Improper ergonomic design of jobs is one of the leading causes of work-related illness, accounting for perhaps a third of employers’ costs under state workers’ compensation laws. Due to the wide variety of circumstances, however, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly, while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete

Rappaport, Edward

English

Rappaport, Edward B.

UNT Digital Library

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 97-724 EUpdated January 23, 2003Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?Edward RappaportAnalyst in Industry EconomicsDomestic Social Policy DivisionSummaryImproper ergonomic design of jobs is one of the leading causes cited for work-related illness, accounting for perhaps a third of employers’ costs under state workers’compensation laws, according to OSHA.  Due to the wide variety of circumstances,however, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly,while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete.On November 14, 2000, OSHA promulgated an ergonomics standard.  It wouldrequire employers to set up control programs for job categories where “work-relatedmusculoskeletal disorders” are reported.  These programs would include job hazardanalysis and control, medical management of reported injuries, employee participation,training and evaluation.Congress has signaled its interest in the issue for a number of years.  After a draftproposal was released in 1995, riders to the Labor Department appropriations bills werepassed preventing OSHA from issuing a standard during most of fiscal years 1995through 1998.  After the final standard was released in November 2000, opponents ofOSHA’s approach  introduced and quickly passed a congressional resolution ofdisapproval (S.J.Res. 6), which revoked the rule upon being signed by the President.Consideration is being given to further legislation that would instruct OSHA to developa new standard.  (This report will be updated to reflect significant congressionalactions.)A Complex PhenomenonErgonomics is the science of designing worksystems taking into account the “humanfactors,” so as to make them efficient as well as healthful.  The philosophy is one of“fitting the job to the worker.”  A particular concern, and the source of increasingnumbers of injuries, is the question of body position and motion (“kinesiology”).  A widevariety of ailments can occur when jobs entail repetitive motion, forceful exertions orawkward postures.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationCRS-21 For example, back-support belts for lifting jobs became popular in the 1980s, but no well-controlled study of them was available until 1996.  Rundle, Rhonda.  Back Corsets ReceiveSupport in UCLA Study.  Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1996.  p. B1,B8.  See also Oldenburg,Don.  The “Ergonomics” Boom.  Washington Post, February 25, 1997.  p. E5.  Murphy, Kate.What’s Correct Ergonomically?  Good Question.  New York Times, October 9, 1995.  p. D3.2 For example, the automotive industry has ongoing programs in cooperation with the UnitedAuto Workers.  NUMMI, the California joint venture of General Motors and Toyota, reducedergonomic injuries by 73% from 1993 to 1998, and the company believes product quality hasbenefited.  Fernberg, Patricia.  Ergonomics is Driving Quality.  Occupational Hazards, May1999.  p. 79-83.3 Details of their estimation can be found at the website: [http://www.epf.org/documents/oshacomments.pdf].(OSHA), improper physical design of jobs is one of the leading causes of work-relatedillness.  But because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, stresses and injuriesinvolved, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly.Ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of aproblem, it is very complex and only partially understood.  Cumulative trauma disorderscan be aggravated by non-work activities and be complicated by work and non-workpsychological factors such as stress.  A host of new products and services has becomepopular – such as back braces and newly designed keyboards – but there is little in theway of scientific evidence about whether they do any good.1  The state of scientificknowledge about ergonomics –  especially the role of non-work and psychological factorsin producing observed syndromes – has become a key issue in the debate over how OSHAshould proceed.Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety of circumstances willbedevil efforts to frame simple, cost-effective rules.  What are called “ergonomic” injuriesare actually a range of distinct problems, much as “cancer” is not one but a family ofdiseases.  The term may cover stresses as diverse as repetitive motion, awkward postures,contact stress (as from hammering), vibration and forceful muscular exertions.In the debate over ergonomics, very large monetary estimates have been cited forboth the benefits of a national standard and the costs thereof.  Many businesses take theproblem seriously and have extensive voluntary programs to deal with it.2  OSHAestimates that ergonomic injuries and illnesses cost employers $20 billion in workers’compensation claims, or one-third of their total workers’ compensation costs.  Thus, theagency contends, savings on compensation costs could largely, if not fully, offset theemployers’ costs of the new ergonomics standard, which OSHA estimates to be about $5billion per year.  Industry estimates of the rule’s costs range much higher – as high as $90billion per year, according to the Employment Policy Foundation.3The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 740 thousand lost-workday casesduring 1999 due to sprains and strains (some of which might not be considered“ergonomic”) and another 45 thousand due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or tendinitis,which together accounted for 46% of all lost workday injuries.  While sprains and strainsare similar in severity to other types of injury (a median of 6 days away from work), CTSCRS-34 U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Lost-Worktime Injuries and Illnesses:Characteristics, 1997.  Washington: the Bureau, 1999.cases have a median loss of 25 workdays.4  However, there is some question aboutwhether the problem is already coming under control.  While the number of reported casesof musculoskeletal disorders grew rapidly to 784 thousand in the decade ending in 1992,they since backed down to 582 thousand by 1999.  