- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-272
======================================================================
WORKPLACE PRESERVATION ACT
_______
July 29, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodling, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 987]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 987) to require the Secretary of Labor
to wait for completion of a National Academy of Sciences study
before promulgating a standard or guideline on ergonomics,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, is
to ensure that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completes
the study (provided for in Public Law 105-277) of the available
evidence examining ``the cause and effect relationship between
repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal
disorders'' before the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) promulgates an ergonomics standard or
guidelines.
COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been
active in bringing attention to the questions of the scientific
soundness and the effectiveness of a national ergonomics
standard. A detailed explanation of the hearings follows:
105th Congress
In the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections held a hearing on May 21, 1997, to hear first hand
what the medical community understands about so-called
``ergonomics'' injuries and illnesses, as well as the current
state of medical knowledge of the causes and remedies for the
general area of back, arm, neck, hand, and other
musculoskeletal strains, aches, and pains. The witnesses
testifying at the hearing included: Dr. Howard M. Sandler,
M.D., President, Sandler Occupational Medicine Associates Inc.,
Melville, New York; Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, M.D., F.A.C.P.,
F.A.C.R., Professor of Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology,
University of North Carolina, and Senior Attending
Rheumatologist, North Carolina Memorial Hospital, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina; Dr. Morton L. Kasdan, M.D., F.A.C.S., Clinical
Professor of Surgery, Department of Preventive Medicine and
Environmental Health, University of Louisville, Louisville,
Kentucky; Dr. Stanley J. Bigos, M.D., Professor of Orthopedics
and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington; and, Dr. Laura S. Welch, M.D.,
F.A.C.P., F.A.C.O.E.M., Professor of Medicine and Healthcare
Sciences, Director, Division of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing on July 16, 1997, to examine the feasibility of an
ergonomics standard covering the multiple types and sizes of
businesses and industries operating in the United States. This
hearing reviewed the types of ``ergonomics'' issues being
experienced in a broad range of industries, and the steps
currently being taken to address these concerns. Witnesses
testifying at the hearing included: Dr. Nelson Conger, DDS,
Dalton, Georgia; Mr. Douglas B. Adams, Safety Coordinator, San
Diego Unified School District, San Diego, California; Dr. Mark
Berkman, Vice President, National Economic Research Associates,
Inc., San Francisco, California; Mr. Carl Loop, Jr., President,
Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Gainesville,Florida; and Dr.
Franklin E. Mirer, Director, Health and Safety Department,
International Union, United Auto Workers, Detroit, Michigan.
106th Congress
The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held two hearings
regarding an ergonomics standard in 1999. The first was on
March 23, 1999, and focused on oversight of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, specifically on OSHA's
regulatory agenda, including a proposed ergonomics standard.
Testifying at the hearing were: Mr. Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Stuart McMichael,
President, Custom Print, Inc., Arlington, Virginia,
representing the Printing Industries of America, the National
Federation of Independent Business, and the Alliance for
Workplace Safety; Mr. David G. Sarvadi, Attorney-at-Law, Keller
and Heckman LLP, Washington, D.C., representing the National
Coalition on Ergonomics; Mr. James Elmer, James W. Elmer
Construction Company, Spokane, Washington; and Mr. Bill
Borwegen, Occupational Health and Safety Director, Service
Employees International Union, Washington, D.C.
On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections held a hearing on legislation to amend the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. Among the bills considered
was H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act. The witnesses
testifying on H.R. 987 included the Honorable Roy Blunt, Member
of Congress, 7th District of Missouri; the Honorable Nancy
Pelosi, Member of Congress, 8th District of California; Dr.
Stanley J. Bigos, Professor of Orthopedics with the Bone and
Joint Center at the University of Washington Medical Center,
Seattle, Washington; and Dr. Michael Vender, Hand Surgeon, Hand
Surgery Associates, Arlington Heights, Illinois.
On May 19, 1999, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
approved the Workplace Preservation Act (H.R. 987) and ordered
it favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On
June 23, 1999, the Committee on Education and the Workforce
approved the Workplace Preservation Act (H.R. 987) by a roll
call vote of 23-18 and ordered the bill favorably reported to
the House of Representatives.
COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS
Background
Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH
Act), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 655, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to
establish occupational safety and health standards, subject to
certain procedural and substantive conditions. Among other
things, the statute requires that such standards be based on
sound science. In promulgating a standard, the Secretary has
the burden of showing, by scientific evidence, not ``conclusory
statements,'' that the standard is necessary to address a
``significant risk of material health impairment.'' Industrial
Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute
(Benzene case), 448 U.S. 607, 100 S.Ct 2844 (1980); AFL-CIO v.
OSHA, 965 F.2d 962 (11th Cir., 1992) In addition, section
6(b)(5), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(5), requires that health
standards be based on ``the latest available scientific data in
the field.''
OSHA has made issuing an ergonomics standard its top
priority \1\ despite scientific uncertainties and Congressional
concerns about the cost effectiveness of any such standard when
such uncertainties exist. These uncertainties include defining
what ergonomics-related injuries are and how work versus non-
work and non-physical factors are related to such injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, ``Oversight Hearing to Review
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Regulatory
Agenda,'' Testimony of Charles Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of OSHA,
March 23, 1999, 106th Congress, 1st session. In addition, the head of
OSHA's ergonomics team in 1995, speaking about the intention of
Congress to pass legislation requiring a moratorium on regulations for
several months in 1995 said, ``If the legislation says the moratorium
runs through December the 31st, our anticipation is that we would get
the proposal out January the 1st, unless it says do not work on any
ergonomics standards or go to jail. If it only says we cannot publish
the proposal, we can continue to work on it,'' Daily Labor Report,
March 13, 1995, page A8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning of this decade, OSHA considered workplace
ergonomic hazards to be those that, though otherwise undefined,
caused or contributed to ``repetitive motion trauma'' or
``cumulative trauma disorder.'' \2\ Neither repetitive motion
trauma, nor cumulative trauma disorder are defined medical
terms; \3\ indeed, the diagnosis and definition of even the
most recognized form of ``cumulative trauma disorder,'' carpal
tunnel syndrome, remains much debated in the medical
community.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Information, ``Secretary
Dole Announces Ergonomics Guidelines to Protect Workers From Repetitive
Motion Illness/Carpal Tunnel Syndrome'', August 30, 1990.
\3\ U.S. Congress, House. Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, ``Hearing to Review Pending OSHA
Legislation,'' Testimony of Dr. Michael Vender, April 21, 1999, 106th
Congress, 1st session.
\4\ ``Common but Confusing Workers'' Wrist Ailments,'' The New York
Times, July 21, 1999, page D6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, in 1990, the Department of Labor estimated
that ``ergonomic hazards'' in the workplace accounted for 48
percent of workplace illnesses, or about 3 percent of total
injuries and illnesses.\5\ In 1999, the Assistant Secretary for
OSHA testified before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections
that ergonomic hazards cause or contribute to 34 percent of all
workplace injuries and illnesses.\6\ The reason for this
tremendous increase (from 3 percent to 34 percent of total
injuries and illnesses) in nine years is the changing and
expanding definition of ``ergonomic hazards.'' ``Ergonomic
hazards'' are defined no longer in terms of causing or
contributing only to ``cumulative trauma disorders,'' but also
to any ``musculoskeletal disorder'' (MSD). MSDs are defined as
any ``disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments,
joints, cartilage, or spinal disks.'' Thus, ergonomic hazards
are not confined to those alleged to cause ``repetitive
stress,'' but include one-time exertions and any other factors
that may cause or contribute to back pain, muscle strain, or
any other MSD.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Information, August 30,
1990.
\6\ Testimony of Charles Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of OSHA,
March 23, 1999.
\7\ ``Individual factors were found to be highly related to
Cumulative Trauma Syndrome by a study of six different groups of
American and Japanese subjects. Researchers found that factors such as
body mass index, age, wrist depth to width ratio, hand dominance, and
avocational exercise level, together always predicted the incidence of
CTS with greater accuracy than did job-related factors. The importance
of individual factors was found by the study to be at least fourfold
greater than job-related factors.'' Accident Facts, National Safety
Council, 1994, page 53. ``Fourth, ergonomics is the study of people and
their work environment. However, looking only at one's work ignores the
major portion of life, which is spent away from work. Consider that, on
average, work accounts for only 15% or less of life. It is not adequate
to study just part of a patient's activities when researching the cause
of what is suspected to be an environmental disease. If we were to look
only at work in seeking the cause of AIDS, heart disease or
tuberculosis for example, than a tautology would be created with work
as the only answer. The scientific literature indicates that pregnancy
obesity, smoking and other intrinsic factors completely unrelated to
work increase the risk of getting carpal tunnel syndrome.'' U.S.
