Opinion: Ergonomics, Round 2: Hope for Real Progress?

By William D. Zollars

i>The writer is chairman, president and chief executive officer of Yellow Corp. Overland Park, Kan., a holding company for Yellow Freight System and several regional motor carriers.

With the Hollywood blockbuster season upon us, the nation is awash in heroes and villains. American GIs are fighting World War II foes, man once again is facing off with dinosaurs, even dogs — apparently — are saving the world from feline domination. So it should come as no surprise that our nation’s capital is gearing up for a summer sequel of its own. As Washington braces for the reopening of the thorny ergonomics debate, in one corner, we all cheer the “dedicated American worker”; in the other, we are urged to jeer the evergreen menace of “corporate interest.”

It makes for an easy cinematic story line. But unless this important debate is quickly elevated above the melodramatic typecasting, both U.S. workers and their employers will lose.

Fortunately, there is hope for real progress. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is fulfilling her pledge to address the complex issue in a science-based manner. Her efforts begin today in Washington with the first of three national hearings exploring three pivotal questions: Can the experts agree on what constitutes an ergonomics injury? Can science consistently and clearly distinguish between work and non-work injuries? And, what exactly is the proper role of government?

These questions cut to the central quandary of the ergonomics debate: Despite the good intentions, there exists today nothing remotely resembling a medical consensus as to how to treat, prevent or even properly diagnose a repetitive stress injury. This leaves employers with no consistent, informed answer to the basic question: how much is too much? It also leaves regulators with no scientific grounds for second-guessing the “right” action.

Even more fundamentally problematic, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s own review commission has found that when reported ergonomics injuries are examined, the vast majority “cannot be linked to any detectable tissue or body damage.”

These facts call into serious question the fairness of government dictating costly, unproven solutions in the dark. When science cannot pinpoint the cause of a specific injury or its connection — if any — to work, the Labor Department’s question about “the proper role of government” moves front and center in this debate.

Speaking at today’s hearing on behalf of the National Coalition on Ergonomics, which represents some 300 U.S. business groups, I will argue for two critical acknowledgements — first, of the shortcomings of our scientific understanding today and, second, of the significant progress the U.S. business community has made on its own, in good faith, and in the absence of regulation.

Long before the term “ergonomics” came into the American lexicon, employers have sought to make workers more comfortable (and thus more productive) in their jobs. It’s the right thing to do. It’s also smart business. For these reasons, my company — Yellow Corp. — has invested more than $12 million in workplace safety since 1997. We take great pride in the fact that the safety and good health of our employees are our No. 1 priority. Toward this end, we work closely with medical professionals. We listen to our workers when they suggest improvements. We aggressively educate employees about safe lifting and other practices, and we employ a full-time safety director and staff to monitor injuries and carry out any needed changes to improve our workplace. In the first year of our effort, we saw a 3.5% reduction in lost time and injuries. By 2000, that reduction has nearly quintupled.

While I am proud of Yellow’s record, it is important to note that we are the rule, not the exception, among U.S. companies today. Contrary to public perception, workplace injuries in this country are down, and repetitive stress injuries have declined for nearly 10 years in a row.

Time will tell the fate of this summer sequel. But I for one hope it’s a sequel that is well-written and well-produced. With Secretary Chao in the director’s chair, I am confident a solution will be found that is best for the American worker and for our free enterprise system. It may not make good drama without a villain, but to move forward we need to acknowledge that both sides in this debate have a real stake and a real record of progress on workplace safety. If we recognize that science does not yet have all the answers, it will limit what we can fairly ask of businesses. But there remains plenty to explore in what U.S. companies have done right over the past decade, and how we can build on that progress. If we choose that route, then we can deliver the only advance worth fighting for — progress on workplace safety that actually delivers safer workplaces.

This story appears in the July 16 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.