Labor representatives attribute the dropto increased OSHA enforcement as well as labor-management programs in key industries.But an industry coalition commented that the figures show that repetitive stress injuries“are not an epidemic.”OSHA RulemakingAs the number of reported cases increased rapidly in the 1980s, OSHA started payingmore attention to ergonomics, relying on its general authority pending development of aformal standard.  Notable cases were brought and remedial settlements reached in themeatpacking and automotive industries.  In 1992, OSHA issued a notice of proposedrulemaking, and in 1994 circulated a draft proposal, and in 1995 a revised draft.  The1994 proposal received a negative reaction from major industry groups, and the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers helped form the National Coalition on Ergonomics tooppose its adoption.  The 1995 draft was somewhat less extensive, particularly incoverage.  Rather than requiring comprehensive action by all employers, the revisedapproach was to have employers do an initial self-evaluation to identify whether certain“signal risk factors” were present.Although OSHA was prohibited by appropriations riders, during most of fiscal 1995through 1999, from promulgating formal ergonomics proposals, the agency was able tocontinue development work, and issued its final standard on November 14, 2000.  Itwould apply to all employers in all industries (except construction, agriculture, railroadsand maritime) and firms of all sizes.  It took effect formally on January 16, 2001, althoughmost of the employers’ responsibilities were not to begin until October, 2001.  Before thatcould happen, a congressional resolution voided the rule.  (See below.)The final regulation was a program standard, meaning that employers would berequired to establish ergonomic programs in their workplaces under the general guidelinesof the standard.  The specific preventive and corrective measures to be taken were tocome out of those programs, rather than being mandated in detail by OSHA.  Not allemployers would need to establish programs.  The obligation to do so would be triggeredif and when a work-related “musculoskeletal disorder” (MSD) is reported, if it occurs ina job that has certain risk factors – forceful exertions, repetition, vibration and awkwardpostures – playing a significant part in each workday.  (The risk factors are spelled out ina 2-page “Basic Screening Tool.”  The definition of MSDs is discussed further in thisreport infra.)  Whether or not a program is required, all covered employers must furnishtheir employees with basic information about ergonomic injuries and how they are to bereported and dealt with under this standard.  Upon report of an MSD, the employer must either fully control the reportedergonomic hazard within 90 days (the “Quick Fix” option) or implement a fullCRS-4ergonomics program.  In either case, the employer must also take steps to preventaggravation and promote healing of those injuries that were reported (“MSDmanagement”).An ergonomics program consists of management leadership, employee participationand training, hazard analysis and control, medical management for those sufferinginjuries, and program evaluation.  Hazard analysis means that problem jobs must belooked at closely by management in consultation with affected employees “to pinpoint thecause of the problem.”  Corrective actions include (in order of preference) physicalredesign of the workstation or equipment, modification of work procedure or technique,reduction of exposure (e.g., through job rotation), and personal protective equipment.Medical management means referral to a qualified health care practitioner (at theemployer’s expense), compliance with the practitioner’s recommendations, andcontinuation of pay and benefits during any necessary work restriction (for up to threemonths).An ergonomics program could be discontinued when the risk factors for all jobs havebeen reduced below the levels described in the Basic Screening Tool.  Unless and untilthat is achieved, the employer must continue trying to reduce the hazards to the extentfeasible, with formal reviews of progress and options at least every three years.In the initial response to the proposed standard, the most controversial of theseprovisions was work restriction protection (WRP).  In cases where continued work couldcause aggravation of an ergonomic injury, WRP would require that the employer maintainthe employee’s pay and benefits at their normal level for up to 90 days if assigned to lessproductive work, or with 90% of pay (and full benefits) if not able to work at all.  Criticscharge that WRP constituted a substantial expansion of workers compensation benefitswithout legislative authority and that workers compensation has always been a matter ofstate legislation.  OSHA contended that it has sufficient authority and that a number ofprevious health standards have included such provisions.  The agency said that WRP wasespecially needed for this standard because so much depends on employees reporting theirinjuries.  Without WRP, they might fear being laid off without pay or with relativelymeager workers compensation benefits.The scope of the rule – which employers and which jobs require action – did dependto a great extent on the triggering event of a work-related MSD.  Turning, then, to itsdefinition, an MSD is a disorder of the soft tissues associated with the skeleton, and thatis caused by cumulative trauma (also known as repetitive stress).  The definition inOSHA’s standard explicitly excludes injuries caused by single events, such as trips andfalls.  To constitute a “MSD incident,” the injury must be serious enough to requiremedical treatment beyond first aid, or to have “signs or symptoms” that last more thanseven consecutive days.  Finally, “work-related” means that “exposure in the workplacecaused or contributed to an MSD or significantly aggravated a pre-existing MSD.”  (Notealso that action need not be taken unless the employee reporting the injury is in a job thatroutinely involves exposure to the risk factors spelled out in the Basic Screening Tool.)Since key responsibilities under the rule would be triggered by the reporting of oneMSD, there is something of a stochastic (random) element to its scope.  