Congress, House. Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee
on Workforce Protections, ``Oversight Hearing to Review the Status of
Scientific Information on Ergonomics,'' Testimony of Dr. Morton L.
Kasdan, May 21, 1997, 105th Congress, 1st session, Serial No. 105-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of this change in the focus of ergonomics is
significant both to public perceptions and to OSHA's attempt to
regulate ergonomics. For example, a recent Washington Post
article on ``repetitive stress injuries'' cited the number used
by OSHA, 647,000 MSDs nationwide in 1996, without mentioning
that this number was not the number of ``repetitive stress
injuries'' but rather the total number of MSDs.\8\ In fact, the
overwhelming number of MSDs are back pain, a particularly
difficult symptom to identify the cause of or to treat.\9\
Furthermore, the medical and scientific communities have
recognized that MSDs are often caused by non-physical and non-
work-related factors. Indeed, that is why the word
``disorders'' rather than ``injuries'' is used.\10\ In short,
an ergonomics standard potentially affects nearly every
employer in the United States. It would extend regulation into
many common, everyday activities such as lifting, turning,
walking, climbing, keyboarding, and sitting. It also would
attempt to regulate in an area in which, by any analysis, the
causes and effects are not well understood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Repetitive Stress Solutions,'' The Washington Post, July 21,
1999, Section E, page 1.
\9\ Testimony of David Sarvdai, March 23, 1999.
\10\ ``Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review of the
Evidence,'' Report of the National Research Council, (Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ergonomics standard would also be very expensive. OSHA
estimated the cost of its 1999 draft proposed standard as $3.5
billion per year. There are several reasons to believe that
OSHA's estimates are substantially understated. First, small
business owners who participated in a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel, the only outside panel that has thus far reviewed
OSHA's current proposal, stated that, in their view, OSHA
substantially understated the costs of compliance with the
standard.\11\ Second, an earlier proposal from OSHA in 1995,
which OSHA estimated would cost American companies $4.5 billion
per year in compliance costs, was reviewed by the National
Economic Research Associates (NERA), who found that the actual
costs for the trucking industry alone would be more than $6
billion per year.\12\ In addition, the North Carolina School
Boards Association has estimated the costs of an ergonomics
standard for schools in that state alone, and considering only
the costs of ergonomics analysis and not any job modifications,
to be nearly $132 million.\13\ The costs of an ergonomics
standard are particularly difficult to predict because, as
described below, without a scientific basis for a standard,
OSHA is likely to propose a standard that is vague as to what
employers must do in order to assure compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OSHA was required by Section 609 of the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Enforcement Act to submit the standard to a Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel prior to publication as a proposed
standard. The Panel's report, issued on April 30, 1999, criticized
nearly every aspect of the draft standard, including OSHA's cost
estimates, which the Panel believes were substantially understated. One
of the panelists stated, ``government estimates are always 1/10 to 1/4
of the actual implementation costs.''
\12\ National Economic Research Associates (NERA) for the ATA
Foundation, ``Ergonomics and Economics: The Impact of OSHA's Proposed
Ergonomic Standard on the US Trucking Industry,'' October 1996.
\13\ Letter to Commissioner Harry E. Payne, Jr., North Carolina
Department of Labor from Edwin Dunlap, Jr., PhD., Executive Director
North Carolina School Boards Association, July 2, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has had a lengthy history of involvement with
OSHA's regulation of workplace ergonomics. In the 102nd
Congress, legislation was introduced by Representative William
Ford, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, and
Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, which would have required OSHA to
issue a final ergonomics standard within two years of enactment
(H.R. 3160, S. 1622). Similar legislation was introduced in the
103rd Congress (H.R. 1280, S. 575). Despite the Clinton
Administration's support for the bills introduced in the 103rd
Congress, neither the House nor the Senate passed the
legislation.
Notwithstanding the fact that Congress did not enact the
proposed legislation directing OSHA to issue an ergonomics
standard, OSHA proceeded towards issuing such a standard. In
June 1994, OSHA released a draft summary ergonomics standard
and released a proposed standard in March 1995. OSHA's draft
standard received considerable criticism in Congress,
particularly in the House of Representatives,\14\ and
subsequently, in adopting the fiscal year 1996 Appropriations
for the Department of Labor,\15\ Congress included the
following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Congress, House, Amendment by Representative Tom Delay to
H.R. 1158, 104th Congress, 1st session, March 15, 1995.
\15\ Public Law 104-134.
None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration directly or through section 23 (g) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the
development, promulgation, or issuance of any proposed
or final standard or guideline regarding ergonomic
protection or recording or reporting occupational
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
injuries or illness directly related thereto.
Similar language was approved by the House Appropriations
Committee as part of the Department of Labor Appropriations for
fiscal year 1997, but was deleted by an amendment adopted by
the full House of Representatives.\16\ In the meantime,
however, OSHA announced that it had withdrawn its proposed
ergonomics standard and was reevaluating its strategy on
ergonomics and the scope of any potential standard.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The FY 1997 Labor Appropriation bill (H.R. 3755) reported by
the Committee on Appropriations included an amendment by Representative
Henry Bonilla to prohibit OSHA from developing or issuing any proposed
or final ergonomics standard during fiscal 1997. During House floor
consideration on July 10-11, 1996, Representative Nancy Pelosi offered
an amendment to strike the ``ergonomics rider'' from the bill. The
amendment passed by a vote of 216-205, Congressional Record, pages
H7239-H7242 and H7301.
\17\ During a debate at the American Bar Association in March 1997,
Nancy Adams, the OSHA Ergonomics Coordinator told attendees, that ``the
March 1995 draft proposed standard in effect no longer exists * * *''
and OSHA pulled the document from its Internet site stating that it
would initiate a new rulemaking on ergonomics as part of a four step
action plan, Daily Labor Report, March 17, 1997, pages A9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations
bill for the Department of Labor, Representative Henry Bonilla
again proposed to prohibit OSHA from promulgating an ergonomics
standard during the fiscal year, and also to request an
independent study by the National Academy of Sciences of the
underlying medical and scientific questions involved in such a
standard. Representative Bonilla's request for the NAS study
was supported by a letter signed by 166 Members of Congress,
including all of the Republican Members of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.18 The final 1998
Appropriations bill included language prohibiting OSHA from
promulgating the standard, but did not include the specific
authorization for the NAS study.19 Instead, the
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, by letter,
requested the Director of the National Institutes of Health to
fund the study by the NAS.20 Despite his request for
a comprehensive study, in May 1998 the Director of the National
Institutes of Health asked NAS merely to conduct a ``workshop''
to examine ``literature relevant to work-related
musculoskeletal disorders.'' 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Letter to Representative Robert Livingston, Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations and Representative John Porter, Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
from a bipartisan coalition of 166 Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives, June 26, 1997.
\19\ Public Law 105-78.
\20\ Letter to Dr. Harold E. Varmus, Director, National Institutes
of Health from Representative Robert Livingston, Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, July 31, 1997.
\21\ ``Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review of the
Evidence,'' Report of the National Research Council, (Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press, 1998), page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During consideration of the fiscal year 1999 Department of
Labor Appropriations, Representative Bonilla renewed his
proposal for a comprehensive study of ergonomics by the NAS.
The study was included in the omnibus appropriations bill, P.L.
105-277:
Provided that $890,000 shall be for a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of
all the available scientific literature examining the
cause-and-effect relationship between repetitive tasks
in the workplace and musculoskeletal disorders.
The accompanying report further details the issues that the
NAS study is to consider:
The Committee has provided $890,000 for a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct
a study of all the available scientific literature
examining the cause-and-effect relationship between
repetitive tasks in the workplace and musculoskeletal
disorders. The NAS study should address the following
questions: (1) what are the conditions affecting humans
that are considered to be work-related musculoskeletal
disorders; (2) what is the status of medical science
with respect to the diagnosis and classification of
such conditions; (3) what is the state of knowledge,
characterized by the degree of certainty or lack
thereof, with regard to occupational and non-
occupational activities causing such conditions; (4)
what is the relative contribution of any causal factors
identified in the literature to the development of such
conditions in the general population, specific
industries, and specific occupational groups; (5) what
is the incidence of such conditions in the general
population, specific industries, and specific
occupational groups; (6) does the literature reveal any
specific guidance to prevent the development of such
conditions in the general population, specific
industries, and specific occupational groups, and (7)
what scientific questions remain unanswered, and may
require further research, to determine which
occupational activities in which specific industries
cause or contribute to work-related musculoskeletal
disorders.
