Ergonomics causes a stir.

The relationship between working conditions and worker health has been a concern of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) since its inception in 1970. By the late 1980s, the agency was issuing citations to companies that had a high number of workers with repetitive stress injures and directing these companies to create ergonomic safety plans. Now, in an attempt to prevent and reduce work-related repetitive-stress musculoskeletal disorders, the agency has published proposed rules on workplace ergonomics.

Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker. When the physical requirements of a job do not match the physical capacity of the worker, the result can be a work-related musculoskeletal disorder, or WMSD. According to OSHA, these disorders account for 34 percent of all lost workday injuries and illnesses.

The proposed rules, and the years leading up to them, have not been without controversy. Congressional Democrats, in general, say there has been enough research on ergonomics, justifying the release of the proposed rules. Republicans say the ergonomics mandates are premature, arguing that more research is needed because previous studies relating to causation were not conclusive.

OSHA estimates that the rules would cost employers about $4 billion a year. But the Small Business Administration says the cost would be more like $18 billion. Labor organizations, such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), strongly support the proposed ergonomics standards. But business interests, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, do not. These two organizations have not hesitated to take swipes at each other on the issue.

In a press release posted on the AFL-CIO's Web site (hhtp://www.aflcio.org), the organization's president, John Sweeney, said, "[The proposal] for a workplace ergonomics standard is a major step forward in the fight to end crippling workplace injuries. Despite an unrelenting and mean-spirited campaign by big business and anti-worker members of Congress to block these important protections, the public will finally have a chance to be heard."

Meanwhile, a press release on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Web site (http:// www.uschamber.com) quotes the group's vice president for labor policy, Randel Johnson, as saying, "Proposing costly and far-reaching regulation before the scientific studies are completed shows how little sound science matters to this administration.... If OSHA persists in pushing forward this ill-considered regulation, then we will meet them in court."

Some who oppose OSHA's ergonomics standards complain the agency took advantage of the Senate's inability to act on a business-backed proposal to delay the standards before recessing last year.

Earlier last year, the House passed H.R. 987, an act that would have required the secretary of labor "to wait for completion of a National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating a standard or guideline on ergonomics." In 1998, Congress had approved spending nearly $900,000 to fund a National Academy of Sciences study on the connection between repetitive motions and repetitive stress injuries. The study is expected to be finished sometime next year.

While the House narrowly passed--by a mostly party-line vote of 217 to 209--its bill to block OSHA from publishing its ergonomics guidelines before completion of the study, the Senate was unable to achieve similar results with its bill, S. 1070. The bill never even made it out of committee. An effort to fold S. 1070 into the appropriations bill was also unsuccessful. With no legislation to prevent OHSA from taking action, the agency published its ergonomics standards on November 23, 1999.

The timing proved both good and bad for OSHA: The agency was able to take action and, at long last, make public its proposed guidelines. However, those guidelines were published soon after the agency responded to a Texas employer who wanted information on policies concerning compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act for employees who work at home.

Although the agency most likely expected heat from the business community regarding its ergonomics proposal, it probably had no idea the magnitude of the furor that its telecommuting response letter would have. The Wall Street Journal noted that the agency's response "inflame[d] an already contentious argument over the agency's regulatory reach." (Sarah Lueck, Home Workers Didn't File Any OSHA Protests, Wall St. J., Jan. 10, 2000, at A6.)

OSHA's telecommuting advisory letter--which essentially said that, under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers were responsible for federal health and safety violations that occurred in the telecommuting work environment--was made public on January 4, 2000. The next day, Labor Secretary Alexis Herman withdrew the letter.

The ergonomics standards, however, still stand as published, although OSHA did extend the deadline for filing comments on the proposal. Hearings on the proposed ergonomics program standard are scheduled in Washington, D.C., through April 7. The hearings will move to Chicago from April 11 to 21 and then to Portland, Oregon, from April 24 to May 3. The hearings will continue in Washington, D.C., May 8-13.

Although OSHA was able to promulgate its proposal after Congress recessed last November, the issue could heat up again if business interests push Congress to consider action to prohibit or delay the agency from finalizing its ergonomics rule. For more information on the proposed standards and the hearings, visit the agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov.

Unexpected flak

OSHA probably had no idea the magnitude of the furor that its letter on the safety and health of telecommuters would have.

Kristin Loiacono is media relations coordinator for ATLA.