Largeestablishments with ergonomically problematic jobs would probably have to startcorrective programs fairly soon after the rule goes into effect, while other establishmentsCRS-55 Bernard, Bruce, ed.  Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) and Workplace Factors.  Available viaWorld Wide Web at: [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ergosci1.html].6 Sandler, Howard.  Evaluating the Science of Ergonomics.  Occupational Health, November1998.  p. 73-74.  The second NAS report, Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Reviewof the Evidence, is available at the Academy website: [http://www.nas.edu/].7 Debate in Congressional Record of August 3, 1999.  pp. H6901-H6927.  The Senate took upa similar measure (a rider to an appropriation), but it was withdrawn in the face of a threatenedfilibuster.  Congressional Record, October 7, 1999.  pp. S12,159-12,176.with less hazardous jobs could go years without such responsibilities.  However, this isnot a hard and fast rule, but would depend on when and where MSDs are reported.  Thestochastic element would play a further role in the case of the Quick Fix.  The employercould use that option only if there were no more than one incident reported in a job, andtwo in the establishment, over the preceding 18 months.  In short, smaller employerswould be more likely to avoid some requirements, at least for periods, but this was notassured.Opposition to the OSHA StandardRiders to Labor Department appropriations bills prohibited OSHA from issuing aproposed or final standard on ergonomics during FY1995, 1996 and 1998.  (In a closefloor vote, the rider proposed for FY1997 was deleted.)By 1997, the argument that scientific knowledge of ergonomics was inadequate forrulemaking had come to the fore.  Specifically, many Members proposed that further workon the rulemaking should be suspended until independent research institutions couldreport on the state of scientific knowledge.  It was argued that an independent, expertreview was needed because OSHA had shown bias in its interpretation of availablestudies.  Over the next few years, a number of governmental reviews of the scientificliterature were published.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH, a research agency in the Department of Health and Human Services) releasedits extensive review of the literature in July, 1997.5  Pursuant to congressional mandates,the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued reports in October, 1998 and January2001 summarizing the results of a 2-day workshop and an extensive review of theliterature. 6  Basically, these reports found a significant statistical link between workplaceexposures and musculoskeletal disorders, but also noted that the exact causative factorsand mechanisms are not understood.  For example, it is recognized that non-workactivities may interact with work exposures to aggravate symptoms, so that separating theeffects of each is problematic. Stand-alone measures, H.R. 987 (Blunt) and S. 1070 (Bond), were introduced in the106th Congress, to prohibit OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule before the NAScompleted its second study.  H.R. 987 was passed by the House in August, 1999 by a voteof 217-209.7  On November 23, 1999 – shortly after the Congress recessed without furtheraction on these measures – OSHA issued its draft standard and expressed the intention offinalizing the rule by the end of 2000.CRS-68 The House provision, authored by Ms. Northup, was adopted by the Appropriations Committeeand upheld in a floor vote June 8, 2000 on Mr. Traficant’s motion to strike (debate atCongressional Record pages H4094-4104).  The Senate amendment, authored by Mr. Enzi, wasadded on the floor on June 22 (debate at pages S5590-5609, 5629-35 and 5641-5646).In June, 2000 opponents were able to get a restrictive rider attached to Labor’sappropriation bill (H.R. 4577) in both chambers, which would have prohibited issuanceof a final rule through FY2001,8 but a final bill was still not passed, leaving the issueunresolved when Congress recessed for the elections.  During that recess, on November14, OSHA issued the final rule.As soon as the rule was issued, opponents launched actions to overturn it in variousforums, both judicial and legislative.  Two industry groups filed suit in the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia, arguing variously that the standard exceededOSHA’s authority, that the agency did not follow proper procedure, and that the standardwas vague, incomprehensible, and not based on sound medical science or economicanalysis.  Labor groups also sued in separate actions, arguing that employers should berequired to act proactively, before an injury “trigger.”However, the more expeditious course for opponents proved to be the CongressionalReview Act (CRA – 5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808).  In the first-ever application of thatstatute, a “resolution of disapproval,” S.J.Res. 6 (Nickles et al.), was introduced March1, 2001, passed by the Senate on March 6 by vote of 56-44, and passed by the House thenext day by a vote of 223-206.  The President signed the measure into law as P.L. 107-5on March 20.  Thereupon, the standard was nullified.The Bush Administration, after its own study of the matter, announced a new actionplan on April 5, 2002, consisting of four parts: guidelines, outreach, enforcement andresearch.  The guidelines will be advisory rather than mandatory, and tailored to particularindustries or tasks, with a draft of the first one (pertaining to the nursing home industryand the task of lifting patients) issued in August 2002.  Although the guidelines are notmandatory, enforcement will be accomplished by pursuing clearly negligent employersvia an existing, broad provision of law known as the “general duty clause.”Some Members of Congress, believing that a new, formal rulemaking leading to amandatory standard is called for, sponsored S. 2184 (Breaux et al.) in the 107th Congress,(approved by the Senate HELP Committee in June 2002).  This would have directedOSHA to produce an ergonomics rule within two years that would:  apply only to work-related disorders, state employers’ obligations “in clear terms,” and not expandemployers’ obligations under the workers compensation laws.  Sponsors of the bill, manyof whom voted for the resolution of disapproval, emphasized that they believe ergonomicproblems need to be controlled even if OSHA’s previously attempted approach was notacceptable.

Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 97-724 EUpdated May 7, 2002Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?Edward RappaportAnalyst in Industry EconomicsDomestic Social Policy DivisionSummaryImproper ergonomic design of jobs is one of the leading causes cited for work-related illness, accounting for perhaps a third of employers’ costs under state workers’compensation laws, according to OSHA.  Due to the wide variety of circumstances,however, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly,while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete.On November 14, 2000, OSHA promulgated an ergonomics standard.  It wouldrequire employers to set up control programs for job categories where “work-relatedmusculoskeletal disorders” are reported.  These programs would include job hazardanalysis and control, medical management of reported injuries, employee participation,training and evaluation.Congress has signaled its interest in the issue for a number of years.  After a draftproposal was released in 1995, riders to the Labor Department appropriations bills werepassed preventing OSHA from issuing a standard during most of fiscal years 1995through 1998.  After the final standard was released in November 2000, opponents ofOSHA’s approach  introduced and quickly passed a congressional resolution ofdisapproval (S.J.Res. 6), which revoked the rule upon being signed by the President.Consideration is being given to further legislation that would instruct OSHA to developa new standard.  (This report will be updated to reflect significant congressionalactions.)A Complex PhenomenonErgonomics is the science of designing worksystems taking into account the “humanfactors,” so as to make them efficient as well as healthful.  The philosophy is one of“fitting the job to the worker.”  A particular concern, and the source of increasingnumbers of injuries, is the question of body position and motion (“kinesiology”).  A widevariety of ailments can occur when jobs entail repetitive motion, forceful exertions orawkward postures.  According to the Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationCRS-21 For example, back-support belts for lifting jobs became popular in the 1980s, but no well-controlled study of them was available until 1996.  Rundle, Rhonda.  Back Corsets ReceiveSupport in UCLA Study.  Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1996.  p. B1,B8.  See also Oldenburg,Don.  The “Ergonomics” Boom.  Washington Post, February 25, 1997.  p. E5.  Murphy, Kate.What’s Correct Ergonomically?  Good Question.  New York Times, October 9, 1995.  p. D3.2 For example, the automotive industry has ongoing programs in cooperation with the UnitedAuto Workers.  NUMMI, the California joint venture of General Motors and Toyota, reducedergonomic injuries by 73% from 1993 to 1998, and the company believes product quality hasbenefited.  Fernberg, Patricia.  Ergonomics is Driving Quality.  Occupational Hazards, May1999.  p. 79-83.3 Details of their estimation can be found at the website: [http://www.epf.org/documents/oshacomments.pdf].(OSHA), improper physical design of jobs is one of the leading causes of work-relatedillness.  But because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, stresses and injuriesinvolved, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly.Ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of aproblem, it is very complex and only partially understood.  Cumulative trauma disorderscan be aggravated by non-work activities and be complicated by work and non-workpsychological factors such as stress.  A host of new products and services has becomepopular – such as back braces and newly designed keyboards – but there is little in theway of scientific evidence about whether they do any good.1  The state of scientificknowledge about ergonomics –  especially the role of non-work and psychological factorsin producing observed syndromes – has become a key issue in the debate over how OSHAshould proceed.Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety of circumstances willbedevil efforts to frame simple, cost-effective rules.  What are called “ergonomic” injuriesare actually a range of distinct problems, much as “cancer” is not one but a family ofdiseases.  The term may cover stresses as diverse as repetitive motion, awkward postures,contact stress (as from hammering), vibration and forceful muscular exertions.In the debate over ergonomics, very large monetary estimates have been cited forboth the benefits of a national standard and the costs thereof.  Many businesses take theproblem seriously and have extensive voluntary programs to deal with it.2  OSHAestimates that ergonomic injuries and illnesses cost employers $20 billion in workers’compensation claims, or one-third of their total workers’ compensation costs.  Thus, theagency contends, savings on compensation costs could largely, if not fully, offset theemployers’ costs of the new ergonomics standard, which OSHA estimates to be about $5billion per year.  Industry estimates of the rule’s costs range much higher – as high as $90billion per year, according to the Employment Policy Foundation.3The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 740 thousand lost-workday casesduring 1999 due to sprains and strains (some of which might not be considered“ergonomic”) and another 45 thousand due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or tendinitis,which together accounted for 46% of all lost workday injuries.  While sprains and strainsare similar in severity to other types of injury (a median of 6 days away from work), CTSCRS-34 U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Lost-Worktime Injuries and Illnesses:Characteristics, 1997.  Washington: the Bureau, 1999.cases have a median loss of 25 workdays.4  However, there is some question aboutwhether the problem is already coming under control.  While the number of reported casesof musculoskeletal disorders grew rapidly to 784 thousand in the decade ending in 1992,they since backed down to 582 thousand by 1999.  Labor representatives attribute the dropto increased OSHA enforcement as well as labor-management programs in key industries.But an industry coalition commented that the figures show that repetitive stress injuries“are not an epidemic.”OSHA RulemakingAs the number of reported cases increased rapidly in the 1980s, OSHA started payingmore attention to ergonomics, relying on its general authority pending development of aformal standard.  Notable cases were brought and remedial settlements reached in themeatpacking and automotive industries.  In 1992, OSHA issued a notice of proposedrulemaking, and in 1994 circulated a draft proposal, and in 1995 a revised draft.  The1994 proposal received a negative reaction from major industry groups, and the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers helped form the National Coalition on Ergonomics tooppose its adoption.  The 1995 draft was somewhat less extensive, particularly incoverage.  Rather than requiring comprehensive action by all employers, the revisedapproach was to have employers do an initial self-evaluation to identify whether certain“signal risk factors” were present.Although OSHA was prohibited by appropriations riders, during most of fiscal 1995through 1999, from promulgating formal ergonomics proposals, the agency was able tocontinue development work, and issued its final standard on November 14, 2000.  Itwould apply to all employers in all industries (except construction, agriculture, railroadsand maritime) and firms of all sizes.  