Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
July 1, 2000, Saturday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A24
LENGTH: 479 words
HEADLINE:
Repetitive Motion
BODY:
BOTH THE HOUSE and
the Senate are seeking to bar the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration from completing work on a regulation that would protect
workers from repetitive-stress and other ergonomic injuries in the workplace.
Congress and OSHA have been over this ground many times
before--the latest block would be the fourth imposed on the regulation in 10
years--but its politics in an election year are considerably sharpened.
Attacking repetitive-stress injuries is high on organized
labor's wish list. The proposed rule is an equally high-priority target for
business groups, which dispute the need to impose a single approach and call
this one the most expensive workplace regulation ever contemplated.
Almost no one disputes that injuries resulting from repetitive motion,
as distinct from one-time accidents, are a problem in workplaces; the question
is how to define them without forcing employers to adopt vast new programs whose
expensive requirements are triggered by something as vague as one worker's
reports of lower back pain. The current rule has been on the drawing board for
more than a decade; supporters like to point out that it was initially proposed
by Republican Elizabeth Dole's Labor Department. A preliminary proposal finally
emerged last year, with final revisions expected by year's end--an outcome
Congress would put off until at least December 2001.
The draft rule is
far from perfect. Its preamble defines an ergonomic injury as one that results
from a mismatch between the strength of the worker and the demands of the job--a
sweeping description that makes employers understandably chary. The definition
is narrower in practice, but more precision could and should be added, including
as to when a job's conditions "cause or contribute to" a repetitive-strain
injury, when that should trigger action and when an employer may avoid
responsibility by concluding that other influences (such as sports) played the
main role. Small-business owners have offered other changes that
OSHA should adopt before issuing the final rule, including
adding arbitration to guard against fraudulent claims.
But though many
criticisms of the draft regulation ring true, the overarching criticism--that it
is an irresponsible and burdensome fix for an ill-defined problem--is wrong.
Ergonomically caused injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis are
serious, sometimes catastrophic. Employers can and should be pushed to take
steps that will ease strain on people lifting heavy loads at awkward angles,
cutting meat or plucking chickens on too-fast assembly lines, or otherwise doing
cumulative damage to their bodies. The rule's shortcomings should be addressed
within the normal regulatory process; the good it can do for workers in hard,
often unpleasant jobs should not be put off another year by congressional fiat.
LOAD-DATE: July 01, 2000 
