Unions and their allies in the decades-long fight to prevent crippling injuries caused by repetitive motion and strain welcomed the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposal to require employers to implement ergonomics programs for hazardous jobs.

OSHA said its proposed ergonomics standard, which would cover general industry employers, would protect some 27 million workers and save about $9 billion each year in workers' compensation and other direct costs. The agency, which first published notice of rulemaking on ergonomics in 1993, said the proposed rule would cost employers about $4.2 billion each year and prevent an average of 300,000 musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) per year.

Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker through workstation and equipment design and training. Repetitive motion, lifting, awkward postures, and other stressors can cause MSDs, such as back injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, that can range in severity from minor pain to crippling.

According to OSHA, about 1.8 million workers suffer work-related MSDs every year – making it the dominant occupational illness counted by the Department of Labor. About one-third of these injuries are serious enough to require time off from work. OSHA said that women workers suffer disproportionately from some of the most severe MSDs – 70 percent of the carpal tunnel syndrome cases and 62 percent of the tendinitis cases serious enough to involve time off from work – because a large number of women work in jobs associated with heavy lifting, awkward postures or repetitive motion.

The proposed ergonomics standard is the first on the U.S. federal level, although in the late 1980s, OSHA began helping industries with large-scale MSD problems, such as automaking and meatpacking, develop industry-specific programs. Under the Bush administration, OSHA issued guidelines on the prevention of MSDs but declined to produce a standard. Union families and their allies, who fought long and hard to win a nationwide standard to prevent MSDs, count the proposed rule as a major victory.

As the number of MSD cases soared over the past decade with increased automation, some states reacted to the increase with rules of their own. In Canada, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have issued ergonomic regulations.

International Pres. James J. Norton said: "GCIU members in pre-press, press, bindery, shipping, and journalism, sales, advertising and design departments have waited a long time for this OSHA standard. Many of our employers already make a good effort to prevent musculoskeletal disorders, and we stand ready to help any other employers who in good faith seek to comply with the proposed ergonomics rule."

Saying government action on MSDs is "long overdue," AFL-CIO Pres. John J. Sweeney called the Clinton administration's ergonomic proposal "a major step forward in the fight to end crippling workplace injuries. Despite an unrelenting and mean-spirited campaign by big business groups and anti-worker members of Congress to block these important protections, the public will finally have a chance to be heard" during public hearings on the issues.

Sweeney said the proposed rule would "significantly reduce injuries and illnesses, lower workers' compensation costs and improve productivity." However, he added that the rule should be expanded to cover workers in the construction, agriculture, and maritime industries. The AFL-CIO also is urging OSHA to change its proposal to require employers to implement ergonomics programs before any workers are injured.

Stay active, AFL-CIO urges

The AFL-CIO said union groups must "redouble our efforts" during the OSHA rulemaking process to help create a strong record of support for the standard. OSHA begins public hearings on Feb. 22 in Washington, D.C., on March 21 in Portland, Ore., and April 11 in Chicago. The federation said activists also must let members of Congress know of their support for the standard.

As they did while successfully lobbying to stall the ergonomics rule by order of Congress for three years, business groups expressed strong opposition to the proposal. Citing "inadequate science," Jennifer Krese of the National Association of Manufacturers claimed a "lack of consensus in the scientific and medical communities on the causes of MSDs to justify a rule of this magnitude...." A spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged that business groups will sue to block the rule.

Business groups wanted to delay the rulemaking as they had in past years until after the completion of another study by the National Academy of Sciences that was ordered by Congress. However, based on an extensive review of existing studies on ergonomic issues, the NAS' 1998 report found clear correlations between musculoskeletal disorders and at-risk jobs and between ergonomic intervention and a decrease in the disorders. Business groups and members of Congress who didn't like the conclusions of the scientific panel ordered a new study.

And despite claims by the business groups, the proposed ergonomics rule has won support from a broad range of occupational and public health professional groups, whose members have struggled to treat patients suffering the consequences of poor workstation and equipment design. These groups include the American Occupational Therapy Association, American Public Health Association, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American Occupational Therapy Association, and Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics.

