Be patient on ergonomics, Chao urges Congress
Prevention, high-risk jobs will guide new efforts
Caution was the byword as Labor Secretary Elaine Chao testified before a Senate committee on what steps the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would take toward developing a new ergonomics standard. Chao indicated that a new standard would focus on prevention, would target "high-risk" occupations, and wouldn’t affect workers’ compensation programs.
Why did the standard fail?
Chao asserted that the ergonomics standard failed because of "the rush to action, the lack of consensus, and the continual forward movement despite repeated congressional expressions of disapproval." She acknowledged that seeking consensus could be difficult. "The stakeholders who have come to the Department of Labor to discuss ergonomics are coming from completely different positions — ranging from those who want no action to those who thought that the previous rule did not go far enough," she said in testimony before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
"This diversity of opinion suggests that precipitous action is not the wisest course at this time. If we want to find more common ground on this issue, we will need to engage in more discussion and analysis, and we will need more data," Chao continued.
Advocates for health care workers questioned whether this emphasis on "consensus" would lead to a perpetual stalemate. "This is a ploy to do nothing and to continue to allow health care workers and other workers to be crippled by ergonomic injuries," asserts Bill Borwegen, MPH, occupational health and safety director of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). "How can you have people who are ideologically opposed [to ergonomics regulation] at the table and develop consensus?" Borwegen asks.
Chao cited the voluntary Ergonomics Program Management Guidelines designed with the meatpacking industry in 1990 as a positive approach to reducing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Yet, Borwegen notes, "They were bolstered by an aggressive OSHA inspection program citing people under the general duty clause."
However, some occupational health professionals remain optimistic that OSHA can come up with a better standard — one that omits the most contentious aspects of the prior version. Deborah DiBenedetto, MBA, RN, COHN-S/CM, ABDA, president of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses in Atlanta, called the failed standard "very overreaching and burdensome. "[OSHA has] had some good performance-based standards where they’re less dictatorial," she says. "I think there’s room for negotiation of what’s a fair standard and meets the needs of the public."
The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) in Arlington Heights, IL, withdrew its support from the final ergonomics rule, largely over the lack of a requirement for a medical diagnosis for work-related MSDs.
ACOEM still supporting standard
However, the college still supports a federal standard, says Gregory Barranco, ACOEM director of governmental relations. While the college doesn’t feel that voluntary guidelines are sufficient, the ANSI draft has been well received, says Barranco. "The majority of pieces in the ANSI standard we do find appealing," he says.
Meanwhile, the political maneuvering continues. Sen. John Breaux (R-LA) introduced a bill calling for OSHA to develop a new ergonomics standard within two years, but directing the agency to exclude injuries that are pre-existing but aggravated by work or that occur outside of work. It also would prohibit the agency from requiring an expansion of current state workers’ compensation protection — a particularly contentious part of the rescinded standard.
The SEIU, under the auspices of the AFL-CIO, submitted a petition to the Department of Labor asking for OSHA to issue a new ergonomics standard. "This sets the stage for them to either act or for us to proceed legally," says Borwegen. "Once the petition is delivered, the Department of Labor has an obligation to respond."
Reworking the standard
Chao insisted that she is committed to developing an ergonomics standard. The Congressional Review Act, which was used to rescind the ergonomics standard, prohibits OSHA from developing a standard that is "substantially the same." Chao outlined the principles that would guide a new ergonomics standard:
- prevention;
- sound science;
- incentives;
- flexibility;
- feasibility;
- clarity.
"We must recognize the unique nature of individual workplaces — avoiding an unworkable one-size-fits-all approach," said Chao.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content