January 31, 2000

OSHA Docket Office
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

Subject: Ergonomics Program Standard

I wish to offer my comments in opposition to this proposed standard. The problem is not the proposed standard itself, although I take exception to some provisions. The problem is rather the whole approach to enforcement. Based on my nearly 30 years experience in workplace safety and health, it is apparent that:

1. The bulk of the OSHA field staff simply does not have the experience necessary to enforce a standard of this type.

2. Ergonomics does not readily fit a compliance framework. Determining the adequacy of an employer’s management process is open to wide interpretation; it is impossible to draw a clear distinction between being in compliance or not.

3. The underlying assumptions of OSHA’s way of doing business need overhauling before the agency can proceed on a new mission of this vast scale. Indeed, the issues of ergonomics call into question the fundamental practices of regulation that have evolved over the past few decades.

Everyone needs to recognize that the scale of workplace ergonomics is huge, amounting to a third branch of OSHA, equal in scope to each of the entire fields of safety and industrial hygiene. This is not just another standard. There are ergonomics issues involved in every job in every industry — by definition. There is too much at stake to proceed with this proposal using the routines of the past.

My personal evidence of OSHA’s deficiencies include:

• On repeated occasions I have seen the results of OSHA inspections where the compliance officers were plainly wrong in what they were advocating. The issues included misinterpretation of injury data, inappropriate use of quantitative methods, and dubious recommendations for task improvement.

• I represented the meat industry in working with OSHA to develop the ergonomics guidelines for meatpacking. In drafting those guidelines, the OSHA personnel in Washington D.C. provided sensible interpretations of their intent. However, many of the field staff have gone their own direction and have cited companies in ways that are inappropriate and contrary to the understandings of our discussions in preparing that document.

• I have observed OSHA insist on actions that have wasted money without helping any workers. I find it sobering when I end up advising companies to set up a two-track approach — one for worker safety and the other to satisfy OSHA. This is no way to run the nation’s workplace safety process.

• Whole industries often never know where they stand on particular issues. There are few, if any, mechanisms to sit down ahead of time and find meaningful approaches to difficult problems. One simply waits for some OSHA inspector somewhere to cite somebody and let the chips fall where they may. Countries like Sweden, which leads the world in ergonomics and workplace safety, have much better procedures for this.

• Congress enacted OSHA in 1970 explicitly to serve as police, not as educators or advisors. This probably was appropriate then, but not now, and has led to glaringly unsuitable policies. I was told by an inspector regarding a company with an admirable ergonomics program, "I know [this company] has a good ergonomics program; my job is to poke holes in it." OSHA should instead have held a press conference to highlight a success story, but they chose to cite the company for some minor shortcomings.

• The relations between OSHA and industry have been unnecessarily adversarial, and I have observed little or no trust, even in companies that have outstanding safety efforts. Even I do not trust OSHA any longer.

Ergonomics is good for business and — market forces prevailing — a good case can be made that there is no need for an ergonomics standard. By applying the principles of ergonomics in a systematic way, employers can cut costs such as workers’ compensation, turnover, and production inefficiencies.

Yet, standards have their value. Many employers need the authority of a standard to kickstart an activity like ergonomics and to focus energies and commitment. Public employers especially often cannot make changes without a standard. Moreover, market forces alone may take too long; employee safety is at stake, and permanent disabilities can be prevented in the meantime.

We need a new type of regulation, one suited for this century, not the past one. It sounds trite to say we should focus is on goals rather than petty details, but the basis of enforcement as we know it relies on the petty details.

There is opportunity here. Ergonomics is all about innovation. The ambiguities of this proposed standard give us the chance to be creative. We need to find new mechanisms for employers, employees, and OSHA to communicate and make decisions together. We need to develop new procedures for insuring that organizations behave as they should.

I was instrumental in the 1970s and 1980s in recognizing that upper extremity disorders were a common workplace problem and in raising industry awareness about the value of ergonomics. Done well, ergonomics can be a boon to both efficiency and employee well being. I do not want to see the field degenerate into pettiness and meaningless activities. I cannot support an OSHA ergonomics standard until the serious deficiencies in the OSHA enforcement process are rectified.

Until the agency and the legislation behind it are revamped, OSHA cannot be trusted to do as it promises. OSHA is simply not capable of enforcing a standard as vague and complex as this ergonomics proposal.

- - -

My statement of qualifications for offering these comments is attached.

Sincerely,

• Author of a wide array of manuals, videotapes, and training materials, including four hardcover books:

  The Rules of Work — A Practical Engineering Guide to Ergonomics (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2000), a basic text on workplace ergonomics.

  The Ergonomics Kit for General Industry (New York: Lewis Publishers, 1999), a "how to" manual for workplace practitioners on setting up practical workplace ergonomics programs in a manufacturing or service environment.

  The Office Ergonomics Kit (New York: Lewis Publishers, 1999), a "how to" manual equivalent to the above kit, but focused on the office environment.

  The Ergonomics Edge (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), a lay language primer on understanding and using ergonomics that makes good business sense.