Labor Secy. Alexis M. Herman said MSDs "are the most prevalent, most expensive, and most preventable workplace injuries in the country. Real people are suffering real injuries that can disable their bodies and destroy their lives. The good news is that real solutions are available."

Charles N. Jeffress, assistant labor secretary for occupational safety and health, said the proposal "includes some unique provisions to expand flexibility for employers because one size doesn't fit all. We've given employers a 'Quick Fix' option and included a grandfather clause – both designed to limit what employers need to do while effectively protecting workers. Three-quarters of general industry employers would not need to do anything until a documented, work-related injury actually occurs."

Brian J. Bobal, GCIU Safety and Health director, said the proposed rule "will go a long way in helping to prevent back and repetitive motion injuries that tend to occur in the printing industry in bindery, paperhandling, press, shipping, and even pre-press."

"The distinction OSHA has made between benefits for injuries severe enough to prevent a worker from performing light duties and those where workers are judged able to return to a less hazardous job will bear watching," Bobal said. "Those judgments must be made by health care professionals to prevent permanent damage in many cases."

Noting that the proposed rule would require employers to seek worker input on ergonomics problems, Bobal urged locals to insist that employers comply with this part of the proposed rule by working with the union safety and health committee. "Otherwise, employers may attempt to pick and choose among workers who only tell them what they want to hear," he said.

The basic ergonomics program

According to OSHA, the rule covers general industry employers with workers at about 1.6 million worksites involved in manual handling or manufacturing production jobs. Also covered are other general industry employers whose workers experience MSDs directly related to work that are diagnosed by a health care professional. The MSD must be specifically connected to activities that form the core or a significant part of the worker's job.

Under the basic ergonomics program established by the rule, employers would be required to name someone to be responsible for ergonomics and supply resources and training for the program. Employers would be required to insure that company policies do not discourage workers from reporting MSDs. Employers also would be required to periodically provide workers with information on ergonomic risk factors, signs and symptoms of MSDs, the importance of early recognition and reporting, and the requirements of the rule. Employers would be required to establish a system for workers to report early symptoms of MSDs and to respond promptly to workers' reports.

Employers also are offered a Quick Fix process for small-scale MSDs. This program includes prompt care for an injured employee, working with employees to eliminate the MSD hazard within 90 days, verifying that the fix worked within another 30 days, and keeping records of Quick Fix controls. If the Quick Fix fails or if another MSD of the same type occurs within 36 months, employers would be required to establish a full ergonomics program.

The full ergonomics program includes the basic program plus:

• Job hazard analysis and control: This would require employers to analyze problem jobs for ergonomic risk factors; to work with employees to eliminate or materially reduce MSD hazards using engineering, administrative and/or work practice controls; to use personal protective equipment to supplement other controls; and to track progress in reducing MSDs.

• Training: Employers would be required to train employees in jobs with covered MSDs, their supervisors and staff responsible for the ergonomics program; to teach recognition of MSD hazards, the program at the site and control measures used to reduce hazards and to conduct training initially, periodically and at least every three years in a language they understand.

• MSD management: Employers would be required to provide prompt response to an injured employee, access to a health care professional, and information to health care professionals about the job, hazards, and the ergonomics standard. Also required would be necessary work restrictions and work restriction protection during the recovery period – 100 percent pay and benefits for employees put on light duty; 90 percent pay and 100 percent benefits for employees who must be removed from work. These benefits would last until the employee can return to work or the MSD hazards are fixed or six months have passed, whichever comes first. These benefits can be offset by workers' compensation or similar benefits.

• Program evaluation: Employers would be required to evaluate ergonomic programs at least every three years; consult with employees on program effectiveness and deficiencies; and correct any deficiencies. Record keeping would be required for three years for employers with 10 or more employees.

OSHA has included a grandfather clause that would allow employers that already have established ergonomic programs to continue them if they are effective.