Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Ergonomics: The Next Battleground

At issue between OSHA and employers is the possible increase in the scope of compensable injuries in workers' compensation.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

BY STEVE TUCKEY, who has written on insurance issues for a decade for several national media outlets

Will ergonomics become the battlefield that business and the Obama administration fight over in the realm of workplace safety enforcement?

The Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) is expected to propose a rule that will have employers list work-related musculoskeletal disorders from other conditions on the agency's 300 Injury and Illness log.

OSHA officials have taken pains to assure stakeholders that the proposal is not an attempt to resurrect an enforceable ergonomics standard. But some observers think there may be more to this move than meets the eye.

Cynthia Ross, CEO of Ergonomics Technologies Corp. in Syosset, N.Y., said a new standard for ergonomics might be in the works.

"When you are building a case for regulatory change you need to be able to back up your argument. You can look at this as the start of a formal data gathering effort to provide the cost justification for such a standard," she said.

The move has peaked the concern of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce whose director of labor law policy, Marc Freedman, agreed the separate listing could be a first step toward development of a broader ergonomics agenda.

"If OSHA actually gets this in place, it will support their desire to go forward and do other regulatory actions on ergonomics, which we think is hugely problematic," he said.

He also expressed concern over how musculoskeletal disorders were defined, noting that in the previous regulations under the Clinton administration, the definition was too broad.

"What it comes down to is the causes of these types of discomforts and other levels of pain that are often outside the workplace, as opposed to inside the workplace as opposed to any other hazard that OSHA regulates," he said. "The employer may very well end up being held accountable for activities outside the workplace."

Freedman also said that any new OSHA effort in relation to ergonomics could down the road end up increasing the scope of compensable injuries in the workers' compensation realm, although that would be done, if at all, on a state by state basis.

The Clinton administration in its final days released 1,600 pages of ergonomics rules that the GOP Congress managed to quash through the passage of riders on appropriation bills forbidding release of the rules. Ultimately, pro-business groups managed to kill the rules through the never before used Congressional Review Act.

Peg Seminario, director of health and safety for the AFL-CIO, said the Chamber and other business groups' fear of even indentifying such disorders indicates they are up for a fight.

Labor advocates believe that getting a better picture of true state of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace could be the first step in finding solutions to lower their occurrences.

April 1, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.