The NAS began its study in early 1999. The study is
expected to take approximately two years.
It should be emphasized that the NAS study was requested
and funded by Congress because of the continued disagreement
and controversy over fundamental questions regarding MSDs and
work activities; questions that are important to society,
employers, and employees, but are also necessary considerations
in any rulemaking on ergonomics. As detailed above, over the
past two years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce
has conducted several hearings in which many of the country's
leading physicians and researchers on injuries and disorders of
the hands, back, and upper extremities provided testimony
regarding the continued uncertainty about the cause and effect
relationship between work activities and MSDs.
For example, Dr. Morton Kasdan, a Clinical Professor of
Surgery, Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental
Health, University of Louisville, testified on May 21, 1997
that:
There is a lack of scientific evidence that using our
hands repetitively causes so-called cumulative
trauma.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Hearing to Review the Status of Scientific Information on
Ergonomics,'' May 21, 1997, page 7.
Dr. Stanley Bigos, Professor of Orthopedics and Adjunct
Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Orthopedics,
University of Washington, author/ co-author of numerous
articles and abstracts on back injuries testifying in May 1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stated:
I strongly believe that we should prevent harm to,
and alleviate discomfort in working people. However,
before making expensive policy decisions that would
eventually take millions of dollars out of the pockets
of hourly employees, I would demand at least one
reliable prospective ``testing'' study to substantiate
hypotheses. The American worker is not served by
policybased upon bias-laden retrospective ``searching'' studies or soft
outcome memory-based surveys that neither differentiate the many
reasons for discomfort not differentiate complaints from damage and
injury.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid., page 156.
Dr. Howard Sandler, an occupational and environmental
physician, former medical officer with NIOSH, and a consultant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to OSHA, EPA and the CPSC, testified that:
Considerable interest and concern has been focused on
the relationship between work and musculoskeletal
disorders. At the present time, the risk factors, their
interactions and their thresholds for causing effects
have not been sufficiently identified. Once this
information is established, risks can be effectively
predicted and appropriate preventive actions can be
instituted across the wide range of business and
industry. Research presently underway should help to
establish the scientific data which is currently
lacking.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ibid., page 235.
Also, in May 1997, Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, Professor of
Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology, University of North
Carolina, and Attending Rheumatologist at the University of
North Carolina Hospitals, author/co-author of many scientific
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
articles and books on musculoskeletal disorders testified that:
* * * very few putative ergonomic remedies have been
subjected to scientific scrutiny. Where they have, they
have proven effete or even counterproductive, if the
health effect to be palliated is the complaint that a
regional disorder is incapacitating in the workplace
and therefore recorded on an OSHA 200 log or registered
as a workers' compensation claim.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ibid., page 10.
Dr. Stanley Bigos, again testifying in April 1999 stated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that:
We cannot provide a universal mandate without knowing
specific dimensions that might work. How high should
the bench be? How tall is too tall and too short? What
about differences in age? Who will all of a sudden
determine without data what is right or wrong--legal or
illegal--borderline or punishable? From whose pockets
will the costs come? As usual they will probably come
from the employees take home pay.
Don't be confused by those who want to over-simplify
the model of the human body. Using the human body does
not mean that you wear it out (discomfort from spring
gardening or spring training is not caused by damage
but by deconditioning of the winter rest).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ``Hearing to Review Pending OSHA Legislation,'' Testimony of
Dr. Stanley Bigos, April 21, 1999.
Dr. Michael I. Vender, Hand Surgery Associates, Chairman,
Industrial Injuries and Prevention Committee, American Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of Surgery of the Hand, testified that:
Many physicians state in their reports that the
literature substantiates their opinions of a positive
causal relationship between workplace factors and the
development of conditions for which they are treating.
As evidenced by testimony in numerous legal
proceedings, these same physicians cannot explain a
basic understanding of what work factors are actually
present in the job, and what literature supports their
assertions. It is true there is an extensive array of
literature that alleges damaging effects of work-
related factors. As scientists we all know that
conclusions and opinions stated in the medical
literature do not always prove to be true.
Many opinions and conclusions stated cannot even be
substantiated by the contents of the article itself,
let alone be validated by other studies. Moreover, the
same factors described as ``work-related'' are in fact
descriptive adjectives that apply equally to non-job
activities. With our present level of understanding, we
cannot distinguish between on-the-job and off-the-job
activities because the quantitative relationships
between the factors and the medical conditions have so
far eluded discovery by medical science. That is, we
simply don't know how much is too much.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Ibid., Testimony of Dr. Michael Vender, April 21, 1999.
Despite the ongoing NAS study that was requested and funded
by Congress last October, OSHA has proceeded with an ergonomics
standard. On February 19, 1999, OSHA released a draft proposed
ergonomics standard. Pursuant to section 609 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act, the draft standard was
then reviewed by a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, which
issued its report on April 30, 1999. The Review Panel
criticized nearly all aspects of OSHA's draft proposed standard
including OSHA's cost estimates, which the Panel believed were
substantially understated.\28\ Despite the Panel's criticisms
of the proposed standard, OSHA recently forwarded its proposed
ergonomics standard to the Office of Management and Budget for
final review prior to its promulgation as a proposed standard.
OSHA's announced timetable for the standard is to issue the
proposed standard by the fall of 1999 and a final standard by
the end of 2000, before the NAS study is completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Report, April 30, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA's February 19, 1999, draft proposed standard
underscores the need for the NAS study. The draft standard is
vague in fundamental and critical aspects. For example, the
draft standard never defines the hazard being regulated, except
in circular terms (``work related MSD hazards'' are any
``workplace conditions or physical work activities that cause
or are reasonably likely to cause or contribute to an (sic)
work related MSD''). What are such conditions or activities? Is
the hazard any lifting, or lifting over a certain weight, and
if the latter, how much? Does it depend upon other factors,
such as the physical condition of the individual? The reason
that the draft is not clearer is not simplypoor drafting, but
the lack of scientific basis on which OSHA could reliably say which
work activities cause MSDs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This is only one of many concerns with OSHA's draft proposed
standard and Representative Cass Ballenger, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections wrote an article for the
Washington Legal Foundation entitled ``OSHA Ergonomics Proposal Is
Fatally Flawed,'' detailing problems with OSHA's draft standard, June
25, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Workplace Preservation Act (H.R. 987)
H.R. 987 is brief and simple: it prohibits OSHA from
promulgating an ergonomics standard until the National Academy
of Sciences completes its study and reports the results to
Congress. The bill prohibits OSHA from promulgating either a
proposed ergonomics standard under section 6(b)(2) or a final
standard under section 6(b)(4).
Responses to arguments against H.R. 987
During the Committee's hearings and markups of H.R. 987,
opponents raised a number of arguments against the bill. These
arguments are addressed below:
The 1999 Appropriations language does not prohibit OSHA
from issuing an ergonomics standard.
A letter dated June 22, 1999, from Mr. Jacob J. Lew, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to
Representative John Boehner expressed the Administration's
opposition to H.R. 987. Mr. Lew wrote that ``[t]he law contains
no prohibition on OSHA moving forward'' with an ergonomics
standard.
No one, certainly not the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, has argued that the 1999 Appropriations or any other
law currently prohibits OSHA from attempting to regulate
ergonomics. The issue is whether OSHA should attempt to do so,
in a preemptory way, when Congress has clearly indicated that
additional study is needed. The Department of Labor should
recognize Congress' concerns and simply await the results of
the study before deciding whether regulation is appropriate.
Instead, the Department of Labor has put in place a timetable
for a final ergonomics standard before the NAS study is
completed. During the Committee markup of H.R. 987,
Representative Boehner stated:
If OSHA meets its own timetable for this regulation,
the final ergonomics standard will be in place before
the National Academy of Science study is completed, and
the study will be wasted. All of us in Congress ought
to be outraged by such arrogance by any agency of
government. At the least, we ought to very quickly pass
Congressman Blunt's bill.
Even if OSHA should not otherwise move forward with a
standard while the NAS study is underway, a letter signed by
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee
``authorized'' OSHA to do so.