It took effect formally on January 16, 2001, althoughmost of the employers’ responsibilities were not to begin until October, 2001.  Before thatcould happen, a congressional resolution voided the rule.  (See below.)The final regulation was a program standard, meaning that employers would berequired to establish ergonomic programs in their workplaces under the general guidelinesof the standard.  The specific preventive and corrective measures to be taken were tocome out of those programs, rather than being mandated in detail by OSHA.  Not allemployers would need to establish programs.  The obligation to do so would be triggeredif and when a work-related “musculoskeletal disorder” (MSD) is reported, if it occurs ina job that has certain risk factors – forceful exertions, repetition, vibration and awkwardpostures – playing a significant part in each workday.  (The risk factors are spelled out ina 2-page “Basic Screening Tool.”  The definition of MSDs is discussed further in thisreport infra.)  Whether or not a program is required, all covered employers must furnishtheir employees with basic information about ergonomic injuries and how they are to bereported and dealt with under this standard.  Upon report of an MSD, the employer must either fully control the reportedergonomic hazard within 90 days (the “Quick Fix” option) or implement a fullCRS-4ergonomics program.  In either case, the employer must also take steps to preventaggravation and promote healing of those injuries that were reported (“MSDmanagement”).An ergonomics program consists of management leadership, employee participationand training, hazard analysis and control, medical management for those sufferinginjuries, and program evaluation.  Hazard analysis means that problem jobs must belooked at closely by management in consultation with affected employees “to pinpoint thecause of the problem.”  Corrective actions include (in order of preference) physicalredesign of the workstation or equipment, modification of work procedure or technique,reduction of exposure (e.g., through job rotation), and personal protective equipment.Medical management means referral to a qualified health care practitioner (at theemployer’s expense), compliance with the practitioner’s recommendations, andcontinuation of pay and benefits during any necessary work restriction (for up to threemonths).An ergonomics program could be discontinued when the risk factors for all jobs havebeen reduced below the levels described in the Basic Screening Tool.  Unless and untilthat is achieved, the employer must continue trying to reduce the hazards to the extentfeasible, with formal reviews of progress and options at least every three years.In the initial response to the proposed standard, the most controversial of theseprovisions was work restriction protection (WRP).  In cases where continued work couldcause aggravation of an ergonomic injury, WRP would require that the employer maintainthe employee’s pay and benefits at their normal level for up to 90 days if assigned to lessproductive work, or with 90% of pay (and full benefits) if not able to work at all.  Criticscharge that WRP constituted a substantial expansion of workers compensation benefitswithout legislative authority and that workers compensation has always been a matter ofstate legislation.  OSHA contended that it has sufficient authority and that a number ofprevious health standards have included such provisions.  The agency said that WRP wasespecially needed for this standard because so much depends on employees reporting theirinjuries.  Without WRP, they might fear being laid off without pay or with relativelymeager workers compensation benefits.The scope of the rule – which employers and which jobs require action – did dependto a great extent on the triggering event of a work-related MSD.  Turning, then, to itsdefinition, an MSD is a disorder of the soft tissues associated with the skeleton, and thatis caused by cumulative trauma (also known as repetitive stress).  The definition inOSHA’s standard explicitly excludes injuries caused by single events, such as trips andfalls.  To constitute a “MSD incident,” the injury must be serious enough to requiremedical treatment beyond first aid, or to have “signs or symptoms” that last more thanseven consecutive days.  Finally, “work-related” means that “exposure in the workplacecaused or contributed to an MSD or significantly aggravated a pre-existing MSD.”  (Notealso that action need not be taken unless the employee reporting the injury is in a job thatroutinely involves exposure to the risk factors spelled out in the Basic Screening Tool.)Since key responsibilities under the rule would be triggered by the reporting of oneMSD, there is something of a stochastic (random) element to its scope.  Largeestablishments with ergonomically problematic jobs would probably have to startcorrective programs fairly soon after the rule goes into effect, while other establishmentsCRS-55 Bernard, Bruce, ed.  Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) and Workplace Factors.  Available viaWorld Wide Web at: [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ergosci1.html].6 Sandler, Howard.  Evaluating the Science of Ergonomics.  Occupational Health, November1998.  p. 73-74.  The second NAS report, Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Reviewof the Evidence, is available at the Academy website: [http://www.nas.edu/].7 Debate in Congressional Record of August 3, 1999.  pp. H6901-H6927.  The Senate took upa similar measure (a rider to an appropriation), but it was withdrawn in the face of a threatenedfilibuster.  Congressional Record, October 7, 1999.  pp. S12,159-12,176.with less hazardous jobs could go years without such responsibilities.  However, this isnot a hard and fast rule, but would depend on when and where MSDs are reported.  Thestochastic element would play a further role in the case of the Quick Fix.  The employercould use that option only if there were no more than one incident reported in a job, andtwo in the establishment, over the preceding 18 months.  In short, smaller employerswould be more likely to avoid some requirements, at least for periods, but this was notassured.Opposition to the OSHA StandardRiders to Labor Department appropriations bills prohibited OSHA from issuing aproposed or final standard on ergonomics during FY1995, 1996 and 1998.  (In a closefloor vote, the rider proposed for FY1997 was deleted.)By 1997, the argument that scientific knowledge of ergonomics was inadequate forrulemaking had come to the fore.  Specifically, many Members proposed that further workon the rulemaking should be suspended until independent research institutions couldreport on the state of scientific knowledge.  It was argued that an independent, expertreview was needed because OSHA had shown bias in its interpretation of availablestudies.  Over the next few years, a number of governmental reviews of the scientificliterature were published.  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health(NIOSH, a research agency in the Department of Health and Human Services) releasedits extensive review of the literature in July, 1997.5  Pursuant to congressional mandates,the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued reports in October, 1998 and January2001 summarizing the results of a 2-day workshop and an extensive review of theliterature. 