Are OSHA regulations aimed at preventing repetitive-motion syndrome an unnecessary burden for business

views updated

Are OSHA regulations aimed at preventing repetitive-motion syndrome an unnecessary burden for business?

Viewpoint: Yes, OSHA regulations are an unnecessary burden for business: not only are the costs prohibitive, but the benefits are highly questionable.

Viewpoint: No, OSHA regulations aimed at preventing repetitive-motion injuries are straightforward and save businesses time and money in the long run.

Evidence of illnesses caused by occupational conditions and hazards is very old. Indeed, On the Diseases of Trades, a work often lauded as the first account of the diseases of workers, such as stone mason's consumption, painter's palsy, and potter's sciatica, was published by Bernardino Ramazzini in 1700. In twentieth-century America, Alice Hamilton served as pioneer of occupational medicine and industrial toxicology and worked tirelessly for the prevention of work-related injuries and illnesses. By 1916 Hamilton was internationally known as America's leading authority on industrial toxicology and occupational medicine. Having established the dangers of lead dust, she went on to investigate the hazards of arsenic, mercury, organic solvents, radium, and many other toxic materials. When Hamilton began her exploration of the "dangerous trades," about the only method used to deal with occupational poisoning was to encourage rapid turnover of workers.

Despite considerable progress in occupational medicine since Hamilton's era, employers and governments have generally been reluctant to accept and enforce laws that guard worker safety, health, and well-being. In 1970, as the result of widespread worker complaints and union activity, the United States passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Congress passed this act in order to "assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health."

To combat repetitive-motion injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), OSHA developed regulations based on the science of ergonomics and the study of workplace injuries. Ergonomics is a branch of ecology that deals with human factors in the design and operation of machines and the physical environment. Generally considered an applied science, ergonomics makes it possible to design or arrange the workstation of an individual in order to promote safety and efficiency.

The task of drafting many of the OSHA regulations for repetitive-motion disorders began during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992). In 1990 Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole announced that the department was working on rules to protect workers from the painful and crippling disorders associated with the work environment. The actual rules were not published until the end of the decade. In 2001, however, the administration of George W. Bush moved to roll back OSHA's ergonomic regulations and substitute voluntary guidelines established by industry.

Critics of OSHA argue that evidence of workplace-related MSDs is ambiguous and misleading, but the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health points to hundreds of articles on carpal tunnel syndrome and other MSDs published in respected peer-reviewed journals. MSDs affect millions of workers and result in lost productivity as well as pain and suffering. In a report published in 2001, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences also concluded that the evidence linking work-place risk factors and MSDs was compelling. Even the General Accounting Office and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists agreed that there was rigorous evidence to support the proposition that ergonomically designed workstations can reduce MSDs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that ergonomic disorders, especially carpal tunnel syndrome associated with personal computers, were the most rapidly growing category of work-related injuries reported to OSHA. But carpal tunnel syndrome and other MSDs are also found among factory workers, meat-packers, and sewing machine operators.

Opponents of OSHA argue that the cost of implementing the regulations designed to reduce work-related repetitive-motion injuries constitute an enormous and unnecessary burden for industry. OSHA regulations are often described as overly broad, intrusive, confusing, and expensive. In particular, OSHA regulations are criticized as "unfunded mandates" that amount to a form of taxation that reduces productivity and increases the costs for American businesses.

According to OSHA officials, the amount that would be saved in worker compensation, retraining programs, and so forth, by preventing repetitive-motion injuries would be much greater than the costs of implementing the regulations. However, representatives of industry dispute these claims and argue that OSHA consistently underestimates the true costs and problems associated with the regulations. Moreover, opponents of OSHA regulations argue that psychosocial factors such as stress, anxiety, and depression are more likely causes of MSDs than repetitive work activities. Thus, although there is little doubt that many workers suffer from work-related repetitive-motion injuries, disputes about the impact of OSHA regulations often resemble a political polemic rather than a debate about medical issues.

—LOIS N. MAGNER

Viewpoint: Yes, OSHA regulations are an unnecessary burden for business: not only are the costs prohibitive, but the benefits are highly questionable.