The letter referenced above, signed by Representative Bob
Livingston, then-Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and
Representative David Obey, Ranking Minority Member of the
Appropriations Committee, was not made public until several
weeks after the Appropriations bill was passed and signed into
law. As Representative Roy Blunt, sponsor of H.R. 987,
testified before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections:
I know that my friend Ms. Pelosi and others will cite
a letter signed by the ranking member, Mr. Obey, and
the Chairman at that time, Mr. Livingston, saying that
really, OSHA doesn't have to wait for this study. But I
have to tell you that neither I nor most of the Members
who voted for that million-dollar appropriation knew
about that letter when we cast our vote. I don't think
that's the way to legislate. I also don't think that
helps the appropriations process. When the process is
over, we are told there's really something that's not
apparent in what we voted for, that Members should be
aware of.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Testimony of Representative Roy Blunt, April 21, 1999.
Beyond that, the letter referred to adds little to the
consideration of whether OSHA should issue an ergonomics
regulation while the NAS study is underway; the letter
certainly does not require OSHA to ``thumb its nose'' at
Congress' desire for additional study to inform the regulatory
process, and it does not change any of the policy reasons for
requesting the NAS study.
We don't need another study. There's already sufficient
science to support an ergonomics standard.
Opponents of H.R. 987 argue that the NAS study is
unnecessary, and that there is already sufficient science to
support an ergonomics standard. In support of that argument,
opponents of H.R. 987 generally point to two reports, both of
which say that there is evidence of some relationship between
workplace activities and MSDs. Those reports are a 1997 report
by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) and the 1998 publication by the National Research
Council of the results of the two-day workshop on ergonomics
hosted by the National Academy of Sciences.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ``Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors, A Critical
Review of Epidemiologic Evidence for Work-Related Musculoskeletal
Disorders of the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Low Back,'' U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, July 1997 (DHHS/NIOSH Publication No. 97-
141); and Report of the National Research Council, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections in March 1999, Assistant Secretary for OSHA Charles
Jeffress claimed that ``since 1900 there have been more than
2000 studies'' on workplace ergonomics. What Mr. Jeffress
failed to note was that, in conducting its 1997 literature
review, NIOSH eliminated about 1400 of the2000 studies without
any in-depth analysis, and found that only a small minority of the
remaining 600 studies met even NIOSH's minimal criteria for
reliability.
Both the NAS and the NIOSH reports have been criticized on
scientific grounds. As indicated above, the NAS report is based
upon a two-day workshop rather than any independent, thorough
analysis of the reliability of studies. NIOSH's report is based
on a lengthier analysis of existing studies. However, NIOSH's
approach has also been criticized for crediting only those
studies showing a ``positive'' correlation between workplace
activities and MSDs, rather than looking at the weight of the
evidence.\32\ Furthermore, the NIOSH report acknowledges the
role of non-work factors and non-physical factors in MSDs,\33\
but fails to explain how such factors can be separated from
physical factors in the workplace in either causing or
eliminating MSDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Testimony of Dr. Michael Vender, April 21,1999.
\33\ ``While the etiologic mechanisms are poorly understood, there
is increasing evidence that psychosocial factors related to the job and
work environment play a role in the development of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity and back. Though the
findings of the studies reviewed are not entirely consistent, they
suggest that perceptions of intensified workload, monotonous work,
limited job control, low job clarity, and low social support are
associated with various work-related musculoskeletal disorders,''
``Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors, A Critical Review of
Epidemiologic Evidence for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders of
the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Low Back,'' U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, July 1997 (DHHS/NIOSH Publication No. 97-141), page
7-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even if you accept the conclusions of the NAS and
NIOSH reports that there is evidence of some relationship
between work and MSDs, that is not sufficient to be the basis
for a regulation. As mentioned above, the OSH Act requires that
standards be based upon predictable and specific risk
determinations. So too, does common sense and sound public
policy. How can OSHA write a standard that purports to regulate
such common work activities as lifting and bending and even
sitting without knowing how much or what type of lifting or
bending or sitting causes injury? Neither the NIOSH report nor
the NAS report suggests that the answer to that question is
known or knowable; indeed, the NIOSH report specifically says
that ``quantitative risk estimates are beyond the purpose and
scope of this document.'' \34\ Yet that is precisely the type
of scientific information OSHA must have before it decides
whether a standard is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Ibid., page 1-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employers are already implementing effective ergonomics
programs, proving that enough is known about ergonomics in
order to regulate.
The cost of injuries, personal and financial, not OSHA
regulation, is the largest factor in employers' and employees'
efforts to reduce injuries and improve safety and health. In
fact, tremendous improvement has been made. Workplace injuries
are at the lowest rate since those statistics have been
kept.\35\ In addition, ``repetitive stress injuries'' have
declined by 17 percent over the past three years without an
ergonomics regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ ``Work-Related Injuries, Illnesses Fell In 1997 to Lowest Rate
on Record, BLS Says,'' Occupational Safety & Health, December 23, 1998,
Page 925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of H.R. 987 argue that the fact that employers
have taken steps to reduce these injuries proves enough is
known about the causes to issue a regulation. In fact, the
practical experience of employers is just the opposite. In
summarizing its study of several ``successful'' efforts by
employers to reduce ergonomics-related injuries, the General
Accounting Office found that:
Although the ergonomics programs at all of the case
study facilities displayed each of these elements,
there were often significant variety in how they were
implemented. This variety typically resulted from
factors such as differences in the facilities'
industries and product line, corporate culture, and
experiences during the programs' evolution.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,
``Worker Protection: Private Sector Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive
Results,'' (GAO/HEHS-97-163), page 4.
The last factor was also emphasized, in testimony before
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, by Douglas
Adams, who has responsibility for implementing ergonomics
programs for the San Diego Unifed School District. Mr. Adams'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
testimony clearly states the problem:
Over the years, I have personally evaluated a variety
of ergonomic work tools, furniture, and peripheral
equipment which, according to the manufacturer, have
been designed to lessen strain or stress in various
work applications. Some of these materials have shown
some success for some employees, while others using the
same material have actually aggravated existing
conditions or developed entirely new symptoms. In many
cases, employees working with the same ergonomically
correct equipment on the same work assignments show
drastically different results in workplace injuries.
One may develop symptoms after a relatively short time
period while the other never develops these symptoms at
all.
On some occasions we have attempted to provide relief
for injured employees who later discovered that their
hobbies or sports-related activities were the actual
cause for their symptoms. This experience alone has
demonstrated to us that there is no such thing as a
``one size fits all'' in the area of ergonomics. If the
problem is not totally caused by work conditions, then
the solution is not going to be found in the workplace
no matter what regulations are adopted.
This is not to say that the injuries are not
``real.'' They are real. The problem is that as a
result of the lack of scientific or medical
understanding of the very nature of repetitive motion
injuries, many employees find themselves being used as
guinea pigs while experimentation continues to attempt
to find a lasting solution to their problems.
In my experience, the most helpful factor in dealing
with repetitive stress injuries has been education and
training. However, you cannot ``regulate'' such
training and education, because it is specific to each
individual employee's comfort level with the various
activities they perform inside and outside of the
workplace.
My entire job focuses on what we can be doing to
prevent injuries. Part of that is reflected in workers'
compensation costs. Do we want to keep those costs
down? Of course. It is in the interests of the
teachers, administrators, and especially, our students,
to keep those costs to a minimum. If we thought the
Cal/OSHA ergonomics regulation would improve our
workers' compensation picture, we would be the first to
support it, if for that reason only. However, we have
no reason to believe it, or any other ergonomic
regulation would have that effect. Individual employers
are implementing individual ergonomic programs--some
are meeting with great success. Others are spending a
lot of money, and having no change whatsoever in their
illness and injury picture. And some have actually seen
increased injuries after implementing such changes.
There are case studies to justify just about any point
of view.
For schools, cost is always an issue. In our school
district alone, projections of costs to equip workers
with the latest ergonomically designed work stations
would exceed $750,000, with continuing costs as
employees move to new work locations and new employees
occupy these areas which may not feel quite right to
them. Fresno Unified School District estimated a
$250,000 cost to take similar measures.
What does $750,000 buy for a school district? It
means 30,000 new text books or 500 new classroom
computers. Cities and counties around the state of
California--many of which are struggling to fund basic
public services--will spend approximately $420 million
to comply with the regulation, according to an economic
impact study. We will spend this money, but we have no
reason to believe we will see any reduction in
repetitive stress illnesses.
This is because we simply do not have answers to some
basic questions, such as:
How many repetitions is too many for our
landscape maintenance people raking leaves?
How heavy is too heavy for teachers to lift
a box of school supplies?
How many hours at the computer is too many
for the data entry clerk?
What does the ideal chair look like? The
ideal desk?
What's the right height for a counter top in
the school cafeteria?
Who qualifies as an ergonomist?
In short, what are the proven measures we
should take to actually prevent these ailments?
