|
The rescinding of OSHA's Ergo-nomics Standard is old news by now, but its effect on safety will be with us for a long time.
I started working with ergonomics programs in 1981 as a safety engineering representative for a large insurance company, working in the loss control group. For years, I told anyone who would listen to me that there was a need for a standardized regulation on ergonomics. Some companies were very proactive, but many others refused to recognize the problem. I often observed employees whose jobs, in my opinion, were harming them due to the repetitive and arduous nature of the work.
Later, while working in the paper industry, I helped develop an ergonomics program for my employer and started aggressively managing repetitive motion injuries. A major part of our program involved using the data we gathered to help us target jobs that needed changing. We spent development time and money on auto-mation equipment. We used job rotation to reduce repetition in those areas where we hadn't yet found an automation solution. We educated line employees and taught supervisors what signs and symptoms to watch for so problems could be caught early. We worked closely with local doctors so they would understand the tasks employees were expected to perform, and they helped us develop appropriate restricted duty jobs. It was a good program, and it was effective.
AN UNWORKABLE STANDARD. Having said all that, I have to admit I thought OSHA's Ergonomics Standard was pretty unworkable. There are not many things worse than making a rule you can't enforce.... However, the need for a standard still very much exists, and unfortunately, it will be a long time before anyone attempts another one. And this has been in the works for decades.
This standard appeared to be far too burdensome for many employers, so it scared them off. Your company may have been one of those that complained fiercely about it. Employers were afraid they would be encumbered with all the accumulated aches and pains of their employees, whether they had occupational causes or not. The standard didn't adequately address the fact that many people with repetitive motion problems are affected by what happens out-side the workplace. (I have a recurring problem with tendonitis in my thumb, but it has a lot more to do with gardening and quilting than it does with my daily, prolonged use of a keyboard.)
Another problem with the standard was that it appeared to "award" those employees with repetitive motion injuries, giving them more benefits than they would receive under other Workers' Compensation situations.
RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES TAKE ACTION. Repetitive motion injuries are very real, and they can be terribly debilitating. Safety professionals don't question this, and most employers understand the problem. We've made significant progress since the early 1980s when the majority of industry managers (including a few safety managers) would say, "It's probably just arthritis; tell them to take some aspirin!" But we still haven't come far enough.
We are not likely to see anyone come forward with a new proposal for an ergonomics standard any time in the near future. Forward-thinking companies, however, will continue to dedicate funds for the reduction of repetitive motion injuries, mainly through employee training and process automation. On the other hand, less innovative and involved companies will continue to spend millions on workers' compensation claims and absent employees. Which kind of company do you work for? Which do you want to be?
Industry needs a standard that allows employees to come forward when they have a problem (without fear of losing their job), allows those employees to get reasonable and appropriate treatment, and encourages employers to alter jobs to reduce the potential for injury. It does not need a standard that may encourage abuse of workers' compensation and that requires burdensome amounts of paperwork. As our workforce ages, we'll need it even more because the lines between age-related aches and pains and work-related aches and pains will continue to blur.
|
