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
Mr. President, will the Senator also answer another question?
[Page: S12169] GPO's PDF
Mr. DURBIN. Certainly.
Mr. SCHUMER. This is one other problem that I have heard from my constituents in New York. Workers who have labored long and hard who show up at the job day in, day out develop certain types of problems, and because there are no standards, all too often when they go to their supervisor, when they go to their boss, when they go to somebody of some authority in the company in which they work--it could be a large company, it could be a small company--and complain of these problems, they are told they are faking because these injuries are different. Many of them are the kinds of injuries we are used to where, God forbid, you see blood or bone or some bruise. These are injuries that hurt and affect their ability to work just as much, but they can't be seen in the same way.
Has the Senator from Illinois come across the same type of problem, and wouldn't the promulgation and maintenance of standards help these people prove they have a real problem?
Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from New York identifies the real problem here in defining the issue because in many cases we are talking about what is characterized as a ``soft tissue injury.'' In other words, examination by an x ray or an MRI may not disclose any problem and yet there is a very serious and real problem.
I used to find in my life experience people suffering neck and back injuries. You couldn't point to objective evidence of why this person was crippling up or why this person had a problem. In fact, the problem was very real.
What we are trying to do is establish a standard so the worker is not accused of malingering and the worker is not accused of faking it, but the worker has a recourse when there is a very real and serious injury to at least get time off and at least go for some medical attention.
The Senator from Missouri, Mr. BOND, with this amendment wants to stop this process, wants to say that this Government will not establish that standard of protection for American workers. The net result of it, of course, is that 600,000 victims of these injuries each year will not have the protection to which the Senator from New York has alluded.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me go on to say that the objective of continuing to study this matter is one of the oldest strategies on Capitol Hill. It is the way many people who object to a certain thing occurring delay the inevitable and prolong the process of review.
I have been involved for years in the battle against the tobacco companies. I can't think of a product in America that has been studied more than tobacco. It shouldn't be. It is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America today.
When the tobacco companies ruled the roost on Capitol Hill, they would postpone health standards and warning labels, and banning smoking on airplanes, for example, by saying: We just need another study. If we can get another study, then maybe we will arrive at the truth about what to deal with, what to do in dealing with tobacco products.
This is another good illustration. I listened to the Senator from Missouri. He said in his conclusion supporting this amendment, which I rise in opposition to: ``It is time for OSHA to act compassionately.''
I understand the virtue of compassion, and I hope I have some in my life.
But there is no compassion for millions of American workers if we do not set out to establish a standard of protection when it comes to these types of injuries.
To postpone this for another year--which is what this amendment would do--is to put their health and safety at risk. For what? So that bad companies that care less about their worker injuries don't have to improve the workplace? That is what it is all about. That is the bottom line on this debate.
As I said earlier, major companies already recognize the problem and respond to it. Go into many of your discount stores and one sees workers wearing back brace belts. I have seen them at Wal-Mart and other stores. Their employers understand reaching over and pulling groceries hour after hour can cause some back strain, so they have done something about it. Voluntarily, on their own, they have done something. They don't want the workers to be off work and an expense to the company. They want them to continue on the job with good morale and they provide them some protection.
When I went to the Belvidere Chrysler plant where they make the Neon automobile in my State of Illinois, I was pleasantly surprised to see all the changes that had taken place on the assembly line. In the old days, a worker would turn around and pick up a piece of an automobile, move around, and put it on the automobile to fix it in place. That has changed. There are all sorts of cranes and devices so parts can be moved without strain or stress to the employee. That was done not just to protect the employee but to protect the bottom line of the company.
Frankly, worker injuries cost the companies in terms of time lost and in terms of productivity as the experienced workers leave the line and someone new takes their place. That is being done by conscientious companies. OSHA needs to develop a standard for those that are not conscientious. The Bond amendment is not compassionate. The Bond amendment stops the Department of Labor from establishing that standard of protection.
As I mentioned earlier, over 6 million workers have been injured in the course of keeping records on this particular type of injury, 600,000 each year. Over 2,000 studies on these hazards have detailed how the hazards in the workplace harm people and put them out of work, and the devastating impact they have had on the American workforce.