When Americans hear the term "federal government" in association with the performance of almost any task other than law enforcement or national defense, the response is likely to be a groan or even a shudder. Washington is notorious for its wastefulness and inefficiency, combined with the excruciating burdens it places on the productive sectors of the national economy—not only middle-class taxpayers, but to an even greater extent, businesses.

The politicians and bureaucrats that make up the federal government depend on business to generate income for them, in the form of taxes, so that they can secure their own power by doling out those resources to others. Given this situation, one would think these politicians and bureaucrats would do everything in their power to enhance the ability of business to create wealth, the fuel that runs that exceedingly inefficient engine called government. Yet, contrary to Washington's ultimate best interests, its legislators and executive decision-makers continue to fight a war on American business, seemingly with the intention of hamstringing productivity and increasing the costs of operation. Among the most nefarious tactics in this war is the use of "unfunded mandates": directives, issued by the government, that require costly compliance procedures on the part of businesses, thus amounting to a de facto form of taxation.

Nowhere is the sickness inherent in government and its practice of unfunded mandates more apparent than in the case of OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA, which opened its doors in 1971, came at the end of a decade of prosperity in which the federal government hurled buckets of cash down the twin sinkholes of the Vietnam War and President Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty." The latter succeeded only in creating more poverty. The unrestrained spending of the 1960s helped bring about the recessionary 1970s. With American business already in great trouble—the 1970s saw the shift of leadership in the automotive and electronic industries from the United States to Japan—OSHA placed additional fetters on business that all but crushed American productivity.

Ostensibly, OSHA is charged with enforcing safety and health regulations, and with educating employers and employees alike regarding hazards on the job. The reality is rather different, as illustrated by prominent New York attorney Philip K. Howard in The Death of CommonSense. "For 25 years," Howard wrote in 1996, "OSHA has been hard at work, producing over 4,000 detailed rules that dictate everything from the ideal height of railings to how much a plank can stick out from a temporary scaffold. American industry has spent billions of dollars to comply with OSHA's rules." After speculating that "All this must have done some good," Howard went on to answer his own implied question: "It hasn't. The rate of workdays missed due to injury is about the same as in 1973."

OSHA Introduces Yet Another Directive

In a 2000 poll conducted by Safety and Health, OSHA tied with the Internal Revenue Service for last place in a rating of "customer satisfaction" among government agencies. Given the huge popular dissatisfaction with OSHA, as well as its track record for failure and abuse, the business response to new regulations in 2000—these designed supposedly to address injuries caused by repetitive tasks—were unsurprisingly negative.

According to OSHA, workers who perform repetitive tasks such as those involved with manufacturing or even administrative work may be subject to increased risk for disorders of the muscles, skeleton, and nervous system. Statistics furnished by the Labor Department, which oversees OSHA, indicated that nearly 600,000 workplace absences in 1999 were caused by so-called repetitive-stress disorders, including carpal-tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, and lower-back pain. Therefore the administration of President Bill Clinton, represented by Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman and OSHA director Charles Jeffress, put forth new directives designed to address the problem. These directives paid special attention to ergonomics, an applied science that deals with the design and arrangement of the spaces people occupy so as to ensure the safest and most efficient interaction between the human and his or her environment.

Yochi J. Dreazen and Phil Kuntz in the Wall Street Journal described the effects of the repetitive-stress directives: "Businesses with a worker who experiences a single injury covered by the rule would be required to set up a comprehensive program to address the problem in that job. That would mean assigning someone to oversee the program, training workers and supervisors to recognize and deal with ergonomics-related injuries, figuring out how to eliminate or sharply reduce hazards, and providing injured workers with medical care and time off at reduced pay." The repetitive-stress rules were the result of 10 years' worth of work on the part of OSHA, and where bureaucracies are concerned, more time simply leads to ever more imperfect laws: "…in rewriting the rules," Dreazen and Kuntz explained, "the agency made the document substantially longer and seemingly more confusing."

