Masonry Magazine September 2002 Page. 12
Ergonomic Update
Ergonomics Resurfaces
in Both Washingtons
Marian Marshall
MCAA Government Affairs
Washington DC
MCAA is tracking the latest attempts at legislative mandate in the area of ergonomics. Here is a report from our Washington office.
Webster's dictionary defines ergonomics as "an applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely - also called human engineering."
Just as there are different types of engineering-electrical, mechanical, civil and environmental, computer and aeronautical "human engineering" or genetics comprises a rather vast and complicated universe in and of itself.
Often the number of engineers you have on one project is equal to the number of solutions put forth to address a structural problem. Every engineer will offer a different approach to resolving the problem, each with a different result.
Because no two humans have the same genetic makeup, no scientists or doctors are ever likely to agree on how best to treat a genetic disorder, whether it's musculoskeletal or intestinal.
More to the point, can any doctor or scientist really accurately determine whether a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is related to one's daily work activities or was acquired after normal working hours doing simple household chores? Can anyone envision a little ergonomics robot following us home to monitor our physical activities, thus ensuring all workmen's comp complaints are actually valid? You get the picture, I'm sure.
With that in mind, it is difficult at best to understand how a handful of bureaucrats and politicians at the federal and state level could actually conceive of a one-size-fits-all regulation addressing work-related musculoskeletal disorders and other so-called ergonomic hazards for the diverse range of industries we have across our country.
MSDs result from a variety of different risk factors and methods used to eliminate or substantially reduce those workplace hazards vary greatly among different processes in different industries. These complex issues, and others, make including such a wide range of industries in one ergonomic rule both undesirable and virtually impossible.
Regrettably, however, Senator John Breaux (D-La.) and others have sponsored a bill, S. 2184, which would require the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) to include all industries in an ergonomics rule-a rule that could be even broader than a Clinton Administration regulation overturned by Congress in March.
S. 2184 would include construction, agriculture and maritime, as well as general industry. No exceptions. Worse still, the legislation mandates that OSHA consider outdated scientific information that may be irrelevant to promulgation of a new standard. Application of ergonomic standards is completely subjective; experience has shown that a tailored approach to standard setting tends to produce better results. However, the Breaux legislation is not reflective of that reality.
In June, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reported S. 2184 to the full Senate, and Breaux and the other cosponsors of the bill are anxious to have it brought up for consideration.
Application of ergonomic standards is completely subjective; experience has shown that a tailored approach to standard setting tends to produce better results.
The U.S. Department of Labor has made known its opposition to this bill and promises a Presidential veto should it pass both Houses of Congress.
In expressing her views to the Committee, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao argues that, "S. 2184 would require the Department to issue a standard in a very complex area where we have judged a standard to be unworkable at this time and ineffective at achieving our goals for reducing ergonomic hazards in the workplace. We believe that passage of S. 2184 would further delay any real action to address ergonomic hazards as employers put their current ergonomic hazard abatement plans on hold while awaiting a new federal standard.
"Moreover, S. 2184 would require the Department to divert resources from our current efforts to immediately address ergonomic hazards to the development of a new standard which would take, at a minimum, years before it became effective and provided any relief whatsoever to America's workers."
Notwithstanding that veto threat, the proponents of ergonomics regulations have yet another iron in the