INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF POSITION ON PROVISIONS OF OSHA'S PROPOSED STANDARD

The AFL-CIO, a federation of 68 national and international unions representing 13 million working men and women and their families, appreciates the opportunity to present testimony and submit comments on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Proposed Rule on Ergonomics Programs.

The AFL-CIO has a long and deep interest and involvement in the ergonomics issue. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) caused by exposure to ergonomic hazards are a major safety and health problem for our members and for all workers. In all economic sectors and in most industries, musculoskeletal disorders are the major source of workplace injury and illness. Workers in meatpacking, poultry, auto assembly, nursing homes, transportation, warehousing, construction and data entry are among those at risk.

For more than two decades, unions have been working hard to prevent these injuries through research, joint efforts with employers and union training programs and by requesting OSHA enforcement actions under the general duty clause.

Since the late 1980s, we have been seeking an OSHA standard to prevent unnecessary musculoskeletal disorders and to control ergonomic hazards. It has been 10 years since former Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole committed the agency to developing an ergonomics standard. But, as the agency is well aware, the efforts to develop and issue an ergonomics rule have been thwarted and delayed for years by fierce industry and political opposition. As a result, hundreds of thousands of workers have needlessly suffered illness, injury and disability.

This past November, OSHA finally issued its proposed ergonomics rule. The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions welcome and support the proposed standard. The proposed rule will reduce MSDs and spare workers from these devastating injuries and illnesses, and save employers the high costs associated with these disorders.

In our view, the proposed rule includes the key elements of a good and effective ergonomics program--Management Leadership and Employee Participation, Hazard Information and Reporting, Job Hazard Analysis and Control, Training, MSD Management, Recordkeeping and Program Evaluation. The rule is supported by an extensive body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that musculoskeletal disorders are caused by exposure to workplace hazards, and that these exposures pose a significant risk of injury to workers. These injuries are serious, painful, costly and disabling. There is substantial evidence and extensive real world experience demonstrating that there are effective and feasible measures to reduce these exposures and to prevent musculoskeletal disorders.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, standards issued by the agency must address and reduce a significant risk of harm to employees. They must be reasonably necessary to provide safe and healthy employment, and for toxic materials or harmful physical agents, standards must place a premium on worker protection, limited only by technological and economical feasibility.

In order for OSHA's ergonomics standard to be sufficiently protective and to meet these legal tests, we believe several guiding principles apply. The standard should codify and reflect the good industry practices and programs implemented by employers who have effectively addressed ergonomic hazards. It should build on the agency's enforcement actions and settlement agreements on ergonomic hazards under the general duty clause. The standard also should be consistent with the measures used in other agency standards on toxic substances and physical agents, such as the lead and formaldehyde standards, and those which follow a programmatic approach, such as the process safety management and hazard communication standards.

Applying these principles, the AFL-CIO believes that the proposed standard can and should be strengthened and clarified to make it more protective and effective. In particular, we believe that the scope of coverage should be expanded to other industries, the triggers for coverage expanded to provide for action before injuries occur and the provisions on training and medical management strengthened to promote early reporting of injuries and hazards and full worker participation in the ergonomics program.

A final ergonomics standard, with the adoption of these strengthening changes, will protect workers against unnecessary exposures to ergonomic hazards and will significantly reduce the toll of musculoskeletal disorders on this nation's workers.

Our position on why an ergonomics standard is needed and supported by available evidence and comments on OSHA's proposed ergonomics standard are set forth below.

Summary of AFL-CIO Position and Recommendations on the Provisions of OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Standard

Coverage

The AFL-CIO supports the coverage of general industry. OSHA must either cover excluded sectors in the final rule or issue a definitive timetable for covering these workers when the final standard is promulgated.

Basic Elements

All of the basic elements in the proposed rule--Management Leadership and Employee Participation, Hazard Information and Reporting, Job Hazard Analysis and Control, Training, MSD Management and Evaluation--are important and necessary for an effective ergonomics program.

Triggers for Action

The standard should be preventive, and require action not only after workers are injured. The triggers should be expanded to include, in addition to recordable MSDs, persistent symptoms and signs and information/knowledge on MSD hazards. These triggers should lead to a preliminary evaluation of the job with further action required if exposures to risk factors are identified. The definition of "recordable" MSD needs to be modified to include MSDs that are classified as injuries in addition to MSDs that are classified as illnesses.

Baseline Obligations

Baseline obligations for Management Leadership and Employee Participation and Hazard Information and Reporting are appropriate for manufacturing and manual handling jobs, which have high rates of MSDs. These obligations should be expanded in to include a review of injury and illness records for the preceding two years.

Management Leadership and Employee Participation

The management leadership and employee participation provisions are prerequisites for an effective ergonomics program and do not violate Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. The standard should make clear that employees and their representatives are full participants in all aspects of the ergonomics program. The prohibition on employer policies or programs that discourage participation or reporting of injuries is necessary to eliminate barriers and disincentives to full employee participation.

Hazard Information and Reporting

The Hazard Information and Reporting provisions are an essential element of an ergonomics program. The standard must be expanded to provide ways for employees to report MSD hazards, not only signs and symptoms. The standard should require earlier training on how to recognize and report MSD hazards, the requirements for medical management and work restriction protection and the prohibition against discouraging employee reports.

Existing Ergonomics Programs

Employers with existing programs should be permitted to continue with these programs if they are comprehensive, provide workers and their representatives full information and rights of participation and are effectively reducing MSDs and exposures to hazards. However, the basic obligation and the evaluation provisions of the standard must be expanded and strengthened to ensure that existing programs "grandfathered" by the standard are protective and effective.

Quick Fix

While a quick fix may be appropriate in certain circumstances, the standard should better differentiate between workplaces where there are isolated problems where a quick fix may be appropriate and high-risk workplaces where a full ergonomics program should be required.

Job Analysis and Control

The standard should provide for the involvement of both employees and employee representatives in the job analysis and control process. The standard correctly maintains OSHA's long-standing hierarchy of control. The proposed incremental abatement process fails to provide workers adequate protection. The standard should require employers to eliminate or reduce hazards to the extent feasible, within the compliance deadlines, whether a "one-shot" or "incremental" process is used.

Training

Training is an essential element of an effective ergonomics program. The standard's provisions should be restructured to provide employees, supervisors and others more information earlier so they can effectively participate in the development and implementation of all elements of the ergonomics program. The provisions on ensuring effective training should be strengthened and the frequency for training shortened.

MSD Management and Work Restriction Protection

MSD management is a critically important element of the standard. To achieve the purpose of preventing impairment and disability through early detection, prompt management and timely recovery, the medical management provisions must be strengthened and apply not only to MSDs, but also to MSD signs and symptoms. The Work Restriction Protection provisions must be modified to provide the same full earnings protection provided by other OSHA standards. The standard must provide for a three physician/health care provider review mechanism to resolve disputes regarding medical determinations.

Evaluation

The evaluation provisions are important to the effectiveness of the rule. The final rule must be clarified and strengthened to provide for the involvement of both employees and employee representatives and to ensure that employer programs are effectively reducing exposure to MSD hazards.

Recordkeeping

The recordkeeping provisions are necessary for the effective implementation of an ergonomics program. The provisions should be modified to be consistent with the retention period for the OSHA Log of Injuries and Illnesses and to explicitly provide for access by employees and employee representatives according to the terms of 1910.1020.

Compliance Dates

The overall time frames for compliance are more than sufficient. Any longer phase-in period would unnecessarily delay protections for workers. The final rule should close the gap between the implementation of medical management/removal requirements and the implementation of controls to ensure that hazards are controlled before workers are returned to these jobs.