Congress Should Not Tie OSHA's Hands On Ergonomic Regulations

The ergonomics debate about how to best prevent repetitive stress injuries caused in the workplace has been argued and researched for 20 years. Today it is facing yet another critical political test.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, businesses and the insurance industry have joined forces to tackle this controversial issue and are moving together in the right direction.

But now Congress, which in 2001 rescinded the controversial ergonomics standard developed by OSHA under the Clinton Administration to provide regulations in the workplace, has introduced legislation (S. 2184) mandating a new standard that could impede important progress made by all interested parties on this issue.

We know that ergonomic injuries are varied and their causes complex. Preventing or mitigating these injuries involves assessment of all contributing factors. For all that we know to be true about ergonomics, theres an equal amount of what we dont know to be true. Years of research have failed to yield conclusive evidence in many of the areas surrounding the ergonomics issue.

A one-size-fits-all approach–which likely could be the case if legislation mandates a standard–will be history repeating itself, and we already know that approach doesnt work. The National Association of Independent Insurers and the rest of the industry opposed the ergonomic standard proposed by OSHA in late 2000 as overly complex, ineffective, and as an infringement on state workers compensation systems.

Workers comp insurers have and continue to work with employers to address ergonomic injuries. NAII, insurers, employers and OSHA have worked cooperatively over the past two years presenting workshops that provide important information on safety and health programs and the prevention of serious injuries.

In fact, after Congress rescinded the controversial ergonomic standard last year, NAII suggested a three-pronged approach for OSHA to take in addressing this complex issue:

A very aggressive education campaign.

Enhanced technical assistance for employers and employees.

More partnerships between OSHA and other stakeholders.

OSHA appears to have taken our suggestions seriously by recently announcing a comprehensive plan that includes our three-pronged approach, but goes even further by committing to an ergonomics enforcement plan and by committing to foster research where gaps exist (see NU, April 15, page 46). We congratulate OSHA for taking this wise approach and are anxious to see it implemented.

The combination of education, partnerships, research, enforcement and compliance assistance will provide businesses and OSHA with the tools necessary to effectively address musculoskeletal disorders.

Workers, businesses and insurers are best served by an effective and efficient approach to injury prevention. OSHAs plan, as outlined, will give all parties the needed flexibility and credible information necessary to design and enforce programs to reduce ergonomic injuries, while research will continue to give us better answers about why such injuries occur and how to prevent them.

Yet, even before OSHA can fully implement the new plan, political roadblocks have appeared. A few weeks ago Senator John Breaux, D-La., and 26 members of the U.S. Senate introduced S. 2184, calling for a new ergonomics standard within two years of the bills enactment.

The legislation would not only mandate a new standard, but would tie OSHAs hands by requiring the agency to incorporate the hearing record from the failed standard, and apply the standard to a broad section of industries.

While NAII is pleased that Sen. Breaux and the other sponsors have expressed their desire not to impinge on the state workers comp system, the legislation still presents numerous problems. The lesson learned from the rescinded standard is that stakeholders are nowhere near a consensus or a compromise on this complex issue.

NAII believes OSHA should move full speed ahead on its comprehensive ergonomics plan. Moreover, we encourage Congress to allow the agency to fully implement the program before seeking to supplant it.

The warning to OSHA is to do what you say you will do, and move forward with vigor before another opportunity to appropriately address this problem is lost.

Arlene Ryndak is manager of loss control, and Julie L. Gackenbach is director of government affairs for the National Association of Independent Insurers in Des Plaines, Ill.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, May 20, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.