Two fronts have emerged for the AFL-CIO and its affiliates to continue their decades-long battle to protect more than 600,000 workers who are injured on the job by repetitive motion every year.

In mid-February, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which was freed in September from the congressionally imposed ban on developing an ergonomics standard, issued a draft of its proposal to regulate the repetitive motion causes of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) through programs designed to fit the job to the worker.

OSHA said that MSDs account for more than 34 percent of all lost-workday injuries and illnesses and cost employers $15 billion to $20 billion annually in direct workers' compensation costs.

"We must push forward with a sensible ergonomics program," said OSHA chief Charles N. Jeffress. "We have ample sound scientific evidence that too many workers are suffering serious injuries and illnesses due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders."

Last year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported its finding of sufficient evidence to warrant action against MSDs in a study ordered by Congress. After completion of the study, then House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and ranking minority member Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) wrote to Labor Secy. Alexis Herman, assuring her that the nearly $900,000 appropriated to fund another NAS study was not intended to block or delay OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule.

However, with a push from the National Ergonomics Coalition led by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, House Republicans again are proposing to delay OSHA's rulemaking process until after the new NAS study is completed in two years. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on March 4 introduced H.R. 987 to accomplish this goal.

AFL-CIO Pres. John J. Sweeney called the GOP bill "a futile attempt by extremists to deny the existence of the nation's biggest job safety problem, repetitive strain injuries. America's working men and women understand all too well that such injuries are a real and present danger in workplaces across the nation."

"In introducing this legislation," Sweeney said, "this bill's sponsors have made their motives clear – that they value profit over people and that they are driven by dogmatism rather than common sense."

GCIU Pres. James J. Norton said that the "attempt to block OSHA's ergonomics rule, if successful, would mean the needless suffering of many more GCIU members who risk carpal tunnel syndrome and other injuries related to job situations that are correctable."

Norton urged GCIU members to write, phone, fax or e-mail their members of Congress and ask them to support an ergonomics standard and oppose H.R. 987.

"Good employers – including many GCIU employers – already have taken action to prevent MSDs," Norton said. "But for those employers who refuse to recognize the seriousness of this workplace problem, both for their workers and for their bottom lines, an OSHA rule requiring them to take action is absolutely necessary."

The second front is OSHA's draft ergonomics proposal.

In a statement, Sweeney said that the federation believes that OSHA's approach to the ergonomics rule "is an important step in the right direction." He said OSHA's approach – "to require development of ergonomics programs for operations and jobs where there are significant risks of workers developing musculoskeletal disorders – is sound and consistent with good industry practices many employers have implemented."

However, the AFL-CIO is concerned that the draft rule "excludes large numbers of workers from coverage, such as those in construction, maritime, and agriculture. . . . We are equally concerned that, as drafted, in many workplaces the rule is only triggered after workers are injured," Sweeney said.

OSHA' said that the draft rule targets manufacturing and manual handling operations where approximately 60 percent of all lost-workday MSDs occur.

Other general industry employers would only be required to develop an ergonomics program for "problem jobs" and then only after workers experience a reportable MSD.

OSHA's draft rule would require employers covered by the rule to establish ergonomics programs to identify, analyze, and control hazards, train workers, mandate employee participation, and provide medical management for employees with MSDs.

In its analysis of the draft rule, the AFL-CIO Safety and Health Department pointed out that the draft rule's trigger of reported injuries "places a very heavy burden on workers" who, in many workplaces, "may be afraid to report injuries for fear of losing their jobs."

The AFL-CIO is asking union members to write to OSHA to support an ergonomics standard that protects all workers and requires employers to take action before workers are hurt. Send letters to: OSHA Administrator Charles N. Jeffress, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.