Ergonomics: Decision 2000

Detail from Detroit Industry, 1933 Diego Rivera

The political fight for the ergonomics standard has entered its final stages. The outcome of the November elections will be a key factor in whether 27.3 million workers will be protected from musculoskeletal disorders brought on by repetitive and high force work.

In recent months the Republican Congress has brazenly attacked the OSHA Proposed Ergonomics Standard. In June the both the House and Senate voted largely along party lines to restrict OSHA from moving forward on an ergonomics bill. A rider was placed in the bill that finances OSHA programs. The rider prohibits OSHA from developing a standard to protect workers from ergonomics hazards. In August the House and Senate finalized the joint bill that includes the ergonomics prohibition.

The Republican Party platform specifically attacks the ergonomics proposal stating that: "We will withdraw [OSHA’s] proposed ergonomics standard, ban its bureaucracy from homes of telecommuting workers, and change the agency from an adversary to a partner for safer productivity."

The Clinton Administration has committed to the AFL-CIO to get the ergonomics final rule passed by January 2001. In stark contrast to the Republican platform, the Democratic Party platform states "We are fighting for a new ergonomics standard and whistle-blower protections…"

Why is the Republican platform so adamantly opposed to the ergonomics standard? Conservative corporate business organizations are the source of the opposition, because they do not want to protect employees. Reviewing the hearing record shows that industry made no headway in countering the scientific basis for the standard.

The present industry critique of the OSHA proposal rejects every concession that OSHA has made. OSHA responded to early industry comments by proposing a "plain language" ergonomics standard. This would allow management "flexibility" in determining the exposure assessment methodology. It would also permit management to defer exposure assessment until injuries or symptoms complaints are reported. When bad jobs are identified, OSHA would reduce regulatory burden by allowing for "quick fix" alternative. Regulatory burden would be further reduced by "grandfathering" existing programs that meet the requirements of the proposed standard.

Finally, over labor opposition, OSHA would permit incremental abatement of bad jobs. Labor is opposed to this because it violates OSHA’s general duty clause. Now, ironically, each of these concessions is a target of industry criticism. Nevertheless, the UAW believes that OSHA can, and should, respond to these criticisms within the bounds of the current rulemaking process, and in accordance with the notice given to the parties.

It has been 10 years since then Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole promised an OSHA standard to protect workers from ergonomic injuries. The latest Republican led attacks on OSHA in the House and Senate demonstrate renewed vigor in attacking OSHA’s proposed ergonomics standard. Every year 2 million injuries are caused by repetitive stress on soft tissues. Some 600,000 workers are crippled from these injuries and suffer lost time away from work. In repeatedly blocking the passage of an ergonomics standard, the Republicans have been responsible for 6 million crippling injuries.

Next: UAW testifies before OSHA