State Ergonomics Rules Could Spur U.S. Action
That could well happen if more states follow California’s lead and draft their own standards. If enough states enact different standards, compliance for multistate industries like trucking could become so burdensome that a uniform federal policy would be preferable.
Momentum is gaining in several states for development of an ergonomics standard. North Carolina, Washington and Oregon are working on the issue, and in the meantime, all three are taking enforcement actions under existing standards.
So far, however, California is the only state in which employers must comply with an ergonomics standard.
The standard mandates that employers who meet these conditions must evaluate and correct ergonomic hazards and conduct employee training.
American Trucking Associations and the California Trucking Assn. have challenged the standard in court. The associations argue that it is not scientifically based and that the California OSHA Standards Board failed to fulfill its obligation to take into account the substantial costs to employers.
The lawsuit is in the early stages and won’t be heard until early next year.
Meanwhile, the standard is in effect, though no citations have been issued. Dean Fryer, spokesman for Cal/OSHA, said a number of investigations are coming to a close and citations may be issued soon.
Warren Hoemann, vice president of the California Trucking Assn., counsels patience in judging the standard’s impact on trucking. “We think it’s too early on that front to know what the costs will be or have any particular history of just who’s going to claim RMIs under the California ergonomics standard,” he said.
North Carolina is following the path that California blazed. Its division of Occupational Safety and Health OSHNC held public meetings in August and has been holding private discussions with members of the business community.
OSHNC is drafting a standard that Assistant Deputy Commissioner Angela Waldorf expects to have ready by Christmas. Allowing time for an informal comment period, she said a formal rulemaking process should begin “at some point in 1999.”
The North Carolina standard reportedly will cover all repetitive stress injuries, including carpal tunnel syndrome, eye strain and back injuries. Ms. Waldorf said she anticipates it will be flexible, simple and programmatic.
“I expect there will be some requirements that employers inform employees about the hazards that they’re exposed to, and that employers have to address the symptoms of problems if there are problems on the job,” she said. “Then employers will have to take some type of action. Beyond that it’s hard to say, but those basic concepts will be addressed.”
E.L. “Eb” Peters Jr., president of the North Carolina Trucking Assn., has heard that the standard probably will be directed at lifting.
Mr. Peters, one of the business leaders who opposes the standard, believes it would be impractical and costly for trucking. Besides, the evidence the state cites is only anecdotal, he said.
“It’s a frightening thing to think about, particularly with the lack of information and data out there,” he said. “It’s hard for me to believe that the reasonable people at the Department of Labor would even think of such a thing.”
Mr. Peters has been involved in meetings between North Carolina Labor Secretary Harry Paine and state legislators. Some of the legislators agree with him that a standard is a poor idea, he said.
If OSHNC does develop a standard, it will require approval by a legislative committee, and Mr. Peters hopes to convince the lawmakers not to adopt it.
“It would have a huge impact on the trucking industry, especially the folks who do package and less-than-truckload services,” he said. “Just the fact that companies would have to review the standard and include that as one of the duties and responsibilities of their human resources or safety personnel is something else that would require more records and paperwork.”
In Washington state, the Department of Labor and Industries has made the issue a top priority. “We must do more to prevent these costly injuries and illnesses. They represent a huge toll of pain, suffering and lost productivity,” said Gary Moore, director of the department.
The department is holding seven rule development conferences throughout the state this month at which ergonomics specialists review the issues and the public comments.
An advisory committee of state officials, business people and labor representatives will be formed to study the information collected at the conferences and make recommendations on the proposed standard.
Department officials have no agenda beyond that, and they say they have no preconceptions about the standard. “That’s the purpose of the conferences, to hear what people have to say,” said spokeswoman Cheryl Moore.
But the state currently holds employers responsible for ergonomics hazards. According to its industrial hygiene manager, John Peard, the labor department issues 10 to 20 citations a year to business owners under its accident prevention standard and its general duty clause.
Jim Tutton, vice president of Washington Trucking Assns., knows of no citations received by trucking companies for ergonomics violations, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t concerned.
“Depending on the rule they write, it could conceivably have a serious impact on trucking, so we certainly have a concern about that,” he said. But he added: “Right now we’re kind of in the dark. We don’t know where it starts, where it ends, or what’s in the middle.”
Oregon’s Occupational Safety and Health Division has no official ergonomics standard. Like North Carolina and Washington, however, inspectors do cite employers for ergonomic hazards under more general standards.
Last year the agency notified employers in certain industries, including trucking, that it would investigate possible ergonomic problems more aggressively.
The targeted industries, according to state statistics, had a high percentage of ergonomic injuries, according to Barry Jones, enforcement policy manager. One purpose of the letter was to stress that employers should focus on the problem, he said.
The division recently issued a directive to all its inspectors to ensure inspections are carried out uniformly and to let employers know what is expected of them, Mr. Jones said.
“It’s still a little confusing for people if you’re not familiar with it,” he said. “But at least this puts it out there, and if an employer has any questions, they can call us up.”
Oregon has no plan to write a standard “at this moment,” Mr. Jones said. “I felt we have enough rules to address this issue, and we’ll see if they’re effective.”
Besides California, North Carolina, Washington and Oregon, 19 other states set and enforce their own occupational safety and health programs.
That more might jump on the ergonomics bandwagon worries the American Trucking Associations’ director of occupational safety, Stuart Flatow.
“You start getting states drafting various ergonomics standards,” he said. “The states will have these separate programs and they’ll all have differences. An industry like trucking clearly can’t live with that, so if that happens the industry will have to go to the feds and say ‘We can’t live with this, you have to promulgate one uniform standard.’ ”
