Copyright 2000 The Kansas City Star Co.
THE KANSAS
CITY STAR
April 18, 2000, Tuesday METROPOLITAN EDITION
SECTION: TUESDAY BUSINESS; Pg. D1
LENGTH: 1706 words
HEADLINE:
The Economics of Ergonomics;
Some see OSHA plan as costly
to companies; others see fiscal gains
BYLINE: DIANE
STAFFORD; The Kansas City Star
BODY:
Ergonomics has
catapulted from quiet science to political hot
potato.
Ergonomics is
the adaptation of furniture, equipment, systems and
work procedures to fit
the physical abilities of people who use them.
Not too long ago, the
discipline elicited only sporadic occupational
safety discussions in the
workplace.
This year, ergonomics - and the extent of employers'
responsibilities to provide ergonomically correct work environments -
morphed into a raging national debate that emphasizes money as well
as
muscles.
At issue is hundreds of pages of proposed ergonomics rules and
explanations from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
that Congress may vote on before the end of the
year.
The proposal, OSHA's fourth attempt to set
national ergonomics
standards, would apply to between 1.6 million and 5.5
million work
sites, depending on who's doing the estimating. The standards
are
aimed particularly at manufacturing operations that rely on
repetitive manual labor, but would seep into all kinds of
enterprises.
The standards would require employee training, analysis of job
hazards, the provision of proper equipment and procedures, and
medical
management of injuries.
Opponents say compliance would cost American
businesses billions
of dollars. (The National Association of Manufacturers
estimates
implementation costs at $8 billion to
$18 billion). Critics also
contend that oppressive
government regulation would creep into office
cubicles everywhere.
Proponents say setting tougher ergonomic standards won't cost
business, but will pay financial and productivity dividends in terms
of
fewer on-the-job injuries, insurance claims and lost work days.
OSHA projects $9 billion in savings a year
because of fewer worker
injuries and insurance claims.
The proposed
standards are the subject of nine weeks of public
hearings that began March
13 in Washington; continued through last
week in Chicago; move to Portland,
Ore., next week; and conclude back
in Washington by May 12.
Whatever
the outcome of the hearings and legislative process, The
Center for the
Study of American Business at Washington University in
St. Louis already has
labeled the ergonomics issue "the new
millennium's first major regulatory
confrontation between government
and business."
OSHA, which hired its first ergonomist in 1979, has
been studying
ergonomics since then. It initiated training courses, pilot
programs
and directives throughout the 1980s. In the 1990s, the agency
stepped
up its public education efforts. This marks its fourth attempt to
initiate national ergonomic standards to reduce the severity of
work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
Known as MSDs, these
injuries include carpal tunnel syndrome and
other strains and sprains caused
by overuse and misuse of the human
body. Such injuries often are referred to
as RSIs, repetitive stress
injuries, or CTDs, cumulative
trauma disorders. The commonality is
the repetitive motion, such as typing
or hammering or lifting,
thought to cause the injury.
Without
government regulation, many businesses have for years
implemented ergonomic
training programs, bought ergonomically
designed furniture and hired
ergonomic specialists to re-evaluate and
redesign machinery and processes.
The United Auto Workers, for example, says ergonomics programs in
place at the Big Three automakers go far beyond the OSHA
proposals.
Existing ergonomics efforts have reduced the number of
work-related MSDs reported in 1992 - 750,000 - to fewer than 600,000
in
1997, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Other
industries and companies, though, have ignored or provided
only spot
treatment for complainers, and that's one of the reasons
for
OSHA's regulatory proposals.
Most everyone involved in
the ergonomic debate agrees a reduction
in workplace injuries will occur
with proper training, equipment and
procedures. The sticking point is
whether those implementations
should be voluntary or mandated and at what
point government should
have the right to mandate.
Ground zero in
the debate is OSHA's "single-trigger incident"
proposal.
Here's what's causing the flap:
OSHA would require
employers in manual handling and manufacturing
operations to implement
ergonomics programs, but the standards could
be "triggered" in any workplace
(with the exception of those in the
agriculture, maritime and construction
industries, which are
specifically exempted from the current proposal) if
even one MSD is
reported.
In other words, one administrative
assistant complaining of
carpal tunnel syndrome in one wrist could trigger
OSHA oversight and
mandate a companywide ergonomics
program.
The proposals do, however, provide some ways to get around the
"one strike, you're out" threat. A company that already has an
approved
ergonomics program in place could be grandfathered in as
compliant.
