Workplace safety finds new focus: VDTs.

Businesses, unions dispute value of proposed regulation

Nearly a year after the deadline came and went, many businesses are still scrambling to comply with SB 198, the state law that forced them to come up with workplace injury prevention plans. Now they're about to get broadsided by yet another workplace safety regulation.

This time the target is video display terminals and other supposed workplace hazards believed to contribute to repetitive stress injuries. The proposed regulation, crafted by the state Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has drawn fire from both business and labor groups.

Labor leaders say it contains too many loopholes and exemptions. Business groups say it goes too far and will add costs to an employer's overhead at a time when companies are struggling to survive the recession. Both sides have been locked in a protracted battle over just how far VDT and repetitive stress injury regulations must go.

In a draft of the regulation released earlier this month, Cal-OSHA proposes requiring every employer in the state to search its records for repetitive stress injuries, set up methods for reporting future injuries or symptoms, and train its employees in identifying and avoiding such injuries -- all within the next three to four years.

Some employers may have to go much further and conduct evaluations of work sites where employees report repetitive stress symptoms or risks, then take certain corrective measures to reduce the risk. Others may have to foot the bill for medical examinations and treatments if doctors certify the injury or symptoms resulted from repetitive stress activities in the workplace.

The goal behind the regulation is to reduce the frequency of work-related repetitive stress injuries -- such as carpal tunnel syndrome and some types of muscle or joint strains.

"Repetitive stress injuries are the most rapidly rising category of occupational disease and pose a very large public health problem," said Len Welsh, counsel for Cal-OSHA's Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

On the other hand, Melanie Wiegner, representing business interests as a legislative analyst with the California Chamber of Commerce, said: "Repetitive stress risks and symptoms are so broad that they could include almost any aches and pains. Any attempt to regulate in this area has to be implemented very carefully, and this (regulation) goes way too far."

In addition, smaller employers lack the wherewithal to reduce these risks on their own and will have to hire expensive consultants, she said. Labor leaders, meanwhile, say the regulation ignores injuries to the lower back and allows companies to exempt workers who move from site to site, such as maintenance employees.

"The state appears to be saying that repetitive stress injuries are based on where you work, not what the work is. We say that all workers deserve protection from unsafe working conditions," said Maggie Robbins, Western region health and safety coordinator with the Los Angeles branch of Service Employees International Union.

The proposed regulation, debated last week in San Francisco, stems from a call for statewide standards after San Francisco passed a video display terminal ordinance in the fall of 1990. Although that ordinance was struck down by the courts, the prospect of strict controls on the use of VDTs in the workplace galvanized both business and labor leaders into action.

Labor leaders persuaded Assemblyman Tom Hayden, D-Santa Monica, to carry VDT legislation that was ultimately defeated last year. The business community then placed its faith in a Cal-OSHA promise to issue guidelines on the use of VDTs.

Despite pressure from labor groups, a final regulation is still a long way off. Following the hearings, Cal-OSHA will issue another draft of the regulation and then submit it to the state Office of Administrative Law for final review.

The process could take more than a year. And it will be two years after that before the first deadlines kick in.

This may be one reason few businesses outside of major corporations like Pacific Bell or Bank of America have heard about the proposed regulation.

"This is shaping up much like SB 198. A lot of companies will ignore this until the last minute, when they will have to scramble to comply," said Lainie Goldberg, national sales manager for Costa Mesa-based Ergonics, an ergonomics consulting firm.

The primary area of concern among business interests is a provision calling for employer reimbursement of medical evaluations for repetitive stress injuries or symptoms. The fear here is that employees could tie this procedure in with bogus workers' compensation claims as a way of getting money from their employers.

Trade groups also fear that employers would have to spend large amounts of money to eliminate repetitive stress risks that are only marginal. They argue that the language used in the regulation -- language requiring corrective measures to address jobs "substantially likely" to cause repetitive stress risks -- is vague and open to interpretation.

Fine is a staff reporter for the Orange County Business Journal