Staggering Costs and Questionable Benefits

What about the cost of this unfunded mandate? According to OSHA, it would be a mere $4.5 billion a year—obviously, a sizable chunk of money, even by the standards of the federal government, but considering that it would be spread out over millions of U.S. businesses, this would not pose an extraordinary expense. However, OSHA's estimate was far to the low end compared with other figures.

Even the figure determined by the National Association of Manufacturers, which estimated the cost of compliance with the ergonomics rule at $18 billion a year, was still modest compared to most other appraisals. According to the National Coalition on Ergonomics—which would presumably have had every reason to support the rule, since it would virtually ensure full employment for its members—the rule would cost business $90 billion a year. At the high end, the Employment Policy Foundation placed the figure at $125.6 billion a year, an amount more than 25 times greater than that of OSHA. Assuming about 25 million American workers in the sectors of the economy affected by the ergonomics rule, including administrative and office workers, employees in manufacturing and labor, as well as truck drivers and others subject to repetitive tasks, then a single OSHA ruling would result in businesses paying out about $5,000 extra per worker per year.

Compared to these staggering figures, the one presented by United Parcel Service (UPS) seems fairly small: just $20 billion initially, and $5 billion a year to comply with OSHA's ergonomics directive. However, that figure is for UPS alone, and the yearly cost would be twice the company's annual net income!

And for all that expense, would workers actually be helped by the new directives? Not according to physician Alf Nachemson, testifying before a panel assembled by the then-recently installed administration of President George W. Bush in July 2001. According to Nachemson, "complex individual and psychosocial work-related factors," including anxiety, stress, and depression, had much more to do with back pains than did repetitive activities. Nor did Nachemson suggest that workers with such problems take time off: "It is better to stay at work with a little pain," he explained, "than to adopt a lifestyle of disability."

Even if one should judge Dr. Nachemson's prognosis too harsh, and even if one fully accepts OSHA's claims regarding the threat of repetitive-stress injury, experience offers little to suggest that OSHA regulations will improve the problem. In fact, quite the opposite is likely to be the case. Wrote Howard in The Death of Common Sense, "A number of years ago, two workers were asphyxiated in a Kansas meat-packing plant while checking on a giant vat of animal blood. OSHA did virtually nothing. Stretched thin giving out citations for improper railing height, OSHA reinspected a plant that had admittedly 'deplorable' conditions only once in eight years. Then three more workers died—at the same plant. The government response? A nationwide rule requiring atmospheric testing devices in confined work spaces, though many of them have had no previous problems."

Who Wins and Loses?

To anyone who has observed the federal government in action over the past few decades, it hardly takes a crystal ball to foresee the outcome of OSHA's repetitive-stress rule. One need only look at the "War on Poverty," which began in the mid-1960s and never really ended as much as it turned into a protracted battle of attrition reminiscent of the western front in World War I. It is estimated that, for the amount of money spent on "fighting" poverty, the federal government could have simply bought the 500 largest corporations in America and turned them over to the nation's poor. And for all that expenditure, today there are more poor people in America than ever, and their lives are vastly more hopeless than in 1965, before the government set out to, in effect, create a permanent underclass.

The OSHA ergonomics mandate is, like the "War on Poverty" (or the equally absurd "War on Drugs"), a typical example of government meddling and mismanagement. For this reason, the Bush administration opted to drop the original OSHA plan, and in April 2002 announced that it would call for voluntarily established industrial guidelines rather than unfunded government mandates. Yet this is not to say that the OSHA directive was or is without supporters; quite the contrary is true.

In its ergonomics plan, OSHA not only had the backing of the Clinton administration, but even after Clinton left office in January 2001, it continued to enjoy the support of key Democrats in Congress. Among these Democratic leaders is Senator Edward Kennedy, long noted as an advocate of a bigger, more intrusive, and allegedly more benevolent government. Regarding the Bush administration's ruling on the OSHA plan, Kennedy said that it "shows that when it comes to protecting America's workers, this administration's goal is to look the other way and help big business get away with it."