These are the questions we face in the real world of
complying with ergonomics standard. Yet, these are the
very questions to which no one yet has the answers * *
*
For schools, complying with this regulation will
result in money which should be spent on children's
education being taken away from classrooms and other
valuable educational materials and programs. Instead,
it will be spent to furnish administrators and clerks
with the latest ergonomically correct items that may or
may not be of any help to them. Ironically, this comes
at a time when many of our school children are forced
to use out-dated, damaged desks and classroom furniture
left over from the 1950's and 1960's.
It does not make sense to force schools to expend
scarce resources on ineffective, ill-defined workplace
regulations. In the field of education, children should
always remain our top priority * * * The parents in our
school district rightfully expect educational funding
to be used to benefit their children, not to be used to
conduct experiments in occupational therapy.
As a medical problem, this first demands better
medical research and understanding. Before the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration follows
California's lead and enacts cost prohibitive
regulations, I urge you to see they take this into
consideration.\37\
\37\ U.S. Congress, House. Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, ``Hearing on Ergonomics: A Question of Feasibility,''
Testimony of Douglas Adams, July 16, 1997, 105th Congress, 1st session,
Serial No. 105-40, pages 60-63.
OSHA's regulation of ergonomics will not be burdensome on
employers, it will only require that employers take obvious and
reasonable steps to avoid hazards.
Another indication of the lack of quantitative risk
information, which OSHA must have to write a reasonable and
clear standard, is OSHA's attempt to justify the regulation by
anecdote. Examples have been given about meat cutters changing
the shape of the handle of the knife being used, resulting in
fewer wrist injuries. Such examples are helpful, but they do
not provide the scientific basis for regulation.
OSHA's February 1999 proposed standard illustrates the
problem, and the danger of moving forward with regulation
without scientific support. Under the proposed standard, an
employer with a job in which a ``work-related MSD'' has
occurred must do everything ``feasible'' to eliminate hazards
that may cause or contribute to a subsequent work-related MSD
in that job or any ``similar'' job. ``Feasible'' has been
defined under the OSH Act as meaning anything ``possible''
short of forcing an entire industry to close down. American
Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981). Thus,
OSHA's regulation could require, for example, an employer to
slow the speed of a production line or to implementcostly job
rotation or other measures, even in the absence of proof that these
factors have caused injury or that the abatement required would prevent
injury. Furthermore, the draft standard invites arbitrary enforcement.
Since OSHA does not define what the employer will be required to do in
order to be in compliance (other than to do whatever is ``feasible''),
an employer has no assurance that a slow-down required in his or her
production line, for example, will also be required of the employer's
competitors.
We can have it both ways. NAS should go forward with the
study, and OSHA should be allowed to go forward with its
regulation.
This argument, made during Committee markup, unfortunately
ignores the fact that OSHA's own timetable for its ergonomics
standard calls for having a final regulation issued by the end
of 2000, before the NAS study is completed.
Furthermore, even if OSHA does not meet its timetable, it
is sensible public policy for OSHA to wait (or be required to
wait) before deciding whether to propose a standard until the
NAS study is completed. A proposed standard largely shapes a
final standard. In fact, agencies may not deviate too far from
a proposed standard in issuing a final standard, instead they
must issue a new proposed standard. OSHA should keep an open
mind on whether a standard is appropriate and necessary, and
use the NAS study to help make that determination, rather than
prejudging the answer.
summary
H.R. 987 ensures that a study of the cause and effect
relationship between work activities and ``musculoskeletal
disorders'' by the National Academy of Sciences is completed
prior to OSHA promulgating an ergonomics standard or
guidelines.
section by section
Section 1. Short title
The Workplace Preservation Act.
Section 2. Findings
Describes the rationale for the bill including the finding
that in October 1998, Congress and the President agreed upon a
comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences of the
medical and scientific evidence regarding musculoskeletal
disorders * * * it is premature for OSHA to decide that a
regulation on ergonomics is necessary or appropriate to
improving workers' health and safety before such study is
complete.
Section 3. Delay of standard or guidelines
States that the Secretary of Labor or OSHA may not
promulgate or issue any standard or guidelines on ergonomics
until the National Academy of Sciences completes a peer-
reviewed scientific study of the available evidence examining
repetitive tasks in the workplace and submits the report to
Congress.
explanation of amendments
The Bill was reported without Amendment.
application of law to the legislative branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. This bill ensures that the National Academy of Sciences
completes the study, provided for in Public Law 105-277, of the
available evidence examining ``the cause and effect
relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and
musculoskeletal disorders'' before the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration promulgates an ergonomics standard. The
bill does not prevent legislative branch employees from
receiving the benefits of this legislation.
unfunded mandate statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. This bill ensures that the National Academy of
Sciences completes the study, provided for in Public Law 105-
277, of the available evidence examining ``the cause and effect
relationship between repetitive tasks in the workplace and
musculoskeletal disorders'' before the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration promulgates an ergonomics standard. As
such, the bill does not contain any unfunded mandates.
rollcall votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
statement of oversight findings and recommendations of the committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
new budget authority and congressional budget office cost estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to
requirements of 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for H.R. 987 from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 29, 1999.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 987, the Workplace
Preservation Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Cyndi
Dudzinski.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 987--Workplace Preservation Act
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 987 would not have a
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill could affect
both federal receipts and discretionary spending, but CBO
estimates that any such effects would be negligible. H.R. 987
contains no private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is currently
undertaking a study on the effect of repetitive tasks in the
workplace on musculoskeletal disorders and repetitive stress
injuries. H.R. 987 would prohibit the Secretary of Labor from
promulgating, through the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), any standard or guideline on ergonomics
until that study is completed and submitted to the Congress.
The NAS report is due to be completed by December 2000. Without
this legislation, OSHA expects to issue a proposed regulation
in the fall of 1999 and finalize it late in 2000 or early in
2001, although legal challenges or other developments could
slow this schedule. Enactment of this legislation could delay
this process for about a year, but would not significantly
affect OSHA's workload or receipts from penalties levied as the
result of OSHA citations during this period.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Cyndi
Dudzinski for federal costs, Susan Sieg for the impact on
state, local, and tribal governments, and Karuna Patel for the
impact on the private sector. This estimate was approved by
Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
statement of oversight findings of the committee on government reform
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on the
subject of H.R. 987.
constitutional authority statement
Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee must include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by H.R. 987. The
Committee believes that the study authorized by Public Law 105-
277 and the actions required of OSHA by this bill are within
Congress's authority under Article I, section 8 of the
Constitution.
committee estimate
Clauses 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 987. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that
this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included
in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported
There are no changes to existing law made by this bill.
MINORITY VIEWS
I. Introduction
H.R. 987 is yet another scheme by the Majority to scuttle
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA)
long-studied rule to help minimize workplace stress and strain
injuries. If H.R. 987 were enacted, it would once again block
OSHA from issuing a rule requiring employers to be cognizant of
ergonomic hazards and to take steps to address those hazards.
The contention by the Majority that we do not know enough to
regulate in this area is disputed by the overwhelming majority
of scientific opinion and has been disproved by the real world
experience of thousands of employers who have taken steps to
address ergonomic hazards and have substantially reduced
injuries as a result. For the Congress to continue to act to
prevent OSHA from issuing a rule on ergonomics is to
senselessly condemn tens of thousands of workers to unnecessary
suffering.
Ergonomic injuries and illnesses remain the most common
serious health risk workers face and ergonomic injuries and
illnesses remain the single largest cause of injury-related
lost workdays. In 1997, there were 620,459 lost workday
injuries and illnesses due to overexertion, repetitive motion,
and other bodily reactions related to ergonomic hazards. This
represents 34 percent of all lost workdays injuries and
illnesses. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders cost
employers between $15 and $20 billion in workers' compensation
costs each year. These are costs that can and should be
reduced. For the Congress to act to further delay the
development of an ergonomics standard is worse than simply
encouraging bad business practices, it is to needlessly prolong
pain and suffering.
Women workers are particularly victimized by ergonomic
injuries and illnesses. Women are 46 percent of the workforce
and 33 percent of those injured at work. Yet, women are 69
percent of those who lose work-time due to carpal tunnel
syndrome; they are 63 percent of those who suffer repetitive
motion injuries; and they are 61 percent of those who lose
work-time due to tendonitis. Nearly half of all injuries and
illnesses to women workers are due to ergonomic hazards.
Because ergonomic injuries are very rarely ever life-
threatening, there seems to be a tendency to disregard their
seriousness. The fact of the matter is that ergonomic injuries
are often crippling. Workers with carpal tunnel syndrome miss
more days from work (25 days on average) than workers with any
other type of major disabling condition, including amputation.
