OSHA Unveils Ergonomic Standard
by Paul Boyle
The U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration on Nov. 22 released its proposed ergonomic standard. It would require employers
to establish an ergonomic program addressing hazards for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), such as back injuries and carpal-tunnel syndrome (TechNews, March/April 1999, p. 32).
OSHA projects that the standard, which it hopes to finalize by December 2000, will require about 1.6 million employers to implement a basic ergonomic program, at an estimated cost of $4.2 billion a year.
The draft standard would require a basic ergonomic program for manufacturing and material-handling operations. However, the OSHA standard is "triggered" for any job function if a single MSD injury is reported on an OSHA-200 log, or if MSD symptoms are reported and MSD hazards exist. These criteria will make almost all businesses, from newspapers to bakeries, subject to the regulation.
OSHA is extending a limited grandfather clause to some employers with existing programs. The proposed standard also provides a "quick fix" alternative, under which employers could correct hazards within 90 days without being required to establish a full-blown program.
On the surface, the 24-page standard appears workable, especially for the newspaper industry, which has been ahead of other industries in addressing ergonomic problems in the workplace. However, a reading of the 970-page analysis gives employers cause for concern. For example, it states that an employer will be required to identify and evaluate MSD hazards when it makes process or equipment changes. When new controls become available, "employers must implement them promptly," implying that employers will never be completely out of OSHA’s regulatory range of vision.
The OSHA analysis also states that employers will not be considered to have finished implementing controls until "they have eliminated MSD hazards." One of the examples OSHA provides is the use of voice-activated computers, a solution that may be too costly and impractical for most jobs.
The most controversial element in the proposed rule is a requirement that employers pay 90 percent of an injured employee’s full salary and benefits for up to six months, compared with the two-thirds salary required by most state workers’ compensation systems. NAA is concerned that this added federal requirement will encourage employees to "game the system" by finding a health-care professional willing to write a work-restriction order for "medical removal."
OSHA is soliciting public comment on the proposed rule until Feb. 1. NAA will file comments seeking to make the rule more practical for newspapers.
Boyle is NAA’s vice president for government affairs. E-mail, boylp@naa.org.