Equally predictable was the response of the labor unions, including the umbrella organization of the AFL-CIO, whose director of safety and health, Pat Seminario, called the Bush plan "a sham." Then there were the sort of protesters who had made themselves an ever more ubiquitous fixture of national and international economic discussions, starting with the 1999 World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, Washington: three of these, one wearing a George W. Bush mask, interrupted testimony at the final Bush administration hearings on the ergonomics rule in July 2001, shouting "Big business loves the ergonomics scam."

The protesters do not so much support OSHA as they oppose its opponents, since for them protest is apparently an end in itself. As for the labor unions and politicians such as Kennedy, it is easy to see why they would be natural constituents of OSHA. The AFL-CIO and the unions it represents are in the business of getting more pay for less work, and they seem to be of the impression that they somehow benefit by cutting into companies' profits. These are the same unions that bleed companies dry, then decry the loss of jobs; the same unions whose leaders seem befuddled as to why more and more of their jobs are going to laborers in other countries. As for Kennedy and his ilk, their support of OSHA is even more natural. Even in the case of the distinguished senator from Massachusetts, with his wealth and family name, nothing compares to the power and influence that comes from having one's hand on the government feeding trough. More power for OSHA means more influence for politicians and bureaucrats, more jobs that can be handed out, and less power for business—the golden goose that Washington seems willing to kill for its eggs.

These are the beneficiaries of OSHA rules, but who are the losers? It may be hard to shed a tear for wealthy, powerful corporations such as UPS, but in the final analysis, it is not the corporation that suffers—it is the worker. For several generations now, Washington has devoted considerable energy to convincing workers that it is taking money from their bosses and giving it to them, but in fact the only party benefiting is the government itself, and workers would be far better off taking home more of the money that goes to Washington. The Bush administration changes to the ergonomics laws are promising, but this should be just the first step in rolling back OSHA's strangling influence on business. If the federal government is truly interested in dealing with repetitive-stress injuries, and not simply enamored with increasing its power, this can be done for a fraction of the cost. As with most things in public life, treatment of musculoskeletal injuries, if it is to be done efficiently, should be performed by the private sector and not by Washington.

—JUDSON KNIGHT

Viewpoint: No, OSHA regulations aimed at preventing repetitive-motion injuries are straightforward and save businesses time and money in the long run.

A common misconception is that ostriches hide their head in the sand when they feel threatened, hoping that the danger will go away. Nothing could be further from the truth. Imagine this large bird with its head buried and its body protruding, feathers waving in the wind. Any species that responds to a threat in this manner is fast on its way to becoming extinct. Fighting against standards for ergonomics and repetitive-motion injuries is a "hide-your-headin-the-sand" reaction to a safety issue that is too big to disappear. Further, the perceived threat itself is misconstrued.

Business and political opposition to regulations targeting worker safety and health is nothing new. In fact, it is to be expected. Although occupational cancer was identified in English chimney sweeps as far back as 1775, bills were not passed to help ensure any type of workers' health and safety until the nineteenth century. When mechanization and changes in mass-production practices came about at the beginning of the twentieth century, they had a direct and adverse effect on workers' health, primarily through accidents and work-related diseases. Nevertheless, businesses routinely balked or sidestepped regulations to improve working conditions. It was not until 1970, after years of worker complaints and unionized efforts, that the first comprehensive health and safety regulations for workers in the United States were passed in the form of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Much of the business community is so used to crying wolf when regulations are imposed on them that they fought tenaciously against the implementation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which included the first effective national child labor regulations. Opponents proclaimed that industry could not withstand the burden if child labor was eliminated.

Opponents to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards have argued that the science of ergonomics is not sufficiently advanced to implement regulations on how businesses should handle repetitive-motion injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Although research has not provided all the answers and more studies are needed, more evidence exists for these types of injuries than for any other injury or illness related to the work-place. In 1999, more than 200 peer-reviewed, scientific articles were published on carpal tunnel syndrome alone. In a review of more than 600 peer-reviewed, epidemiological studies, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health stated that sound evidence supports the relationship between workplace risk factors and a large number of musculoskeletal disorders. In January 2001, the National Academy of Sciences also published study results concluding that there is abundant scientific evidence to demonstrate that repetitive workplace motions can cause injuries. Furthermore, the academy stated that evidence clearly shows that these injuries can be prevented through worker safety interventions. Further support based on scientific studies that ergonomic interventions can help reduce repetitive-motion injuries and other MSDs has come from the U.S. General Accounting Office and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, an internationally recognized occupational health organization.

