US row over workplace standard

A controversial proposed new ergonomics standard in the US that would save $9 billion (€10 billion) annually, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the US Department of Labour, is being resisted by employers and both houses of Congress.

Congress wants to forbid the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from proceeding with and publishing its final ergonomics standard later this year.

US President Bill Clinton has said he will veto the forthcoming Appropriations Bill unless Congress deletes its rider forbidding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from proceeding with the new standard.

Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker. Where there is a mismatch between the physical requirements of a job and the physical capacity of a worker, musculoskeletal disorders can result. The whole US government budget runs from October 1st to September 30th, so it's almost time for government departments to get next year's money. The Appropriations Bill assigns money for the various functions of government. In this case, the houses of Congress have added a rider that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration can't use any of its money to promulgate or issue the ergonomics standard.

If the president were to sign the Bill, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would not be able to publish the final standard. But President Clinton has said he will not sign unless the rider thwarting the new standard is deleted.

Normally, the president would not be involved. "But this is not normal," as one informed source told The Irish Times.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been trying to develop an ergonomics standard for the past seven years. The standard would be triggered after one work-related musculoskeletal disorder arose within a workplace. Some 1.9 million worksites would come under the new ergonomics standard.

The group says that as many as 1.8 million US workers suffer from musculoskeletal disorders each year. It argues that 27 million workers would be protected by the proposed standard. It believes that the average annual cost to an employer for altering a job so that it would not cause a work-related musculoskeletal disorder would be $150, compared to an average of $22,500 in direct costs to be saved for each case prevented. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that $9 billion will be saved annually by complying with the ergonomic standard.

In Ireland, some 30 per cent of all workplace accidents reported to the Health and Safety Authority in 1999 were due to handling, lifting and carrying activities.

The US group says most musculoskeletal disorders are very easy to prevent. Ergonomic interventions they recommend include:

adjusting the height of working surfaces to reduce long stretches and awkward postures;

putting work supplies and equipment within comfortable reach;

providing the right tool for the job and the right handle for the worker;

varying tasks for workers, such as job rotation;

encouraging short authorised breaks;

providing mechanical lifting equipment;

using telephone headsets.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration insists that "good ergonomics is good economics". It estimates that musculoskeletal disorders cost employers $15-$20 billion a year in workers' compensation costs alone and that total direct costs may be as high as $60 billion a year.

It estimates that annually the proposal would cost $700 per establishment covered and $150 per problem job fixed.

Having held nine weeks of hearings, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is now in the process of reviewing all the information and writing the final standard.

The proposed standard, which would have legal effect, would cover all industries - offices, factories, services, hospitals etc. - except the maritime industry, construction and agriculture.

Some businesses and business groups fear it will cost a lot of money to comply, and have developed their own estimates, which are disputed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Trade unions on the other hand say the standard doesn't go far enough and is insufficiently preventive. They argue that in many cases the employer is not required to do anything until someone is actually injured.

www.osha.gov jmarms@irish-times.ie