The pain and suffering experienced by victims of ergonomic
hazards is real.
II. History of OSHA's ergonomic rule
The Majority views imply that OSHA is rushing forward
recklessly to develop and issue its rule on ergonomics. Nothing
could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that
OSHA has been working to address ergonomic injuries and
illnesses through its regulatory, enforcement, and compliance
assistance programs for more than two decades.
OSHA took its first enforcement action to address ergonomic
hazards under the general duty clause in the mid-1970's. In the
1980's there was extensive enforcement on ergonomics in a
number of industries with high rates and numbers of ergonomic
injuries including the auto industry, meatpacking, poultry,
apparel, and other assembly operations. Enforcement actions to
address manual handling hazards were undertaken in package
delivery, warehouse operations, nursing homes, and other high
risk industries.
These enforcement actions resulted in a series of
corporate-wide settlement agreements in these industries which
required employers to identify hazardous jobs, control
ergonomic risk factors, train workers about ergonomic hazards
and injuries, and set up medical management programs for
injured workers--the same elements that are required by OSHA's
current draft ergonomics standard.
In 1990, OSHA published ergonomic guidelines for the red
meat industry which recommended the same basic approach for
controlling ergonomic injuries. Experience has shown that the
approach set forth in the settlement agreements, OSHA
guidelines, and current draft standard are sound, and when
implemented can significantly reduce injuries and illnesses as
evidenced by a 26 percent reduction in reported cumulative
trauma cases from 1994 to 1996 in the red meat industry.
At the time the red meat industry guidelines were issued,
then Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole announced that the
Department of Labor was initiating rulemaking ``to address the
problem of ergonomic hazards on an industry-wide basis'' to
reduce repetitive trauma disorders, ``one of the nation's most
debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health
illnesses of the 1990's.'' In April 1992, then Secretary of
Labor Lynn Martin repeated this commitment stating that
``information currently available support the initiative of
Section 6(b) rulemaking'' and in August 1992, OSHA initiated
rulemaking with the issuance of an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
But, nearly a decade after Secretary of Labor Elizabeth
Dole promised government action to reduce the toll of ergonomic
injuries and illnesses, and after more than a decade of
experience that these injuries can be prevented, industry
opponents and some in Congress are still trying to block a
standard to protect workers.
III. Examples of individuals affected by ergonomic hazards
Present in the audience when the Committee considered H.R.
987 was Madeleine Sherod, a mother of five from Rockford,
Illinois. As a result of work-related ergonomic injuries, she
was disabled to the point that she could not even comb the hair
of her children, wash dishes, or sweep floors in her home.
Nadine Brown of Buffalo, New York was also in attendance when
H.R. 987 was considered. Ms. Brown required corrective surgery
as a consequence of a work-related musculoskeletal disorder and
missed four months of work recovering from the surgery. Now,
she is doing exactly the same job, under exactly the same
conditions that necessitated the surgery in the first place.
Carolyn Shebora of Woodbridge, Virginia was also present when
the Committee marked-up H.R. 987. She was required to have
surgery on both of her hands as a consequence of a preventable
work-related musculoskeletal disorder. She is fortunate in that
her employer has already redesigned the cashier's workstations
to ensure that others are not similarly injured.
Another victim was also present during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 987, Representative Carolyn McCarthy.
``For 32 years, I was an active nurse, and let me tell you, at
24 years old, I pulled my back out for the first time. During
that time, I had a young child and it became almost impossible
for me to pick up that child for almost three months. * * * I
certainly went to the doctors. I certainly tried to get
treatment, but I will have a bad back for the rest of my life,
and I lost a lot of work over it and there are a lot of things
I couldn't do.''
Kathy Jalbert was formerly a television news editor. Today,
she is permanently disabled. ``If there were ergonomic
standards eight year ago, I wouldn't be suffering like I am
today.'' Walter Penrose was formerly a computer information
systems manager. Today, he suffers from thoracic outlet
syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar tunnel syndrome and
severe tendonitis. ``I've been very lucky that my family has
been able to help me or I'd be living on the street.'' Jane
Margulies is a former school psychologist who now suffers
chronic pain and is unemployed. ``Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
affected every aspect of my life. I can lift one-half pound,
that's it. Coffee mugs are heavy, turning faucets on and off
are hard, holding my husband's hand, dressing, washing, doing
dishes, shopping--I can't do these anymore. I can't do any of
my hobbies--pottery, gardening, bird watching (I can't hold
binoculars), and even reading. It's too painful to hold the
book and turn pages.''
These are real people who have suffered serious
disabilities and real pain. This is the kind of suffering that
more than a half-million workers a year will continue to
experience if we do not allow OSHA to move forward.
IV. National Academy of Science (NAS) study is no excuse to delay OSHA
rule
Proponents of H.R. 987 contend that language included in
last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act providing for a study by
the National Academy of Science (NAS) of erogonomic issues was
intended to delay OSHA's rulemaking until NAS completed its
work. In fact, the NAS study was included only after those who
oppose this rulemaking failed in their efforts to retain rider
language prohibiting OSHA from proceeding. The NAS language was
agreed to only after the Administration made it perfectly clear
that OSHA would proceed with the ergonomics rule. The chief
negotiator on behalf of the Republicans, Mr. Livingston,
expressly acknowledged this understanding in a joint letter
dated October 19, 1998 that he and the Ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Appropriations, David Obey, sent to Secretary of
Labor Alexis Herman:
Congress has also chosen to provide $890,000 for the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to fund a review
by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the
scientific literature regarding work-related
musculoskeletal disorders. We understand that OSHA
intends to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics late in
the summer of 1999. We are writing to make clear that
by funding the NAS study, it is in no way our intent to
block or delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on
ergonomics. (Emphasis added.)
A June 22, 1999 letter from the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, Jacob Lew, to Representative Boehner
concerning the NAS funding also makes clear that the study was
never intended to delay or prohibit OSHA from moving forward on
its ergonomic rule:
The Administration agreed to the inclusion of funding
for this study in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
fiscal year (FY) 1999, only on the understanding that
this study would not be used as a reason to delay
OSHA's issuance of a protective ergonomics standard or
proposed standard. (Emphasis added.) Former Chairman
Livingston, who negotiated on behalf of the House
majority, made it clear to the Administration that the
NAS study would not prevent OSHA from moving forward
with an ergonomics rule.
* * * I believe the record supports the
Administration's interpretation of Congressional intent
on this subject. The law contains no prohibition on
OSHA moving forward. Moreover, the letter Chairman
Livingston and Representative Obey sent to Secretary of
Labor Alexis Herman last year made clear that the study
provision in no way implied that OSHA was barred from
moving forward with its ergonomics standard. Sent on
the same day as the Conference Report was filed by the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, the
letter is entitled to great weight in determining
legislative intent of the provision.
* * * The negotiations pertaining to the NAS study
occurred in the context of the fact that neither the
House nor the Senate had included a rider in any FY
1999 appropriations bill, as they had in previous
years, to block issuance of a proposed or final rule or
guideline on ergonomics.
The Majority views content that OSHA is somehow ``thumbing
its nose'' at the Congress by proceeding on schedule with the
development of an ergonomics standard. However, the proponents
of the NAS study never contended at the time that the study was
approved that it was intended to delay the development of an
ergonomic standard. In fact, they expressly stated that the
study was not intended to delay the issuance of an ergonomic
standard. Further, the Administration only agreed to the
funding for the NAS study on the understanding that it would
not serve as a basis for delaying the issuance of the ergonomic
standard. Finally, as Representative Livingston's and
Representative Obey's letter makes plainly clear, the fact that
OSHA planned to issue a proposed rule on ergonomics in the late
summer of 1999, before the NAS study would be completed, was
known before the funding the NAS study was ever approved. That
letter is particularly compelling because it came on the heals
of the House report on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 1998, the last bill to restrict OSHA's
activity on ergonomics, which stated, ``The Committee will
refrain from further action to restrict OSHA's development,
promulgation or issuance of an ergonomic standard after FY98.''
V. The medical experts support OSHA's rule
Proponents of H.R. 987 also contend that we lack enough
knowledge to regulate in the field of ergonomics. Experts in
the field of ergonomics strongly disagree. The American
Association of Occupational Nurses, the professional
association for more than 13,000 occupational and environmental
nurses, has stated, ``a standard designed to protect workers
from musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses is consistent with
supporting scientific evidence.'' The American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, the largest
occupational medical society representing over 7,000
physicians, has stated, ``there is adequate scientific
foundation for OSHA to proceed * * * and no reason for OSHA to
delay the rulemaking process while the National Academy of
Science panel conducts its review.''
