OSHA's ergonomic standard, August 1999
The issue
Should Congress use its budget and oversight authority to prohibit the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from issuing an ergonomics (repetitive stress
injury) standard?
Why it's important
OSHA claims that approximately 60 percent of reported workplace injuries and illnesses
are repetitive stress injuries. OSHA's claim that these injuries have reached epidemic
proportions is based on a questionable July 1997 study by the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). At the same time, however, the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that, in fact, only 4 percent of workplace
injuries are repetitive stress injuries.
Previous attempts by OSHA to issue a comprehensive ergonomics standard were stopped
by Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX), who added language (called a "rider") to the agency's
funding bills in 1995 and 1996 prohibiting it from writing the standard. In 1997,
Reps. Bonilla and David Obey (D-WI) forged a compromise allowing OSHA to draft a
standard, but prohibiting it from issuing the standard until Congress received a
requested study from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Unfortunately, the Bonilla/Obey rider expired and wasn't renewed by Congress. This
has enabled OSHA to go forward with the standard in spite of the fact that the NAS
study won't be completed until mid-2000 at the earliest.
In response to overwhelming concern from the business community, Rep. Roy Blunt
(R-MO) introduced the "Workplace Preservation Act", H.R. 987, which would require
OSHA to refrain from issuing an ergonomics standard until the NAS study is completed.
On August 3, 1999 the House passed H.R. 987 by a vote of 217-209, giving momentum
to its Senate companion bill, the Sensible Ergonomics Needs Scientific Evidence
(SENSE) Act, S. 1070, sponsored by Senator Kit Bond (R-MO). The SENSE Act has gathered
43 cosponsors and is awaiting Senate action. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) is currently reviewing OSHA's ergonomics proposal and unless the Senate acts,
intends to publish the proposed rule in October.
NRCA's position
NRCA supports congressional action to prohibit OSHA from issuing this critically
flawed standard, which the agency and private economists estimate will cost business
between $4-$21 billion. Though NRCA is concerned about repetitive stress injuries,
there is not an "epidemic" and an ergonomics standard should be based on sound science,
not questionable statistics.
The other side
Organized labor and other proponents state that there is an urgent need to issue
the standard in response to the growing number of alleged repetitive stress injuries
in the workplace.
(August 1999)