6  Basically, these reports found a significant statistical link between workplaceexposures and musculoskeletal disorders, but also noted that the exact causative factorsand mechanisms are not understood.  For example, it is recognized that non-workactivities may interact with work exposures to aggravate symptoms, so that separating theeffects of each is problematic. Stand-alone measures, H.R. 987 (Blunt) and S. 1070 (Bond), were introduced in the106th Congress, to prohibit OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule before the NAScompleted its second study.  H.R. 987 was passed by the House in August, 1999 by a voteof 217-209.7  On November 23, 1999 – shortly after the Congress recessed without furtheraction on these measures – OSHA issued its draft standard and expressed the intention offinalizing the rule by the end of 2000.CRS-68 The House provision, authored by Ms. Northup, was adopted by the Appropriations Committeeand upheld in a floor vote June 8, 2000 on Mr. Traficant’s motion to strike (debate atCongressional Record pages H4094-4104).  The Senate amendment, authored by Mr. Enzi, wasadded on the floor on June 22 (debate at pages S5590-5609, 5629-35 and 5641-5646).In June, 2000 opponents were able to get a restrictive rider attached to Labor’sappropriation bill (H.R. 4577) in both chambers, which would have prohibited issuanceof a final rule through FY2001,8 but a final bill was still not passed, leaving the issueunresolved when Congress recessed for the elections.  During that recess, on November14, OSHA issued the final rule.As soon as the rule was issued, opponents launched actions to overturn it in variousforums, both judicial and legislative.  Two industry groups filed suit in the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia, arguing variously that the standard exceededOSHA’s authority, that the agency did not follow proper procedure, and that the standardwas vague, incomprehensible, and not based on sound medical science or economicanalysis.  Labor groups also sued in separate actions, arguing that employers should berequired to act proactively, before an injury “trigger.”However, the more expeditious course for opponents proved to be the CongressionalReview Act (CRA – 5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808).  In the first-ever application of thatstatute, a “resolution of disapproval,” S.J.Res. 6 (Nickles et al.), was introduced March1, 2001, passed by the Senate on March 6 by vote of 56-44, and passed by the House thenext day by a vote of 223-206.  The President signed the measure into law as P.L. 107-5on March 20.  Thereupon, the standard was nullified.The Bush Administration, after its own study of the matter, announced a new actionplan on April 5, 2002, consisting of four parts: guidelines, outreach, enforcement andresearch.  The guidelines, which are advisory rather than mandatory, will be tailored toparticular industries or tasks, with the first one pertaining to the nursing home industryand the task of lifting patients (expected to be available by the end of 2002).  Althoughthe guidelines are not mandatory, enforcement will be accomplished by pursuing clearlynegligent employers via an existing, broad provision of law known as the “general dutyclause.”Some Members of Congress, believing that a new, formal rulemaking leading to amandatory standard is called for, have sponsored S. 2184 (Breaux et al.).  This woulddirect OSHA to produce an ergonomics rule within two years that would apply only towork-related disorders, would state employers’ obligations “in clear terms,” and wouldnot expand employers’ obligations under the workers compensation laws.  Sponsors ofthe bill, many of whom voted for the resolution of disapproval, emphasize that theybelieve ergonomic problems need to be controlled even though OSHA’s previouslyattempted approach was not acceptable.

Congressional Research Service ò The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 97-724 EUpdated January 16, 2001Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is it Time for AnOSHA Standard?Edward RappaportAnalyst in Industry EconomicsDomestic Social Policy DivisionSummaryImproper ergonomic design of jobs is one of the leading causes of work-relatedillness, accounting for perhaps a third of employers’ costs under state workers’compensation laws.  Due to the wide variety of circumstances, however, anycomprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly, while scientificunderstanding of the problem is not complete.On November 14, 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) promulgated an ergonomics standard.  It would require employers to set upcontrol programs for job categories where “work-related musculoskeletal disorders” arereported.  These programs would include job hazard analysis and control, medicalmanagement of reported injuries, employee participation, training and evaluation.After an earlier draft proposal was released in 1995, riders to the Labor Departmentappropriations bills were passed preventing OSHA from issuing a standard during mostof fiscal years 1995 through 1998. Such a rider was also adopted by both chambers intheir consideration of the FY2001 bill (H.R. 4577), but the issue was unresolved innegotiations with the White House when the Congress recessed for the elections. Sincethe final standard has now been released, that issue became moot and the rider wasdropped from the bill.  Opponents of the standard are pursuing other avenues, includinglitigation.  (This report will be updated to reflect significant congressional actions.)A Complex PhenomenonErgonomics is the science of designing worksystems taking into account the “humanfactors,” so as to make them efficient as well as healthful.  The philosophy is one of “fittingthe job to the worker.”  A particular concern, and the source of increasing numbers ofinjuries, is the question of body position and motion (“kinesiology”).  A wide variety ofailments can occur when jobs entail repetitive motion, forceful exertions or awkwardpostures.  Indeed, according to OSHA, improper physical design of jobs is one of theCRS-21 For example, back-support belts for lifting jobs became popular in the 1980s, but no well-controlled study of them was available until 1996.  Rundle, Rhonda.  Back Corsets ReceiveSupport in UCLA Study.  Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1996.  p. B1,B8.  See also Oldenburg,Don.  The “Ergonomics” Boom.  Washington Post, February 25, 1997.  p. E5.  Murphy, Kate.What’s Correct Ergonomically?  Good Question.  New York Times, October 9, 1995.  p. D3.2 For example, the automotive industry has ongoing programs in cooperation with the United AutoWorkers.  NUMMI, the California joint venture of General Motors and Toyota, reduced ergonomicinjuries by 73% from 1993 to 1998, and the company believes product quality has benefited.Fernberg, Patricia.  Ergonomics is Driving Quality.  Occupational Hazards, May 1999.  p. 79-83.3 Details of their estimation can be found at the website: [http://www.epfnet.org].leading causes of work-related illness.  But because of the wide variety of tasks,equipment, stresses and injuries involved, any comprehensive standard would probablyhave to be complex and costly.Ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of aproblem, it is very complex and only partially understood.  Cumulative trauma disorderscan be aggravated by non-work activities and be complicated by work and non-workpsychological factors such as stress.  