Yet the Bond amendment delays, stops it, says to the workers who go to work every single day, put your life and your earning capacity at risk in the workplace. And we in Congress, each year, for the sake of a handful of companies that refuse to act responsibly in dealing with their workers, will stop you from any standard of protection.
The following disorders in 1997 accounted for more than 600,000 workplace injuries. One is fairly common. In fact, some people who work in my office have dealt with this problem because of the nature of working on a keyboard. This type of musculoskeletal disorder is called carpal tunnel syndrome. It accounts for $20 billion annually in workers' compensation costs. As I am speaking now, there is a court reporter standing in front of me working away at her machine; she does that every single day. If she is not careful, she can develop problems, as people in ordinary clerical situations do on a regular basis.
I don't think these people are malingerers. I don't think these people are faking. Ever seen the scars from the surgery? That strikes me as a great length to go to to fake an injury. I think these people are in real pain and seeking real relief.
One of the things I have noticed, some of the keyboards have been changed now so there is less stress on the hands of workers who use them. Companies have decided in redesigning the keyboard that they will address that problem directly. It could be that the development of a standard by the Department of Labor will move our country in that direction and reduce the $20 billion paid out every year by American businesses for workers' compensation cases involving those with carpal tunnel syndrome.
Who is affected the most by the Bond amendment? Which workers will be hurt the most by the Bond amendment? Women across America. Women workers suffer a much higher rate of carpal tunnel syndrome. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 86 percent of repetitive motion injury increases were suffered by women; 78 percent of tendinitis increases were suffered by women. Yet women make up 46 percent of the workforce.
What kind of jobs are these women in? We have talked about clerical jobs, obviously. But there are nurses, nurse's aides, cashiers, assemblers, maids, laborers, custodians, and, yes, many of these jobs employ minority workers. It is estimated between 25 and 50 percent of the workforce are Hispanic and African American workers in those particular jobs.
A 6-month study by the National Academy of Sciences in 1998 stated,
[Page: S12170] GPO's PDF
We heard the Senator from Arkansas, we heard the Senator from Missouri--I am sure we hear others--stand up and defy this scientific conclusion. Despite 2,000 studies and this clear language, some would lead Members to believe that it is
still a mystery how 600,000 workers could complain of this type of injury in America every single year. We know better. We know better from our life experience. That is why this amendment is so bad, why this amendment, in delaying protection for those workers, ignores the obvious, the injuries and the scientific conclusion that leads us to at least a standard of care to protect those same workers.
A few minutes ago, I made reference to the press release from the Department of Labor, 1990, at a time when the Secretary was Elizabeth Dole. Elizabeth Dole is a person I came to know and respect when she was Secretary of Transportation and appeared before my subcommittee in the House of Representatives. There was a time when we spoke of worker protection issues as bipartisan issues. Sadly, with a very few exceptions, that is not the case anymore.
If we are talking about increasing the minimum wage, which historically was a bipartisan issue--both Democrats and Republicans understanding that people who went to work every day deserve a living wage--that has changed. It has changed for the worse.
This amendment, if it comes to a vote, will evidence that this has become a very partisan matter. Those offering the amendment on the Republican side of the aisle will generally, if not exclusively, vote in support of the amendment; those on the Democratic side of the aisle will generally vote against it. We have broken down on partisan lines.
The sad reality is the workers we are talking about and the workers who were injured do not break down on partisan lines. The workers who come off that job with neck and back injuries and carpal tunnel syndromes are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nonvoters. They deserve better than to let this issue break down to the partisan battle which it has.
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole said in August of 1990:
We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards in all U.S. industries.
She said at that time, 9 years ago:
We are publishing these guidelines now because we want to eliminate as many illnesses as possible as quickly as possible.
She goes on to say:
The Department [of Labor] is committed to taking the most effective steps necessary to address the problem of ergonomic hazards on an industry-wide basis.
That was 9 years ago. Here we are today, without those standards of protection, and an effort underway by Senator BOND of Missouri to, once again, delay the establishment of these standards.
Secretary Elizabeth Dole said in 1990:
We are emphasizing the need for employers to fit the job to the employee, rather than the employee to the job. This involves such measures as designing flexible workstations which can be adjusted to suit individuals and relying on tools developed to minimize physical distress and eliminate crippling injuries. It begins by organizing work processes with the physical needs of the workers in mind.
