The Ergonomics Epidemic

By Stuart Flatow
Director of Occupational Safety & Health, ATA
Updated Nov. 23, 1999

A few years ago, former OSHA Administrator, Joe Dear, concluded that U.S. workplaces were facing an epidemic of ergonomics-related injuries and illnesses. Now, a few years later, US Industry is facing an epidemic of ergonomics regulations from both federal and state governments. While federal OSHA's rulemaking efforts have thus far been stalled, several OSHA state-plan states are moving ahead with similar rulemaking initiatives. Those states include California, North Carolina, Washington State, and Oregon. National consensus organizations have also been moving into the "ergo fray." Also, states such as Oregon and Minnesota have written guidelines on how to inspect workplaces and cite employers for alleged ergonomic hazards.

Here's a brief summary of what's happening, as of November 1999:

Federal OSHA: On November 23, OSHA issued its long-awaited ergonomics proposal in the federal register this week. A press conference unveiling the proposal was held today at the Department of Labor. The comment period will extend until February 1, 2000.

OSHA expects to issue a final rule in 2000. OSHA estimates the annual cost of its rule to be $4 billion while an ATA economic study set that cost at $6.5 billion (for trucking alone).

Industries involved in manufacturing and manual materials handling have been singled out and will be required to develop modified ergonomics programs, even in the absence of any injuries. All other sectors of general industry, except construction, maritime, and agriculture, with one or more workers work-related musculoskelatal disorders (MSDs) will be required to establish extensive ergonomics programs. According to the proposal, causal factors of MSDs include exposure to repetitive motion, lifting, awkward postures, vibrations, excessive temperatures.

The proposal requires covered employers to establish programs that address management commitment, employee training and education, workplace analysis and improvement, and medical management. Workplace improvements may involve reduction of work pace and/or complete work-site redesign. Under its medical management, once an employee reports an injury, it would have to be checked by a health professional to determine work-relatedness. If work-related and the cause of the injury could not be quickly remedied, the employer would have to offer injured workers full pay and benefits if the worker is put on "light" duty and 90% of pay and full benefits, both for a period of up to six months.

ATA will continue to fight any ergonomics rule that is not based on sound science and medical consensus urges OSHA to wait for the completion of the National Academy of Science's ergonomics study prior to issuing a final rule. OSHA's draft ergonomics standard has cleared the Labor Department and is currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget. OSHA plans to issue a formal proposed rulemaking in November of 1999.

A copy of the proposal may be obtained from OSHA's web page.

California: California is the only state in which employers must comply with an ergonomics standard. Its repetitive motion standard went into effect in July 1997 and applies to organizations with 10 or more employees where a work-related repetitive motion injury (RMI) has occurred to more than one employee within a year. The standard mandates that employers who meet these conditions must evaluate and correct ergonomic hazards and conduct employee training. The American Truck Associations and the California Trucking Association have challenged the standard in court. Oral arguments were heard in September with the appellate court upholding the original rule. The standard is currently in effect, with at least three citations already issued.

Governor Gray Davis, signed into law, the first major piece of safety legislation introduced since the Democratic Party regained control of the Legislature. Although the bill was stripped of a provision that would, have mandated the enforcement of an ergonomics standard by January 1, 2000, it still includes significant changes to the definitions of such terms as "serious exposure", "serious physical harm", "employer", and "negligence".

North Carolina: The North Carolina Department of Labor has completed its rulemaking process on its own proposed ergonomics standard that might be finalized in 1999. However, the standard must first be voted on by the North Carolina legislature prior to it being issued as a final rule.

The 2-page proposal would require employers, including motor carriers, to respond to employee reported musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) by reducing or eliminating employee exposed to "ergo stressors" and responding to "ergo symptoms". To do so, the proposal requires employers to provide training and education, worksite evaluations, responding to employee symptoms of MSDs, and providing medical management. The proposal defines "ergonomics stressors" as, repetition, force awkward work postures, heavy lifting or awkward objects, extended reaching, and cold temperatures. "Ergo symptoms" include pain, swelling, numbness, tingling, or loss of function.

Washington State: On November 15, The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries formally issued its proposed ergonomics rule that would, among other things, require employers to implement load weight and size restrictions. The proposal, which covers trucking, and several other industries, requires employers to determine the presence of "caution jobs"…those that include "risk factors" that may lead to musculosketal disorders, and to reduce those risks to "the extent feasible" or within guidelines set forth in the proposal. Those risk factors include awkward postures, high hand force, highly repetitive motion, repeated impact, and heavy, frequent or awkward lifting.

Several public hearings across Washington State have been scheduled for January. A copy of the proposed rule may be downloaded here.

Oregon: The Oregon Safety and Health Division's (OR-OSHA) administrator, Peter DeLuca issued a letter withdrawing his agency's enforcement guidelines on ergonomics inspections. The directive would have allowed COs to issue citations to employers for failing to address ergonomic hazards under other existing safety and health standards. Those inspections were to be triggered based upon an employer's injury and illness records and workplace risk factors that may be associated with MSDs. However, OR-OSHA will still cite employers for ergonomic hazards under other current safety and health regulations.

The Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services issued changes to its administrative rules, making it easier for OR-OSHA to inspect and issue citations for ergonomics hazards and continue to hold stakeholder meetings on ergonomics interventions.

Michigan: The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) recently adopted ergonomic-related injuries as an area of concentration for its 5-year Strategic Plan. Nursing and healthcare, construction, and manufacturing are included in the targeted industries.

Minnesota: MNOSHA issued instructions on how to conduct ergonomics inspections that include review of employee injury and illness data, written training programs, and job task analyses. To determine the presence of work-related hazards, compliance officers may use checklists, photographs videotape recordings in . For now, meat processing and nursing and healthcare industries are targeted.

There was a failed attempt by democratic lawmakers to move legislation that would have required the state's labor commissioner to adopt an ergonomics standard on or before January 1, 2001.

Iowa: The Iowa Division of Labor Services recently cited the University of Iowa Hospital (UI) for poor ergonomics leading to stress injuries, as well as other alleged violations. UI plans to contest the $44,500 penalty. The ergonomics citation was issued under section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, aka the "general duty clause. Iowa is approved as an OSHA state plan state that maintains and enforces its own occupational safety and health standards which that may be more, but not less, strict than those of federal standards or compliance polices.

Rhode Island: A recently passed bill provides funding to determine the feasibility of implementing an ergonomics standard.

ANSI-Accredited ASC Z-365 Committee: This national consensus group has already released a proposed consensus standard on cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs). The proposal resembles OSHA's, ultra comprehensive 1995 draft ergonomics standard. Should this proposal become an American National Standard, a technical report, or draft standard for trial use, it will not be "voluntary." Rather, it may (1) be used as evidence of a standard-of-care in private litigation matters; (2) facilitate enforcement activities through the general duty clause; and (3) aid OSHA's effort to promulgate an ergonomics standard. The comment period on this proposal closed several months ago. The Committee continues to push for a standard despite that it does have consensus to do so. What's more, the Committee cannot even agree on how to define the term "cumulative trauma disorders". As an alternative, the Committee is attempting to circumvent the its rulemaking process by proposing to issue a three year temporary standard for trial use.

Back to top.