A host of new products and services have becomepopular – such as back braces and newly designed keyboards – but there is little in the wayof scientific evidence about whether they do any good.1  The state of scientific knowledgeabout ergonomics – and especially the role of non-work and psychological factors inproducing observed syndromes – has become a key issue in the debate over how OSHAshould proceed.Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety of circumstances willbedevil efforts to frame simple, cost-effective rules.  What are called “ergonomic” injuriesare actually a range of distinct problems, much as “cancer” is not one but a family ofdiseases.  The term may cover stresses as diverse as repetitive motion, awkward postures,contact stress (as from hammering), vibration and forceful muscular exertions.In the debate over ergonomics, very large monetary estimates have been cited forboth the benefits of a national standard and the costs thereof.  Many businesses take theproblem seriously and have extensive voluntary programs to deal with it.2  OSHAestimates that ergonomic injuries and illnesses cost employers $20 billion in workers’compensation claims, or one-third of their total workers’ compensation costs.  Thus, theagency contends, savings on compensation costs could largely, if not fully, offset theemployers’ costs of the new ergonomics standard, which OSHA estimates to be about $5billion per year.  Industry estimates of the rule’s costs range much higher – as high as $90billion per year, according to the Employment Policy Foundation.3The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 799 thousand lost-workday casesduring 1997 due to sprains and strains (some of which might not be considered“ergonomic”) and another 29 thousand due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or tendinitis,which together accounted for 45% of all lost workday injuries.  While sprains and strainsare similar in severity to other types of injury (a median of 6 days away from work), CTSCRS-34 U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Lost-Worktime Injuries and Illnesses:Characteristics, 1997.  Washington: the Bureau, 1999.cases have a median loss of 25 workdays.4  However, there is some question aboutwhether the problem is already coming under control.  While the number of reported casesof repeated trauma injuries more than tripled to 332 thousand in the decade ending in1994, they then backed down to 255 thousand by 1998.  Labor representatives attributethe drop to increased OSHA enforcement as well as labor-management programs in keyindustries.  But an industry coalition commented that the figures show that repetitive stressinjuries “are not an epidemic.”OSHA RulemakingAs the number of reported cases increased rapidly in the 1980s, OSHA started payingmore attention to ergonomics, relying on its general authority pending development of aformal standard.  Notable cases were brought and remedial settlements reached in themeatpacking and automotive industries.  In 1992, OSHA issued a notice of proposedrulemaking, in 1994 a draft proposal, and in 1995 a revised draft.  The 1994 proposalreceived a negative reaction from major industry groups, and the National Association ofManufacturers helped form the National Coalition on Ergonomics to oppose its adoption.The 1995 draft was somewhat less extensive, particularly in coverage.  Rather thanrequiring comprehensive action by all employers, the revised approach was to haveemployers first do an initial self-evaluation to identify whether certain “signal risk factors”were present.Although OSHA was prohibited by appropriations riders (beginning in 1995) fromissuing formal ergonomics proposals, the agency was able to continue development work,and issued its final standard on November 14, 2000.  It applies to all employers in allindustries (except construction, agriculture, railroads and maritime) and firms of all sizes.It takes effect formally as of January 16, 2001, but most of the employers’ responsibilitiesdo not begin until October, 2001.The final regulation is a program standard, meaning that employers will be requiredto establish ergonomic programs in their workplaces under the general guidelines of thestandard.  The specific preventive and corrective measures to be taken will come out ofthose programs, rather than being mandated in detail by OSHA.  Not all employers needto establish programs.  The obligation to do so is triggered  if and when a work-related“musculoskeletal disorder” (MSD) is reported, if it occurs in a job that has certain riskfactors – forceful exertions, repetition, vibration and awkward postures – playing asignificant part in each workday.  (The risk factors are spelled out in a 2-page “BasicScreening Tool.”  The definition of MSDs is discussed further in this report infra.)Whether or not a program is required, all covered employers must furnish their employeeswith basic information about ergonomic injuries and how they are to be reported and dealtwith under this standard.  Upon report of an MSD, the employer must either fully control the reportedergonomic hazard within 90 days (the “Quick Fix” option) or implement a full ergonomicsCRS-4program.  In either case, the employer must also take steps to prevent aggravation andpromote healing of those injuries that were reported (“MSD management”).An ergonomics program consists of management leadership, employee participationand training, hazard analysis and control, medical management for those suffering injuries,and program evaluation.  Hazard analysis means that problem jobs must be looked atclosely by management in consultation with affected employees “to pinpoint the cause ofthe problem.”  Corrective actions include (in order of preference) physical redesign of theworkstation or equipment, modification of work procedure or technique, reduction ofexposure (e.g., through job rotation), and personal protective equipment.  Medicalmanagement means referral to a qualified health care practitioner (at the employer’sexpense), compliance with the practitioner’s recommendations, and continuation of payand benefits during any necessary work restriction (for up to three months).An ergonomics program may be discontinued when the risk factors for all jobs havebeen reduced below the levels described in the Basic Screening Tool.  Unless and until thatis achieved, the employer must continue trying to reduce the hazards to the extent feasible,with formal reviews of progress and options at least every three years.In the initial response to the proposed standard, the most controversial of theseprovisions has been work restriction protection (WRP).  This requires the employer tomaintain employees’ pay and benefits at their normal level for up to 90 days even thoughhe or she has to be assigned to less productive work, and to maintain 90% of pay (and fullbenefits) if not able to work at all.  Critics charge that WRP constitutes a substantialexpansion of workers compensation benefits without legislative authority and that, indeed,workers compensation has always been a matter of state legislation.  OSHA contends thatit has sufficient authority and that a number of previous health standards have includedsuch provisions.  The agency says that WRP is especially needed for this standard becauseso much depends on employees reporting their injuries.  Without WRP, they might fearbeing laid off without pay or with relatively meager workers compensation benefits.The scope of the rule – which employers and which jobs require action – does dependto a great extent on the triggering event of a work-related MSD.  