That is basically what I have seen applied to businesses in my home State of Illinois, by companies that care. This entire news release has now been agreed to be part of the RECORD. Those who review this debate will see that Secretary Dole was on the right track--a Republican Secretary of Labor.
Why, today, the Republican Party, through the amendment of Senator BOND of Missouri, wants to take a different venue, a different tack, and to eliminate this responsibility, I cannot explain.
This press release is from a different Labor Secretary, not our current Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, who said if the Bond amendment is adopted, she will veto this entire important bill; it is from Secretary Elizabeth Dole. But it is from Secretary Elizabeth Dole. Secretaries Dole, Reich, and Herman have support this issue, but they are not alone. Other endorsements establishing the standard of protection for American workers come from the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Public Health Association, and the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
I received a letter from the American Public Health Association, which I would like to make part of this record as well.
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMERICAN PUBLIC
HEALTH ASSOCIATION,
Washington, DC, September 27, 1999.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR: We are deeply concerned about S. 1070, legislation that would not only block OSHA from issuing an ergonomics standard, but even from issuing voluntary guidelines to protect working men and women from ergonomic hazards, the biggest safety and health problem facing workers today.
We strongly support OSHA's efforts to promulgate a standard to protect workers from ergonomic injuries and illnesses. These disorders are real, they are serious and they account for nearly a third of all serious job related injuries (more than 600,000 workers a year); moreover, they are preventable. One type, carpal tunnel syndrome, alone results in workers losing more time from their jobs than any other type of injury, including amputations. The workers' compensation costs of ergonomic injuries are estimated at $20 billion annually, the overall costs at $60 billion.
For women workers, OSHA's efforts are particularly important, because nearly half of all injuries and illnesses among women workers result from ergonomic hazards. Though these hazards are present in a variety of jobs, many of the occupations predominantly occupied by women are among the hardest hit by ergonomic injuries.
Workplace musculoskeletal disorders can be prevented. There is a clear and adequate foundation of scientific and practical evidence, including a 1998 congressionally requested National Academy of Sciences study demonstrating that these disorders are work-related and that ergonomic solutions in the workplace can prevent injuries. These workplace solutions can protect workers, decrease workers' compensation costs, and produce gains in productivity and workplace innovation.
We recognize that there is another National Academy of Sciences study pending, and that this is the reason for the legislation. We also recognize that useful information will come out of that study that can be applied to improve protections for workers. However, sufficient data already exists to protect workers. Failure to act on adequate data in this regard is irresponsible.
After almost a decade of work, OSHA is finally moving forward with a proposed ergonomics standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Upon official publication, this proposal will allow a public debate on ergonomics before a final rule is issued. We are aware of the differing views surrounding this proposal. However, such debate is not unique to ergonomics . Such differences in views have existed in almost all of OSHA's major rulemaking, including other serious workplace hazards such as asbestos, benzene and lead.
The rulemaking process--the proper forum for debate over regulatory proposals--will provide the opportunity for all parties to present their views, opinions and evidence.
We urge you to resist efforts to block OSHA from working on the development and adoption of an ergonomics standard by voting ``no'' on S. 1070 or any other effort to prevent OSHA from protecting workers from ergonomic hazards. Blocking these necessary safeguards will needlessly risk the health of millions more working people.
Sincerely,
ORGANIZATIONS
9-5, National Association of Working Women.
Alaska Health Project.
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc.
American Nurses Association.
American Public Health Association.
Central New York Occupational Health Clinical Center.
Chicago Area Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center.
Montana Tech of the University of Montana, Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene Department.
National Organization for Women.
National Partnership for Women and Families.
National Women's Law Center.
New Hampshire Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health.
New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health.
North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Project.
Northwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety (University of Washington).
Rhode Island Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
[Page: S12171] GPO's PDF
Rochester Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
San Diego State University, Graduate School of Public Health.
South Central Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Southeast Michigan Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health.
University of Puerto Rico School of Public Health.
Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health.
Wider Opportunities for Women.
Wisconsin Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.
Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this letter is dated September 27, 1999. It comes from a long list of organizations that comprise the American Public Health Association.
Reading the introductory paragraphs will make it clear where they stand, in opposition to the Bond 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