OSHA’s incident trigger receives criticism
OSHA’s incident trigger receives criticism
Jeffress says ergonomics standard still needed
The single incident trigger and its interference with established state workers’ compensation systems is a contentious component of the Occu-pational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed ergonomics standard.
Manyof the standard’s components are of major concern, according to a representative of the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). The head of OSHA, however, countered that much of the criticism is based on faulty research.
John Cheffer, CSP, chair of the ASSE Govern-mental Affairs Committee, testified recently in the House Small Business Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction hearing on OSHA’s proposed ergonomics standard and its impact on small business.
Complex issue
Cheffer’s testimony was among the last in a long line of critics and supporters.
"We believe there needs to be an ergonomic standard," Cheffer said. "However, ASSE is concerned that the flaws in the proposed rule and its complexity with respect to small business entity compliance may result in the rejection of the entire standard."
He outlined several major concerns that must be addressed before moving forward with the OSHA proposal. Citing concerns that the current negative debates being waged countrywide on this issue could result in the standard being totally rejected, Cheffer noted that the ASSE provided OSHA with a counterproposal.
Will small businesses be able to comply?
The proposal is based on input from the society’s 33,000 safety professional members. It offers a more reasonable and user-friendly approach to the control of workplace musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and ergonomic exposures than the current OSHA proposal, said Cheffer.
"With respect to small business issues, a key question involves the cost and complexity of performing an ergonomic analysis," he testified. "OSHA has provided insufficient information to enable the small business owner or operator to understand the ergonomics issue and the proposed standard, or to determine what actions must be taken in order to identify and correct ergonomic hazards. ASSE is at a loss to see how a small business employer without specialized training will be able to use the standard to prevent work-related [MSDs]."
The proposed OSHA ergonomics standard would require employers in manual handling and manufacturing operations to implement ergonomics programs in their workplaces. However, the provisions of the standard could be triggered in any workplace (agriculture, maritime operations, and construction industries are not included in the proposed rule) so long as one MSD is reported.
Even many critics of the proposal acknowledge the need to address such problems. Cheffer notes that many of ASSE’s members, who work for all types of industries, have developed and implemented cutting-edge ergonomic safety programs leading to significant decreases in the number of workplace MSDs.
The ASSE is urging OSHA to develop a more reasonable standard that enhances occupational safety and health, and leave the issue of payment for rehabilitation, social issues, and workers’ compensation re-engineering to the existing federal and state laws and regulations governing these areas.
"We have concerns about the apparent social engineering agenda contained in the current OSHA proposal, which overshadows the prevention aspects of the standard," Cheffer said. "The ASSE also believes that the one case’ trigger called for in the standard is poor policy because many ergonomic problems arise off the job; in the absence of a clear triggering incident, getting at the root cause is extremely problematic.
"If the cause is not in the workplace, trying to fix the workplace will not reduce or eliminate injuries. The ASSE urges OSHA to promulgate this as a safety standard, not as a health standard as they are proposing to do, and believe that ergonomic injuries should not be treated in a different manner than other workplace injuries," he added.
"Most ergonomic problems cannot be corrected through low-tech solutions such as having an employee stand on a box, or propping up a computer monitor with a phone book as OSHA has suggested," Cheffer testified.
Jeffress called some criticism unfounded
Some of the criticism of the proposed federal ergonomics rule is unfounded and based on bad research, according to the U.S. assistant secretary of labor.
Calling the science sound and the problem of work-related MSDs the most widespread occupational health hazard facing the nation, Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress told the congressional subcommittee that after 10 years studying the problem, OSHA believes it is time to act now.
Jeffress testified recently before the subcommittee and said that OSHA’s proposed ergonomics standard would prevent about 3 million work-related injuries over 10 years and save $9.1 billion each year. The nation currently spends $15 billion to $20 billion each year for 600,000 injuries serious enough to cause workers to miss work.
"The human dimension of this problem is striking. This debate is about real people confronting real risks to their livelihood, health, and well-being," Jeffress said.
He shared stories of workers who have suffered devastating and irreparable injuries that have stricken them both physically and financially. On the other hand, he also pointed to companies that have found that "good ergonomics is often good economics" and saved money while reducing MSDs among their workers. Many solutions to fix problem jobs are easy and inexpensive and simply employ common sense.
OSHA says it wants to help small companies
Jeffress stressed the efforts OSHA has made in developing the proposal to accommodate the unique needs of small business. He outlined an outreach plan to assist smaller employers in meeting the requirements of the standard once it is adopted.
Reviewing the history of OSHA’s efforts to address ergonomics, Jeffress described the agency’s two-year process of consulting stakeholders and small businesses. He explained numerous changes made in draft versions of the proposal in response to concerns raised by these groups. He also noted that during its ongoing nine-week hearing on ergonomics, OSHA is giving hearing participants an opportunity to question agency staff and expert witnesses as well as other participants.
"OSHA believes it has provided sufficient time for this questioning, not all of which has been used." Jeffress noted that the public has more than eight months to provide input on the ergonomics proposal including the comment period, hearing, and post-hearing comment period.
The OSHA director concluded, "Companies that have worked to prevent these injuries with sound ergonomics programs often have improved productivity, drastically reduced workers’ compensation costs, and improved job satisfaction. OSHA believes that the same opportunity for a safer workplace must be extended to other workers whose livelihoods and careers remain at risk."
OSHA estimates the proposed standard would prevent about 3 million work-related MSDs over the next 10 years and save an estimated $9.1 billion annually in lost production, administrative, and other direct costs.
Will the benefits outweigh the costs?
The total benefit far outweighs the estimated $4.2 billion annual cost of the proposal to employers, Jeffress said. Although some private organizations have published estimates that differ from OSHA’s, he contended that many of these estimates contain either fundamental misunderstanding of OSHA’s economic analysis or of how the proposed rule would be applied.
"For example, some of these estimates compare their estimates of initial costs to OSHA’s estimates of annualized costs," he said. "Other estimates compare the costs for a 150-person plant to an OSHA estimate provided for a 17-person plant. Some estimates assume that firms would have to make vastly greater efforts than anything required by OSHA’s proposed standard actually used by existing programs or adopted as part of OSHA’s corporate settlement agreements. For example, one appraisal estimated that complying with part of OSHA’s employee participation requirement would require 10 employees in a 150-employee facility to meet two days a week every week for six months. Nothing in OSHA’s standard requires such an effort."
The same study assumed that the only way to control problem jobs would be to decrease productivity by 25%, he added. Evidence indicates that ergonomics programs often lead to productivity increases, and other studies use data based on speculative projections rather than real-world examples, Jeffress said.
About 1,000 people testified over a three-month period in Washington, DC; Chicago; and Portland, OR. OSHA received nearly 7,000 comments on the proposal during the 100-day public comment period that closed March 2, 2000. The hearings ended in May and OSHA intends to finalize the rule by the end of this year.
Subscribe Now for Access
You have reached your article limit for the month. We hope you found our articles both enjoyable and insightful. For information on new subscriptions, product trials, alternative billing arrangements or group and site discounts please call 800-688-2421. We look forward to having you as a long-term member of the Relias Media community.