Studies have also delineated the impact that repetitive-motion injuries and other MSDs have on the workplace. Each year, more than 600,000 workers miss work while recuperating from MSDs. The median number of missed workdays because of each incident is seven days. Incidents of carpal tunnel syndrome typically result in 25 missed days of work; many miss six months or more of work. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data as reported by employers, an estimated 24-813 of every 1,000 general industry workers, depending on their industry, are at risk of missing a workday due to MSD over the lifetime of their employment career.

A Look at the Costs

When it became apparent that scientific data was abundant, opponents' next salvo against OSHA focused on the cost of implementing regulations targeting repetitive-motion and other injuries. However, economic feasibility is also not a viable argument against establishing such standards. According to OSHA estimates, the annual costs of implementing its regulations would be around $4.5 billion dollars while the overall savings would be in the vicinity of $9 billion per year by preventing injury to about 300,000 workers. For example OSHA estimates that employers who would need to correct problems would spend an average of $150 a year per workstation fixed.

According to an article in the United Auto Workers magazine Solidarity, nearly 2 million workers suffer from "strains, sprains, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other ergonomic injuries" each year. Calculated over the year and at 24 hours a day, 18 workers are injured each second every day of the year. According to the National Academy of Sciences, "reported" injuries in terms of lost productivity and medial expenses alone are estimated to cost $45-$54 billion per year. Broken down these costs include $15-$20 billion annually for workers' compensation and $30-$40 billion annually in various other expenses, including medical care.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ergonomic disorders like repetitive-motion injures due to typing at computers are the most rapidly growing category of work-related illnesses reported to OSHA. When personal computers were first sold to the public in 1981, only 18% of all occupational illnesses reported to OSHA were repetitive-motion injuries. Over the ensuing years, that figure continued to grow to 28% in 1984, 52% in 1992, and an estimated 70% in 2000. As a result, it is estimated that the 70 million PCs used in businesses in the United States cost companies approximately $20 billion a year due to repetitive-motion injuries.

Considering the high costs of ignoring ergonomic-related disorders, it is clear that preventing these injuries and addressing the work-place causes of them will save both businesses and society as a whole far more than it would cost. For example, small and large businesses that already have high standards in worker safety in various areas consistently save money in workers compensation and retraining costs, while improving efficiency and productivity. According to benefit-cost analysis estimates by the Washington state Department of Labor and Industries concerning its own ergonomic work rules, implementation of the rules will yield annual social benefits worth $340.7 million in their state alone while incurring only $80.4 million in annual compliance costs on employers, resulting in a benefit-cost ration of 4.24. Overall the department estimated that their ergonomic rules will save employers more than $2 for every $1 they spend to meet the rules.

Perhaps the most hotly debated provision in the OSHA regulations is that it requires employers to provide full pay and benefits to workers who either are removed from their jobs or reassigned to less strenuous work because of their injuries. Employers would have to maintain such pay and benefits for at least six months. While employers view this as an unnecessary burden, it is essential so workers who are injured will report their problems without fear of losing their job or having their pay reduced.

Complications Are in the Eyes of the Beholder

As the British novelist Graham Greene once wrote, "Behind the complicated details of the world stand the simplicities…." The same can be said about the proposed regulations by OSHA. Contrary to opponents' anguished cries that the rules are too broad, complicated, intrusive, overreaching, and confusing to be followed in a fiscally or rationally sound manner, the OSHA rules are simple and straightforward. Although there are hundreds of pages in the OSHA guide concerning these rules, the vast majority are related to scientific data and measurements. The rules do cover a broad range of workers, from nursing home aides who lift heavy patients to people who work at computers or on assembly lines. But the rules themselves are only 9-12 pages long and are written in plain and simple language. They are based on two primary principles: the standard should focus on jobs where ergonomic problems are significant and feasible solutions are available.