The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the
professional association of industrial hygienists, has stated,
``AIHA feels that enactment of H.R. 987 would unduly delay the
process of moving forward with an ergonomics proposal.'' In a
position paper on ergonomics, AIHA stated, ``there is a
significant and growing body of knowledge related to the
relationship between the physical work environment and
musculoskeletal disorders.'' A press release dated February 22,
1999 stated, ``The 60,000 members of the American Occupational
Therapy Association feel strongly that the epidemic of work-
related injuries occurring today is a public policy and
economic problem that needs to be addressed, and OSHA's draft
ergonomics standard will focus public attention on the
problem.''
The American Public Health Association first stated its
position in a 1997 resolution and reiterated it in 1999,
``[s]cientific evidence has established a cause-and-effect
relationship between poor ergonomics in the workplace and
chronic musculoskeletal disorders.'' The American Society of
Safety Engineers (ASSE) has stated, ``ASSE supports the concept
of a federal standard addressing ergonomics'' and has also
stated, ``ASSE believes there is enough science justifying the
creation of such a standard.''
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, the professional
organization of ergonomists, has stated, ``[e]rgonomics is a
globally-recognized science with a body of validated research
findings and practices * * * Ergonomics applications--based on
solid research findings--not only can improve the workplace,
but can make products and processes more competitive in the
world market.''
The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and
Health: an advisory committee to the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services made up of safety and
health experts from management, labor, the safety and health
professions, and academia; has stated, ``Although some issues
associated with ergonomics remain to be resolved, the science
of ergonomics is strong and dates back at least fifty years
and, in our view, is sufficient to move forward with a proposed
OSHA ergonomics standard. Clear evidence of this assertion and
testimony to the benefits of ergonomics is the fact that many
countries and Fortune 500 companies are using ergonomics
successfully to reduce workplace injuries.''
VI. Overwhelming scientific data supports OSHA's ergonomics rule
The most comprehensive review to date of the scientific
literature surrounding ergonomics was conducted by the National
Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1997.
NIOSH reviewed 2,000 studies and conducted a detailed review of
more than 600 occupational epidemiology studies. H.R. 987, at
section 2(a)(2), totally mischaracterizes the results of that
study:
A July, 1998, report by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewing
epidemiological studies that have been conducted of
``work related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck,
upper extremity, and low back'' showed that there is
insufficient evidence to assess the level of risk to
workers from repetitive motions. Such characterization
would be necessary to write an efficient and effective
regulation.
The Director of NIOSH, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, in response to
an inquiry from Representative Clay, has stated:
The statement in finding (2) of H.R. 987
misrepresents the conclusions of the 1997 NIOSH study.
In fact, the NIOSH report--which finalized its review
of over 600 occupational epidemiology studies after
extensive external peer review by experts--found that a
substantial body of credible epidemiologic research
provides strong evidence of an association between
musculoskeletal disorders and work factors (such as
routine heavy lifting, daily exposure to whole-body
vibration, routine overhead work, work with the neck in
chronic flexion position, or performance of repetitive
forceful tasks). This is particularly true when workers
are exposed to several work factors simultaneously. In
addition, NIOSH concluded that all musculoskeletal
disorders canbe caused by non-work exposures, but this
does not negate association with work. (Emphasis in the original.)
NIOSH does find an adequate science base for OSHA to
initiate rulemaking for an ergonomics standard.
Although some gaps in our knowledge exist, as they do
in virtually any medical condition when looking at
etiology, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly
clear concerning work exposure and musculoskeletal
disorders. We know enough to prevent or reduce the
severity of many of these disorders now. Further
reviews of the same literature will not alter this
mainstream scientific opinion.
There are numerous examples of public health actions
that were appropriately and successfully taken when
there was enough information to act, even though
information was incomplete. For example, public health
actions against cigarette smoking were made without
waiting for every carcinogenic agent in tobacco smoke
to be identified. Actions to prevent the transmission
of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus were taken before
the virus itself was isolated and the thalidomide
disaster was averted in this country on the basis of
incomplete science. Likewise, four of the most
important OSHA health standards from the 1970's--lead,
benzene, asbestos, and cotton dust--were all attacked
at the time for being based on inadequate science.
Today, exposures in the workplace to these four hazards
are definitely lower and additional scientific
information has continued to accumulate, demonstrating
their hazardous nature at even lower levels of exposure
than originally appreciated.
In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences received $490,000
from the National Institutes of Health at the request of
Representative Bonilla and Representative Livingston to review
the scientific evidence on the work-relatedness of
musculoskeletal disorders. A steering committee of scientific
and medical experts was chosen to organize a workshop, select
leading researchers to participate, and to prepare a report of
findings and conclusions based upon the papers and discussions
from the workshop. NAS brought together more than 65 of the
leading national and international scientific and medical
experts to review the scientific evidence for the work
relationship of ergonomic disorders and to assess whether
interventions at the workplace were effective in reducing
ergonomic hazards. NAS concluded:
1. the musculoskeletal disorders are a serious
national problem;
2. scientific literature clearly demonstrates that
musculoskeletal disorders in workers are caused by
exposure to ergonomic hazards at work;
3. scientific research clearly demonstrates that
effective work place interventions are available which
can reduce ergonomic hazards and prevent
musculoskeletal disorders; and
4. there is evidence that interventions are cost-
beneficial for employers.
Expert witnesses may be found to represent virtually any
point of view. However, in this case there is no question as to
what the overwhelming view of most experts is.
There is even more compelling evidence for the efficacy of
issuing an ergonomics standard, and that is experience.
Businesses across the country in all types of industries have
individually and voluntarily taken steps to address the problem
of ergonomic injuries and illnesses. The record of their
success in dealing with these problems is proof that workplace
interventions will prevent or reduce their severity.
During Committee consideration of H.R. 987, Representative
Kildee described how Mazda Motor Manufacturing Company had
reduced ergonomic injuries and illnesses by 40 percent and how
Consumers Power had reduced such injuries and illnesses among
their employees by 60 percent. Mr. Roemer told of a Connecticut
company that reduced injuries by 90 percent and reduced the
costs of back injury claims from $88,000 to $8,700. He also
told of a banking company that reduced ergonomic injuries and
illnesses by 50 percent, and of a computer graphics company
that reduced musculoskeletal disorders by 41 percent from 1994
to 1995, and by 50 percent from 1995 to 1996.
Navistar International Corporation, one of the nation's
largest manufacturers of medium and heavy trucks, school buses,
and mid-range diesel engines implemented aggressive safety and
ergonomic-related programs and closely coordinated case-
management efforts. The company reduced its workers'
compensation costs from more than $500,000 in 1991 to
approximately $176,000 in 1997.
A 1990 corporate analysis of 3M's injury and illness data
showed that 35 percent of all OSHA-recordable cases were
related to work-related musculoskeletal disorders and 53
percent of all lost-time cases were related to such disorders.
After implementing ergonomics programs in several demonstration
plants, 3M implemented a company-wide program in 1991. Over the
next five years, 3M reduced its OSHA-recordable cases by 22
percent and reduced lost-time cases by 58 percent. Within
office settings, 3M's program included training and
evaluations, work station adjustments, and installation of
ergonomically correct equipment. Follow-up surveys of
individuals with work-related musculoskeletal disorders showed
that approximately 90 percent had improved or completely
recovered.
A Fieldcrest-Cannon plant in Columbus, Georgia was found by
OSHA to be in violation to the general duty clause of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act for ergonomic related
conditions. In response, Fieldcrest-Cannon established joint
labor-management committees to design programs to reduce
injuries and illnesses related to repetitive stress. As a
consequence, back injuries at the Columbus plant were reduced
from 19 injuries, including 17 lost days and 292 restricted
duty days in 1993, to 1 injury in 1997, including no lost days
or restricted duty days. While the OSHA settlement agreement
applied only to the Columbus plant, the company has implemented
similar programs with similar results at two other similar
facilities.
Red Wing Shoes has reduced its workers compensation costs
by 75 percent over four years, from more than $4,000,000 in
1991-92 to approximately $1,000,000 in 1995-96, despite the
addition of two new plants. The company attributes the
reduction to the adoption of a newphilosophy--modifying
equipment to fit the worker rather than forcing the worker to fit the
equipment. Red Wing's program was not inexpensive and included
significant work station modifications. However, the program has
significantly decreased employee injuries and workers' compensation
costs and improved worker morale and productivity.
