Copyright 1999 P.G. Publishing Co.
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette
December 6, 1999, Monday, SOONER EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. A-16
LENGTH: 533 words
HEADLINE:
ERGONOMIC IS ECONOMIC;
OSHA RULES CAN HELP IMPROVE THE
WORKPLACE
BODY:
Ergonomics, the science of
adapting worker to work space, has gained enormous attention in recent years
with the computer revolution and its evil twin, RSI (repetitive stress
injury). But long before the cubicled, white-collar world experienced
the pangs of the workplace, manual and manufacturing laborers toiled with
throbbing arms and backs.
Now, after seven years in the making,
OSHA has wisely proposed regulations that aim to protect these
employees and others who get injuries from ill-suited working conditions: the
nurse's aide and garbage collector who do heavy lifting; the meat-packer,
data-input person and assembly line worker who do the same motion hundreds of
times a day.
The proposed standards are sensible guidelines for
improving the conditions for 27 million workers. They call for custom-made
programs, set up by bosses, to make laborers aware of potential hazards on the
job. If an injury does occur, the victim reports it to the manager and the two
collaborate on developing an ergonomic solution - adjusting the chair,
scheduling break and stretching times, raising the air temperature, etc.
But the rules, which are vague enough to avoid micromanaging the
workplace, leave room for interpretation, and thus litigation. For instance,
what if the employer fields the worker's complaint but doesn't believe it?
Say that an airline baggage handler has pain in his wrist. He notifies
his boss, who doesn't believe that lifting luggage caused the injury - avid
bowling did. Who's right? How can this be negotiated?
OSHA doesn't specify what to do, but there are some
logical, costly options. The laborer can try to obtain a doctor's note to
convince the management - but even then, it's unclear whether the boss will be
persuaded. He can file a complaint with OSHA to send out an
inspector who will examine the job conditions to determine the cause. Or he
could file a claim petition to try to get workers' compensation.
OSHA needs to fix this weakness by designating a
specific way to resolve these disputes. Now that the standards are open for
public comment, perhaps some popular insight will yield a solution. Citizens can
write letters or e-mail their ideas through the OSHA home page,
www.osha.gov, until February.
Even if this flaw is
repaired, business leaders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will still be
disappointed with the rules. They argue that the standards are too costly and
the benefits are uncertain. But if the government is right in its forecast, good
ergonomics could mean good economics.
The new standards would cost $ 4.2
billion but save business $ 9 billion in workers' compensation and medical fees.
Past scenarios shed light on these predictions. With an ergonomic program in
place, a Minnesota shoe manufacturer cut workers' compensation costs by 75
percent, even after adding two plants. The Fresno Bee, a California newspaper,
reduced medical and temporary disability costs by 80 percent.
The
proposed standards offer the work force a vital, long-awaited foundation for
ensuring safety on the job. Now, with a bit of thoughtful revision, the rules -
and the people they cover - will become ergonomically correct.
LOAD-DATE: December 6, 1999 
