Congress moves to de-fund OSHA ergonomics standard

For the second summer in a row, legislation is making its way through Congress that would put off efforts by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to implement new ergonomics regulations.

Last year the legislation took the form of a bill written by 7th District Rep. Roy Blunt. That measure, the Workplace Preservation Act, would have required OSHA to wait until a congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences is completed next year. Passed by the House, Blunt's bill was not taken up by the Senate.

This year, a broader effort is being made to block implementation of the ergonomics standard that OSHA hopes to publish before the end of the year. This month, votes in the House and Senate stripped funding for the regulations from the annual labor and health-spending bill .

In a statement released by Blunt's office as the House began its effort to de-fund the standard, Blunt called the move a "last ditch effort to defuse new federal rules that will explode on small business later this year." Blunt said the new ergonomics rule lacks scientific foundation and would harm small businesses across the nation.

"OSHA uses 1,200 pages to explain the rules, which are so ambiguous, complicated and confusing that small business will never know if they are in compliance or not," Blunt said. "If implemented, I fear this will cause some small businesses to close their doors to employees and their customers."

How we got here

OSHA's efforts to get a standard on the books began 20 years ago when it began discussing ergonomic issues with labor, trade and professional organizations. During the decade that followed, OSHA established regional ergonomic coordinators and issued guidelines for the meat packing industry.

In the spring of 1994, OSHA began work on an ergonomics standard that was blocked when Congress prohibited OSHA from using funds to issue the rule. That prohibition expired in late 1996. Work on the current standard began in the summer of 1997.

By July of 1998 OSHA was hosting stakeholder meetings on ergonomic rule making in Kansas City and Atlanta, and by February of 1999 had asked small businesses to review a draft of the rule. The text of the proposed standard was published in the Federal Register in November 1999 and public hearings on it got under way in February of this year.

During nine weeks of hearings in Washington, D.C., Portland, Ore., and Chicago, Ill., OSHA spokesperson Susan Fleming said more than 1,000 witnesses testified on the new rule and more than 7,000 written comments were submitted. The final hearing is scheduled for July 7 in Atlanta. What happens after that, she said, is what's already happening.

"Our people are reviewing the information we've received and assessing changes that need to be made in the proposal," she said. "Then they'll start writing the final ergonomics standard that should be published before the end of the year and go into effect early in 2001."

Impact of the new rules

OSHA justifies the standard on ergonomics by pointing to studies that establish a connection between repetitive stress injuries and work. Addressing a Senate subcommittee on employment, safety and training in late April, OSHA's chief administrator, Charles Jeffress, said nearly 2 million workers suffer repetitive stress injuries each year, and $1 out of $3 spent on workers' compensation stems from insufficient ergonomic protection.

"The direct costs attributable to musculoskeletal disorders are $15 (billion) to $20 billion each year," Jeffress said. "Total annual costs reach $45 (billion) to $54 billion."

Opponents, such as the National Coalition on Ergonomics, say the numbers used by OSHA to justify the new regulations are faulty, especially the $4.7 billion OSHA says it will cost businesses each year, and they put forward Department of Labor statistics that indicate stress-related injuries decreased by 17 percent in the three years ending in 1997.

Locally, opponents such as Lee Johnson, chief executive officer of Brittney Inc., a local safety and environmental consulting firm also believe OSHA's estimates are far too low on the total implementation cost to businesses.

"The standard, as it's written, is too complicated and too expensive," he said. "And the provision that requires employers to maintain an employee's salary and benefits for six months while they recover from a stress-related illness will cost too much."

Johnson said he believes the high cost of stress-related injuries provides the incentive for employers to implement ergonomic programs to protect employees, and the end result of the standard will be to force companies to look at automating some jobs and eliminating others.

Preparing for the new rule

Whether the ergonomics standard will become law is something that even those who follow the issue closely won't speculate on. In a June 14 statement issued after the House vote to de-fund the standard, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman stated, "the president has promised a veto if the bill reaches his desk."

Still, people such as Jim Echols, Brittney's environmental manager, believe it's better to take some action now.

"If you start implementing a program that complies with the standard, you'll be grandfathered," Echols said. "Key parts of the program to focus on are management involvement and ergonomic training for both supervisors and employees."

Not everyone who has read the standard is predicting the worst. Becky Crocker, co-owner of JobSafe of Missouri, a local consulting firm specializing in the identification and control of ergonomic hazards, said that once the standard is implemented, small business will find it isn't as traumatic as expected.

"Workplaces are going to be safer," she said. "On OSHA's behalf, ultimately these changes will benefit workers by making their jobs safer."

One element of the standard that Crocker likes is the provision that allows companies to implement only the first two steps of the standard's six-step program, involving training for employees and appointing an ergonomic point of contact, until the first reportable ergonomic illness takes place. Even then, she said, it allows companies to use a quick fix in lieu of an entire program.

"The quick fix is a lot easier," Crocker said. "You look at only one job, implement the fix and do follow ups to ensure it's working."

Some critics of the new rules, such as Bill Medley of Total Compliance Consultants, a safety consulting firm in Springfield, have little doubt that the standard will become law at some point in the future, despite delays by Congress or by litigation. Medley refers to that time as a "dark day" for safety.

"This standard is the most detrimental thing that's happened to safety in decades. It's going to be tough on the little guy."