Ergonomics Rule
Roils Industry
by Heidi Ernst
After years of studies and debates, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration published its final Ergonomics Program Standard last Nov. 14.
Industries included in the rule–and with its scope newly broadened, that not only means newspapers, but also areas of newspaper operations well beyond production–are required by Oct. 15 to provide employees with information about musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and how to report them. The standard identifies jobs with certain risk factors that employers must use to determine if they need to provide an ergonomics program for employees.
While unions champion the final rule for its promise of protecting at-risk workers, many other organizations, including NAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, oppose it. The standard is being disputed in court, and "NAA, on behalf of the newspaper industry, will be participating in this legal challenge," says Paul Boyle, NAA vice president of government affairs.
Arguments against the rule, according to Boyle, include:
- The costs, which OSHA has underestimated, outweigh the benefits
- Medical science does not support the rule’s requirements
- By changing the scope of the rule and adding new items, OSHA failed to follow its own administrative procedures of giving everyone an opportunity to comment.
The final rule was broadened to cover almost every job in the American economy. The draft, released last February, considered limiting coverage to "manufacturing operations, manual-handling operations and other jobs in general industry where there is a demonstrated WMSD [work-related musculoskeletal disorders] problem."
"We believe that whether you’ve picked construction or a newspaper job, you should be protected," explains OSHA ergonomist Gary Orr.
Another point of contention centers on newly clarified risk factors. The ones that will especially affect the newspaper industry involve "use of a keyboard and/or mouse in a steady manner for more than four hours total in a workday" and "repeating a cycle of motions more than twice per minute for more than two consecutive hours."
As for the cost to U.S. business, an OSHA summary says the standard would "impose annual compliance costs of $4.5 billion on employers." However, The Washington Post quoted "business interests" as putting that number at anywhere from $18 billion to $125.6 billion a year. NAA officials believe the cost for particular ergonomic fixes is double the estimate provided by OSHA.
The number of MSD cases reported "across the board has gone down slightly over the years," Orr acknowledges. But some 600,000 MSDs of the upper extremities, back and lower extremities serious enough to cause time off from work still are reported each year, he adds, citing the figure OSHA uses to support its standard.
But the current rate of injury reduction without the new standard would beat OSHA’s projected decrease over the next 10 years, says P.J. Edington, executive director of the Center for Office Technology, a coalition of businesses and associations that focused on workplace health and safety until its office closed on Dec. 31.
Although the rule is official, the president will decide how to enforce it, and Congress could overturn it. Since there is no guarantee of either action, NAA and others now prepare to take the standard to court. On Dec. 13, NAA filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the rule’s validity; a brief in cooperation with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society of Human Resource Management is expected to follow in January.
"It appears the only way to remedy this far-reaching rule is through legal action," says Boyle.
The full text of the final rule is available at www.osha-slc.gov/ergonomics-standard/index.html.
For more information on NAA products that describe how to start an ergonomics
program, visit www.naa.org/products/technology.html#ergonewsops,
or call (800) 651-4NAA. 
Ernst is an Astoria, N.Y., free-lancer. E-mail, heidi_ernst@timeinc.com.
Injuries Fall
by Allen Cooley
Occupational injury and illness rates continue declining for the printing and publishing industry, according to statistics supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Safety Council.
Based
on U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 200 log data, the
BLS said the printing and publishing industry’s total case-incidence
rate fell from 6.0 per 100 full-time workers in 1997 to 5.4 in 1998, the
most recent year for which statistics are available.
The industry’s total case-incidence rate was also below the 1998 national private-sector average of 6.7. At the extremes were the legal-services industry with a rate of 0.8, and the iron and steel foundries industry at 22.1. The printing and publishing industry logged a total lost workday case-incidence rate of 2.8 in 1998.
Meanwhile, the National Safety Council reported the printing and publishing industry’s total case-incident rate in 1999 as 5.2, compared to 8.0 for all industries.
The printing and publishing industry’s decline in work-related injuries and illnesses follows a national trend. Since 1992, the number of private-sector occupational injuries and illnesses has fallen 25 percent to 6.7 per 100 full-time workers from 8.9, according to the BLS.
For more information, visit http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/osh.toc.htm.
Cooley is an NAA industrial hygienist. E-mail, coola@naa.org.