In the late 1980's, the Fresno Bee recognized it had an
ergonomics problem. The company invested $800,000 in their
ergonomics program and, as a result, has achieved a 20 percent
reduction in medical costs and temporary disability pay.
According to company management, that reduction has more than
offset the total cost of implementing the ergonomics program.
The poultry processing industry has historically been among
the highest hazard industries in terms of lost time illnesses
and injuries and work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a
major source of such injuries and illnesses. In 1991, Perdue
Farms implemented an ergonomics program for its employees. In
1996, Perdue had six plants that recorded no lost-time
illnesses or accidents in more than a million hours worked.
VII. Leadership on ergonomics by other jurisdictions
OSHA is not alone in its efforts to develop and issue a
standard to prevent ergonomic injuries and illnesses. In 1997,
the state of California issued a workplace ergonomics standard
in response to a 1993 mandate by the state legislature. The
states of Washington and North Carolina are also in the process
of developing workplace ergonomic regulations.
Other countries are far ahead of the United States in their
efforts to prevent ergonomic injuries and illnesses. The
European Community has had a directive on manual handling to
prevent back injuries (Council Directive 90/269/EEC) and a
directive on video display terminal use (Council Directive 90/
270/EEC) since 1990 which have been adopted as regulations by
the member states. Regulations to prevent back injuries and/or
upper extremity injuries have also been adopted in British
Columbia, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden.
In addition, voluntary standards organizations are moving
to address this significant problem. In 1998, the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) issued a standard for Human
Factors Engineering of Video Display Terminal Workstations
(ANSI/HFS 100-1988). ANSI is now in the final stages of
developing a standard on the Control of Work-Related Cumulative
Trauma Disorders (ANSI Z-365).
VIII. OSHA rule is flexible
The Majority views contend that before we may successfully
establish an ergonomic standard we must be able to answer such
questions as, ``How many repetitions are too many for our
landscape maintenance people raking leaves? How heavy is too
heavy for teachers to lift a box of school supplies? How many
hours at the computer is too many for the data entry clerk?''
They argue that there must be a single answer to each of these
questions that all employers may uniformly apply, and that
until there is, we do not know enough to issue an ergonomics
rule. This, of course, is a standard that can never be met.
As Charles Jeffress, the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health stated in a speech before the
National Coalition on Ergonomics, the industry coalition that
is leading the effort to prevent OSHA from proceeding with the
development of an ergonomic rule:
One size does not fit all. That is why OSHA has
decided on the program approach. That's also why no one
will ever be able to say that X number of repetitions
or lifting X pounds will result in an injury or
conversely that Y number of repetitions or Y pounds
will definitely not result in an injury for anyone,
anytime, anywhere. However, many employers have proven
that establishing a systematic program to address
issues as repetition, excessive force, awkward postures
and heavy lifting, results in fewer injuries to
workers.
* * * a program approach offers employers the
framework for addressing specific high risk areas and
then handling other problems as they arise. It's the
right way to go to provide needed protection for
workers while providing maximum flexibility for
employers.
OSHA has developed a draft ergonomic proposal that has been
publicly available on OSHA's website since early spring. OSHA's
draft rule provides a flexible framework that enables employers
to address work-related musculoskeletal disorders in a
sensible, practical manner. OSHA recognizes that there are a
variety of solutions to most ergonomic problems and the draft
rule permits employers to choose those solutions that are best
for their workplace. OSHA's draft rule does not require
companies to automate, nor does it require companies with
effective existing ergonomic programs to change those programs.
The requirements that the draft rule imposes on employers
are minimal. In manufacturing and manual handling operations,
where ergonomic injuries are most likely to occur, the draft
rule requires that management establish procedures to recognize
and report ergonomic hazards and ensure that employees are
aware of and able to report problems. If no ergonomic problems
are reported the employer has met its full obligation. Where
problems are identified, employers must implement measures to
eliminate or control the problem to the extent feasible, must
educate workers regarding the hazard and the employer's program
to control it, must make available prompt access to treatment
and provide working conditions that comply with that treatment
during the recovery period, and must periodically evaluate the
controls and programs to ensure they remain effective. Where an
employer's ergonomic problems are limited, its ergonomic
program may be limited accordingly. This is the nature of the
burdensome requirements that are going to bankrupt the country
that OSHA is seeking to impose.
The OSHA Act prevents OSHA from issuing a standard that is
not both technically and economically feasible. If a standard
does not meet both tests, it will be struck down. Requirements
that would significantly impair the long-term profitability or
competitive structure of an industry, for example, would not be
feasible.
OSHA already enforces the General Duty Clause, the duty
imposed on employers by sections 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act to
provide a workplace free of recognized hazards, including
ergonomic hazards, that are likely to cause serious harm.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission, it is not enough for OSHA to show, as the Majority
argues, that a requirement will not force ``an entire industry
to shut down.'' Rather, to prove a violation by an employer who
has an ergonomics program, OSHA must prove that the requirement
was feasible for the particular employer and that the employer
failed to adopt a measure that was technically possible and
likely to reduce materially the ergonomic hazard.
In any event, the draft rule provided to the SBREFA panel
does not require employers ``to slow the speed of production or
to implement costly job rotation'' as the Majority claims. It
provides that an employer may use any combination of
engineering, work practice, or administrative controls to
control ergonomic hazards and that employers may install
controls incrementally rather than all at once. If raising the
employee's chair controls the hazard, the employer need do no
more.
The OSHA draft rule is a flexible, program approach, drawn
heavily from the best practices of employers. The draft rule
does not ``lock employers into old technologies,'' ``freeze out
innovation'' or otherwise prevent employers from developing and
implementing new and better strategies for preventing ergonomic
injuries and illnesses. The rule does not specify any
particular technology. Nor does the draft rule preclude or
prevent us from benefiting from the results of the NAS study.
It is important to understand the endeavor that the NAS is
actually undertaking. The NAS is conducting a review of
existing literature. The NAS is not conducting primary research
or developing ``new'' science. Rather, it is conducting the
third major literature review to be conducted in three years.
Every study the NAS is reviewing is already available for use
during OSHA's rulemaking. Employers will be able to use the
study's results to develop their own control strategy. Finally,
the experience of companies that have already implemented
similar programs has not been that such programs are expensive
or provide only dubious benefits. In fact, these programs have
significantly reduced injuries and have cut costs rather than
increasing them.
The following quote, from June 8, 1999 edition of The
Charlotte Observer, was made in the context of unsuccessful
efforts by some in North Carolina to prevent that State's
Department of Labor from issuing an ergonomic standard. In our
view, it applies equally to H.R. 987:
In a blatant display of micromanagement and disregard
for working people, the N.C. House last week approved a
budget amendment that would delay the State Department
of Labor's adoption of new rules to prevent
musculoskeletal disorder injuries and illnesses in the
workplace.
* * * The cost in lost wages and lost productivity is
staggering. So is the House's presumption in seeking to
impose a two-year delay on consideration of the rules,
known as the ergonomic standards.
* * * By interfering with adoption of the ergonomic
rules, the House not only ignores the [administrative
review] process it set up in 1995, it also insults tens
of thousands of working people whose livelihoods are
threatened--and often halted--by workplace injuries and
illnesses.
To quote from another newspaper, the July 25, 1999
edition of the Chicago Tribune: ``Almost a decade ago,
then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole said the government
would set down rules to help protect workers from
debilitating workplace injuries caused by such
activities as lifting, pushing, pulling, and repetitive
motion. Nothing ever came of Dole's vow.'' * * *
It is past time to fulfill that vow. Today, more than
500,000 people continue to be injured on the job each year, and
ergonomic injuries and illnesses are still the single largest
source of lost-workday injuries. Ergonomic injuries and
illnesses continue to cost between $15 and $20 billion a year
in direct workers' compensation costs. The total costs of such
injuries and illnesses, including lost income and productivity,
may be as high as $60 billion a year. Clearly there are
substantial benefits to be gained for workers, businesses, and
the nation in proceeding with the development of an ergonomic
standard.
W.L. Clay.
Dale E. Kildee.
Major R. Owens.
Patsy T. Mink.
Tim Roemer.
Lynn Woolsey.
Chaka Fattah.
Carolyn McCarthy.
Ron Kind.
Harold E. Ford, Jr.
David Wu.
George Miller.
Matthew G. Martinez.
Donald M. Payne.
Robert E. Andrews.
Bobby Scott.
Carlos Romero-Barcelo.
Ruben Hinojosa.
John F. Tierney.
Loretta Sanchez.
Dennis J. Kucinich.
Rush Holt.
