Developing a Framework for Sensible Regulation: Lessons from OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Rule

Abstract

Injuries caused by workplace activities that involve repetitive motion, known as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), increasingly concern workers, employers, and regulators because of their frequency and high treatment costs. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently proposed a national rule designed to reduce the workplace risk of MSDs. OSHA estimates there were about 626,000 MSDs in 1997, representing about one-third of all serious nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA estimates the proposed rule will cost $4 billion per year and generate$9 billion per year in benefits. Yet, OSHA does not provide sufficient evidence that private markets are failing to reduce MSD risk without government intervention and does not convincingly demonstrate that the rule will result in more good than harm. Unless OSHA effectively addresses some of the more serious flaws in the proposed rule, OSHA should not proceed with the final regulation. OSHA should more carefully evaluate the nature and extent of MSDs in the workplace than it did in the proposed rule and use improved economic analysis to target serious MSDs that employers can reduce at low cost. Furthermore, OSHA should include new provisions to improve employer access to information about reducing workplace risk of MSDs. The rule's ergonomics program requirements should apply only to those MSDs which employers do not have sufficient incentive to reduce without government intervention.