Copyright 1999 Newsday, Inc.
Newsday (New York, NY)
November 30, 1999, Tuesday ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: VIEWPOINTS; Page A40
LENGTH: 299 words
HEADLINE:
EDITORIAL / ERGONOMIC REGS GOOD FOR WORKERS; BUSINESSES, TOO
BODY:
To employers' ears, the acronym
"OSHA" is also a synonym for "mindless, meddling federal
bureaucracy." So when the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration proposed new rules to prevent workplace injuries last
week, the reviews from business groups were predictably scathing.
"Ill-considered," fumed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Unworkable and
unnecessary," huffed the National Association of Manufacturers.
It's a
bad rap. Every year, about 600,000 U.S. workers are off the job at least briefly
because of muscle-and-bone disorders brought on by their working conditions.
Labor Secretary Alexis Herman estimates that OSHA's new
ergonomic standard will save $ 9 billion a year by helping 300,000 workers avoid
potentially disabling conditions ranging from back strain to carpal tunnel
syndrome.
Many employers, including this newspaper, already have
ergonomic programs that would be grandfathered under the new
OSHA plan. In manufacturing and handling operations where risks
are great, companies would have to identify hazards and ways to reduce them. In
other operations, isolated injuries could be dealt with in a quick fix that
wouldn't trigger the formal ergonomic standard.
Perhaps most important,
workers recovering from job-related injuries would have to be paid at least 90
percent of their usual wages for up to six months. The idea is to encourage
early reporting and treatment, before a repetitive-stress
injury gets so severe that the worker may face permanent disability.
All this is too expensive and too vague, the employer lobby complains.
But if it were less vague, they'd be griping about OSHA's
one-size-fits-all micromanagement-and smart employers say ergonomic programs
save them money. If others need OSHA's prodding to get smarter,
so be it.
LOAD-DATE: November 30, 1999
