Opinion: A Call for Sound Science

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration would prefer to automate your job and as a result eliminate tens of thousands of American jobs rather than admit its proposed ergonomic rule is built on unsound science. OSHA even refuses to acknowledge that the very experts on this issue — physicians — don’t see eye to eye on the causes and cures of so-called ergonomic ailments (often called repetitive stress injuries) and that physicians actually find a rule on ergonomics extremely controversial.

For the vast majority of employers, ergonomics (the way workplaces fit workers) is part of their existing safety programs. But tailoring ergonomic principles to specific workplaces is not the same as one-size-fits-all ergonomics regulation.

It appears that OSHA wants to change everything from the way bakers make bread to the way florists arrange flowers, yet common sense says the government must do the research before it can write the law. This opinion is shared by a great number of physicians and research scientists who treat and study repetitive stress injuries.

Indeed, the American Journal of Hand Surgery, which represents doctors who treat repetitive stress injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome, has editorialized that no “definable diagnosis” exists concerning these ailments. Even so, OSHA has issued a draft ergonomics standard, aiming to overhaul workplaces.

OSHA’s draft regulation would order the redesign of work environments, require the use of experimental tools, slow down the pace of work, automate processes that may eliminate jobs and demand other experimental and unproven changes. It’s wrong to eliminate the jobs of working Americans based on the whim of some bureaucrat at OSHA who’s never lifted anything heavier than a pencil.

Proponents of an ergonomic standard often say it is needed because repetitive stress injuries are epidemic. That is simply false. The most recent statistics (1997) compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that just 4% of workplace injuries were related to repetitive motion. Even more revealing is that such injuries have declined by 17% since 1994.

OSHA attempts to limit its proposal to just manufacturing and manual handling, but it would impact any business where an employee complains about an ache or pain. Even in a limited capacity, the cumulative cost to employers throughout the nation could easily reach into the billions of dollars while failing to assure the prevention of even one injury.

Unconvinced by OSHA’s arguments, last fall Congress and the [Clinton] administration agree to spend $1 million on a comprehensive study by the National Academy of Sciences to examine the relationship that may exist between work and repetitive stress injuries. The first-of-its-kind independent study is expected to be completed in 18 to 24 months.

Congress turned to the National Academy of Sciences’ medical professionals to take this debate out of the political arena. We need this sound diagnosis before attempting a cure by government regulators. The thorough and impartial National Academy of Sciences review now under way moves in the right direction.

To assure we benefit from this review, more than 90 U.S. representatives from the entire political spectrum have co-sponsored HR 987, legislation I introduced to require OSHA to wait until the completion of the National Academy of Sciences study before promulgating an ergonomic regulation. The Education and the Workplace Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing on HR 987 on April 21, and I am hopeful that a vote will be taken on the bill before the full House in the near future.

We all share the goal of protecting American workers and improving safety in the workplace. Rushing forward with a regulation without the facts is simply not the proper course to pursue this goal. It’s irresponsible for OSHA to rush forward with an experimental regulation that may actually hurt workers instead of help them. As safety continues to be a top priority in our workplaces, OSHA should scrap its proposed ergonomics rules and support efforts to develop sound science — sound science that will help working Americans.