There's also a "quick-fix option" that would pre-empt a
full-scale
OSHA program if the employer provides immediate care for
an
injured worker and eliminates the injury-causing hazard within 90
days.
Nonetheless, the record-keeping requirements and threat of
regulatory oversight has even the most ergonomically sensitive
companies
quaking.
A major Kansas City employer, which even brings hand therapists
on site to help workers prevent and treat work-related injuries as
part
of an impressive ergonomics program, asked not to be named in
this story to
avoid drawing OSHA's attention.
Another politically
active, midsize Kansas City company, which
has written letters to
OSHA stating its position, also asked for
anonymity in the
newspaper - saying the less attention, the better.
"The one problem
you'll find is that a lot of companies are
reluctant to talk about it
because there's always an issue of whether
you've gone far enough," noted
Rick Morefield, a lawyer who defends
employers in workers' compensation
cases.
There are other reasons even ergonomically conscientious
companies and organizations oppose the proposals, especially an
OSHA
provision that would require "light duty" assignments
for injured
workers for six months at full pay.
Furthermore, they
say, existing workers' compensation systems,
which provide fair assessments,
compensation and return-to-work
guidelines for injured workers, would be
threatened or decimated by
the ergonomics proposals.
Yet another
sticking point is the presumption that a reported MSD
is caused by work and
not some extracurricular activity. Critics say
there simply isn't enough
protection for employers and insurance
companies against fraudulent injury
claims by workers.
They say, for example, that a back injury from
changing a tire in
the driveway could be passed off as a work-related injury
accrued
from the lifting requirements of the job.
And there's also
some contention about whether there's even a
provable relationship between
work and MSDs. Several trade
organizations and corporations that have banded
together to fight the
OSHA proposals want the National
Academy of Sciences to complete a
study of the effectiveness of ergonomics
programs before standards
are implemented.
Proponents say that such
a delay would be inexcusable and that
there's no doubt of the
cause-and-effect relationship between
repetitive motion and injury.
"Any delay is outrageous," said Neal Taslitz, executive
director of
the National RSI Foundation. "There is an epidemic of
people injured at
work, including those who think working at a
keyboard is so innocuous. We
can't afford to wait more years."
Taslitz says OSHA
opponents are wrong to focus on the possibility
of fraudulent claims by
making workers more aware of ergonomic
principles.
"For every fraud
case, there are about 10 cases where claims for
workers' comp or ADA
(Americans With Disabilities Act) violations are
never made because people
don't know the symptoms they feel at night
are related to what they do
during the day," Taslitz said. "Too
many people are living with their
injuries until it's too late to
file a claim or get recovery."
But,
as is often the case when proposed regulations threaten to
dig into
corporate pockets, the talk turns to money. John B. Boyd, a
workers' comp
lawyer and former workers' comp administrative law
judge, noted the
push-pull of any comprehensive ergonomics program:
"If you want to save
costs, you should focus on workplace
safety. But invariably, you meet with a
lot of resistance.
Unfortunately, the last thing an employer wants to do is
spend money
up front to avoid spending money later on."
To reach
Diane Stafford, call (816) 234-4359 or send e-mail to
stafford@kcstar.com
The Star's Dan Margolies contributed to this report
Repetitive
motion injury reduction
No matter what happens legislatively with
OSHA's proposed
ergonomics standards, employers and workers
can take steps to
minimize the possibility of repetitive motion injury.
Employers:
Review work-injury logs to identify commonly occurring
injuries;
address the possible causation.
Examine all work stations
and consult the workers who occupy
them. Look for and replace any equipment
or procedures that require
awkward or repetitive motion.
Train the
work force in proper lifting and handling techniques;
hire ergonomics
consultants if needed.
Invest in solutions, many of them low cost, such
as split
keyboards for typing or ergonomically designed equipment handles to
minimize repetitive motion strain.
Workers:
Ask for and take
advantage of any ergonomic training provided by
the employer.
Advocate for the proper equipment and procedures to do the job;
suggest ways the job could be done more efficiently or safely.
Report to the owner or manager any aches or strains that seem to
be
caused by the repetitive motion demands of the job; be aware that
symptoms
show up at night, not just while doing the work.
Report injuries
honestly and specifically.
@ART CREDIT:JOHN C. SOPINSKI/The Kansas City Star
@ART:Graphic (color)
LOAD-DATE: April 19, 2000
