An editorial
Ergonomics
After hours and hours of
unsuccessfully trying to solve a computer problem we had
here at the office recently, I finally broke down and
resorted to a final, desperate tactic. I read the manual,
during which I learned that most of what I thought I knew
about the problem was dead wrong. Over the past year or so most major
media outlets apparently have approached their reporting
of the ergonomics issue the same way I approached my
computer problem. They wrote reams on the subject but I
doubt that few reporters actually read much past the
executive summary of OSHA's lengthy and exceedingly
complex regulation, which Congress had the good sense to
toss out last month.
Much of the reporting
contained a subtle bias against business leaders for
opposing ergonomics, implying that they just didn't want
to spend the money necessary to protect their workers
from injuries. These stories often contained some
alarming-sounding statistics on the number of workplace
injuries. Let's look calmly at the situation, beginning
with those scary on-the-job injury statistics.
In North Carolina (and our
statistics are not unlike those of most states),
workplace injuries and illnesses have declined for seven
straight years even as the total number of workers
increased every year. In 1999, the last year for which
complete statistics are available, the roughly 3.2
million people employed in North Carolina suffered about
184,000 on-the-job injuries and illnesses. Of those, only
43,600 were serious enough to require time off from work.
The media only
infrequently analyzed the complaint that the ergonomics
regulations were overly broad and badly written,
especially the fact that the rules defined “job
related” to include complaints aggravated by work
but caused by something else. I could strain my back
mowing the lawn on Saturday, lift something at work
Monday that made the pain worse, blame my employer and
make the company foot the doctor's bill.
Moreover, I'd get paid
more for this type of injury. Workers' comp insurance
provides two-thirds of an employee's pay for real
work-related injuries. The ergonomics rules would have
required at least 90 percent compensation for injuries
that may have only been aggravated — not caused
— by the workplace. Finally, the rules had a
grandfather clause so narrow that it would not — by
OSHA's own admission — grandfather in a single
employer.
OSHA's ergonomics rules
are the classic example of a good idea gone horribly
wrong. The business community won the battle to defeat a
set of bad regulations but we should continue fighting an
ongoing war to make our factories and offices as safe as
they can be. Good employees are our greatest asset. Let's
treat them that way.
-- Steve Tuttle
Return to magazine index
|