Turning, then, to itsdefinition, an MSD is a disorder of the soft tissues associated with the skeleton, and thatis caused by cumulative trauma (also known as repetitive stress).  The definition inOSHA’s standard explicitly excludes injuries caused by single events, such as trips andfalls.  To constitute a “MSD incident,” the injury must be serious enough to requiremedical treatment beyond first aid, or to have “signs or symptoms” that last more thanseven consecutive days.  Finally, “work-related” means that “exposure in the workplacecaused or contributed to an MSD or significantly aggravated a pre-existing MSD.”  (Notealso that action need not be taken unless the employee reporting the injury is in a job thatroutinely involves exposure to the risk factors spelled out in the Basic Screening Tool.)Since key responsibilities under the rule are triggered by the reporting of one MSD,there is something of a stochastic (random) element to its scope.  Large establishmentswith ergonomically problematic jobs will probably have to start corrective programs fairlysoon after the rule goes into effect, while small establishments with less hazardous jobsmay go years without such responsibilities.  However, this is not a hard and fast rule, butwill depend on when and where MSDs are reported.  The stochastic element will play afurther role in the case of the Quick Fix.  The employer may use that option only if thereCRS-55 Bernard, Bruce, ed.  Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) and Workplace Factors.  Available viaWorld Wide Web at: [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ergosci1.html].6 Sandler, Howard.  Evaluating the Science of Ergonomics.  Occupational Health, November1998.  p. 73-74.  The NAS report, Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review of theEvidence, is available at the Academy website: [www.nas.edu].7 Debate in Congressional Record of August 3, 1999.  pp. H6901-H6927.  The Senate took upa similar measure (a rider to an appropriation), but it was withdrawn in the face of a threatenedfilibuster.  Congressional Record, October 7, 1999.  pp. S12,159-12,176.have been no more than one incident reported in a job, and two in the establishment, overthe preceding 18 months.  In short, smaller employers are more likely to “luck out” ofsome responsibilities, at least for periods, but this is not assured.Opposition to the OSHA StandardRiders to Labor Department appropriations bills prohibited OSHA from issuing aproposed or final standard on ergonomics during FY1995, 1996 and 1998.  (In a closefloor vote, the rider proposed for FY1997 was deleted.)By 1997, the argument that scientific knowledge of ergonomics was inadequate forrulemaking had come to the fore.  Specifically, many Members proposed that further workon the rulemaking should be suspended until independent research institutions could reporton the state of scientific knowledge.  It was argued that an independent, expert review wasneeded because OSHA had shown bias in its interpretation of available studies.Meanwhile, a couple of governmental reviews of the scientific literature were published.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, a research agency inthe Department of Health and Human Services) released its extensive review of theliterature in July, 1997.5  In October, 1998, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)issued a report summarizing the results of a 2-day workshop.6  Basically, both reportsfound a significant statistical link between workplace exposures and musculoskeletaldisorders, but also noted that the exact causative factors and mechanisms are notunderstood.  For example, it is recognized that non-work activities may interact with workexposures to aggravate symptoms, so that separating the effects of each is problematic.The NAS workshop had been funded by a special appropriation of about $500thousand.  For FY1999, the Congress allocated another $890 thousand for a morethorough review of the literature by the NAS, although OSHA’s rulemaking activity wasallowed to proceed before the results are available (expected in early 2001).  Stand-alonemeasures, H.R. 987 (Blunt) and S. 1070 (Bond), were introduced in the 106th Congress,to prohibit OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule before the NAS completes its “peer-reviewed scientific study.”  H.R. 987 was passed by the House in August, 1999 by a voteof 217-209.7  On November 23, 1999 – shortly after the Congress recessed without furtheraction on these measures – OSHA issued its draft standard and expressed the intention offinalizing the rule by the end of 2000.In June, 2000 opponents were able to get a restrictive rider attached to Labor’sappropriation bill (H.R. 4577) in both chambers, which would prohibit issuance of a finalCRS-68 The House provision, authored by Ms. Northup, was adopted by the Appropriations Committeeand upheld in a floor vote June 8, 2000 on Mr. Traficant’s motion to strike (debate atCongressional Record pages H4094-4104).  The Senate amendment, authored by Mr. Enzi, wasadded on the floor on June 22 (debate at pages S5590-5609, 5629-35 and 5641-5646).9 The time constraints are actually more complicated than described here.  The CRA is codified at5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808.rule through FY2001.8  The White House threatened to veto the bill because of thisprovision, among other issues, and the issue remained unresolved when Congress recessedfor the elections.  During that recess, on November 14, OSHA issued the final rule.  (Theprovision was dropped when the conference report was filed in December, as issuance ofthe rule had occurred by then.)Although the ergonomics rule may now appear to be a fait accompli, opponentscould modify or overturn it in various forums, which happen to correspond to each of thethree branches of government.  The judicial branch became involved even before the finalrule was issued, as two industry groups filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia.  These suits argue variously that the standard exceeds OSHA’sauthority, that the agency did not follow proper procedure, and that the standard is vague,incomprehensible, and not based on sound medical science or economic analysis.The Congress could revoke the standard through the Congressional Review Act(CRA).  Although it takes effect on January 16, 2000, under the CRA, Congress has 60days of session (probably extending, in this case, through February, 2001) in which toconsider passing a joint resolution of disapproval.9Finally, the new Administration could revise or revoke the standard.  However,revoking a rule would probably necessitate a new rulemaking, complete with a new recordof evidence and analysis at least as thorough as that required to issue a rule.  Accordingto principles spelled out by the Supreme Court in the airbag case (Motor VehicleManufacturers v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)), an agency “changing its course byrescinding a rule is obligated to supply a reasoned analysis for the change beyond thatwhich may be required when the agency does not act in the first instance.”

Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is it Time for An OSHA Standard?

DigitalCommons@ILR

CRS_January_2003_Ergonomics_in_the_Workplace.pdf: 815 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5142/m1/1/high_res_d/97-724_2003Jan23.pdf

Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library

DigitalCommons@ILR

UNT Digital Library

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)