OSHA's rules merely ask employers who have employee safety problems to implement a program that is similar to successful programs already implemented by thousands of employers throughout the United States. The guidelines target only those jobs where the risk of injuries and illnesses is highest, such as manufacturing jobs and other occupations that have a demonstrated association with ergonomic injuries.

In simple terms, OSHA regulations require employers to establish a system that is basic to all effective safety and health programs, including management leadership/employee participation, hazard identification and reporting, job hazard analysis and control, training, and program evaluation. However, it does not direct the employers to develop a specific kind of reporting system. It does not tell them how many hours of training effected workers must receive, or what the content of training must be. It does not even tell business how workers should be involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of program elements. The plan's flexibility also includes a "grandfather" clause that permits employers who have already implemented an ergonomics program to continue its operation as long as it meets the minimum OSHA requirements. There is even a "Quick Fix" provision that enables many employers to eliminate their hazards without having to implement a full ergonomics program and an "Exit" provision that allows employers whose programs have successfully addressed their ergonomic hazards to return to a basic program. The OSHA regulations also permit companies to approach their problems incrementally, trying one method and then another if it does not work.

Profits and Productivity

The development of OSHA guidelines for workplace health concerning repetitive motion and other similar injuries did not happen overnight. Work on ergonomics standards started under President George W. Bush's 1988-1992 administration. Then-secretary of labor Elizabeth Dole was already convinced of the evidence demonstrating the need for workplace economic standards. In a 1990 address announcing the beginning of work on such a rule, Dole said, "These painful and sometimes crippling illnesses now make up 48% of all recordable industrial workplace illnesses. We must do our utmost to protect workers from these hazards, not only in the red meat industry but all of the U.S. industries." Over the rest of the decade, OSHA reviewed hundreds of studies and worked on the rules for eight years before announcing them in November 1999.

To expect companies to universally control ergonomic hazards voluntarily without government control is wishful thinking. For example, the landmark Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, which changed mining practices to protect miners' safety and provide compensation for those suffering from black lung disease, was implemented only after years of work by the United Mine Workers Association trying to convince Congress to enact such measures. In Washington, the state's Department of Labor and Industries noted that for 10 years it encouraged voluntary control of ergonomic hazards by providing information and technical assistance to businesses. Nevertheless, a department survey of some 5,000 employers revealed that 60% of the businesses in Washington did nothing to control these hazards. It is also interesting to note that occupations most affected by MSDs tend to be lower-wage jobs that employ high numbers of minorities. These workers are typically non-unionized and have little or no say in how they perform their jobs.

In addition to the cost advantages outlined earlier, instituting federal guidelines for ergonomic safety in the workplace would also save government, business, and employees from becoming snarled in expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. In the late 1980s, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union filed a number of complaints about repetitivemotion injuries in meatpacking plants. The result was numerous settlements, often in the millions of dollars and a plethora of congressional hearings that led to OSHA developing special guidelines for that industry. One of the results of the repeal of the OSHA ergonomic regulations by Congress in early 2001 is that businesses and its employees are once again going to court. For example, the UFCW filed a federal complaint with OSHA alleging hazardous working conditions at a chicken plant in Texas. According to union officials, this is only the first salvo in many more efforts to force government to address debilitating problems associated with ergonomic factors in production work, particularly in industries dominated by low-skilled immigrants.

It is time for businesses and government to stop hiding their heads in the sand. Yes, there is danger out there, but it is not to the ability of big or small businesses to run a tight ship and make a profit. The real burden is on the nearly 5,000 workers who are injured by ergonomic hazards at work each day while no standards are in place to protect them.

—DAVID PETECHUK

KEY TERMS

CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME:

A condition that occurs when the median nerve in the hand's carpal tunnel is compressed, causing weakness, pain, and disturbances of sensation in the hand.

ERGONOMICS:

An applied science that deals with the design and arrangement of the spaces people occupy so as to ensure the safest and most efficient interaction between the human and his or her environment.