocols for health care providers; and evaluation, treatment and follow-up for repetitive motion illnesses.
Finally, the booklet offers suggestions for recordkeeping and monitoring injury and illness trends.
The guidelines also include a glossary of terms and a list of references. Employers may contact OSHA regional offices with questions about ergonomics , recordkeeping or other safety and health issues by consulting the directory at the end of the booklet.
Single copies of ``Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants'' are available free from OSHA Publications, Room N3101, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20210 by sending a self-addressed mailing label.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to state my opposition to this amendment.
When people say government is not responsive to people's problems or that it gets nothing done--they are talking about this amendment which bars OSHA from issuing a standard on ergonomics .
We know the facts. Ergonomics is no longer the mystery it once was. Over 2,000 articles related to this appear in scientific and medical journals.
We do not need new studies. How many studies do we need before everyone recognizes the obvious--ergonomic injury is real?
The 600,000 workers who experience severe back pain or hand and wrist pain have been studied ad nauseam.
So let's move forward and develop a standard. It will ultimately save businesses money and it will protect workers, because a standard will keep people in the workplace.
The Department of Labor has worked on formulating a standard since former-Secretary Elizabeth Dole said in 1990 that OSHA must take all the needed steps to develop an ergonomics standard. That's 10 years of planning. We don't need another year of delay.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We need not pit business versus labor. All sides will benefit.
If not now, I predict eventually we will develop an ergonomics standard. Because as this economy becomes more dependent on the computer, and more top level managers spend much of their day in front of a screen--they will develop the same injuries that are reserved now only for secretaries.
And that will be impetus to develop a standard for them and for those in construction and factories that develop repetitive motion stress.
Last April in New York City, workers from a variety of jobs came together to talk about the need for an ergonomics standard. Some have been permanently disabled by workplace injuries. Some have had to limit the hours they work.
One woman, an editor at a local television station, said can't use her hands ``not for cooking, opening doors, carrying anything.''
Passing this amendment means we believe these people are faking it. No wonder people are so frustrated by government.
Let's defeat this amendment.
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