Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?

Ergonomics in the Workplace: Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?

Order Code 97-724 E
Updated January 23, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Ergonomics in the Workplace:
Is It Time for an OSHA Standard?
Edward Rappaport
Analyst in Industry Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
Improper ergonomic design of jobs is one of the leading causes cited for work-
related illness, accounting for perhaps a third of employers’ costs under state workers’
compensation laws, according to OSHA. Due to the wide variety of circumstances,
however, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly,
while scientific understanding of the problem is not complete.
On November 14, 2000, OSHA promulgated an ergonomics standard. It would
require employers to set up control programs for job categories where “work-related
musculoskeletal disorders” are reported. These programs would include job hazard
analysis and control, medical management of reported injuries, employee participation,
training and evaluation.
Congress has signaled its interest in the issue for a number of years. After a draft
proposal was released in 1995, riders to the Labor Department appropriations bills were
passed preventing OSHA from issuing a standard during most of fiscal years 1995
through 1998. After the final standard was released in November 2000, opponents of
OSHA’s approach introduced and quickly passed a congressional resolution of
disapproval (S.J.Res. 6), which revoked the rule upon being signed by the President.
Consideration is being given to further legislation that would instruct OSHA to develop
a new standard. (This report will be updated to reflect significant congressional
actions.)
A Complex Phenomenon
Ergonomics is the science of designing worksystems taking into account the “human
factors,” so as to make them efficient as well as healthful. The philosophy is one of
“fitting the job to the worker.” A particular concern, and the source of increasing
numbers of injuries, is the question of body position and motion (“kinesiology”). A wide
variety of ailments can occur when jobs entail repetitive motion, forceful exertions or
awkward postures. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
(OSHA), improper physical design of jobs is one of the leading causes of work-related
illness. But because of the wide variety of tasks, equipment, stresses and injuries
involved, any comprehensive standard would probably have to be complex and costly.
Ergonomics is a difficult issue because, while there is substantial evidence of a
problem, it is very complex and only partially understood. Cumulative trauma disorders
can be aggravated by non-work activities and be complicated by work and non-work
psychological factors such as stress. A host of new products and services has become
popular – such as back braces and newly designed keyboards – but there is little in the
way of scientific evidence about whether they do any good.1 The state of scientific
knowledge about ergonomics – especially the role of non-work and psychological factors
in producing observed syndromes – has become a key issue in the debate over how OSHA
should proceed.
Even if the problem were fully understood, the wide variety of circumstances will
bedevil efforts to frame simple, cost-effective rules. What are called “ergonomic” injuries
are actually a range of distinct problems, much as “cancer” is not one but a family of
diseases. The term may cover stresses as diverse as repetitive motion, awkward postures,
contact stress (as from hammering), vibration and forceful muscular exertions.
In the debate over ergonomics, very large monetary estimates have been cited for
both the benefits of a national standard and the costs thereof. Many businesses take the
problem seriously and have extensive voluntary programs to deal with it.2 OSHA
estimates that ergonomic injuries and illnesses cost employers $20 billion in workers’
compensation claims, or one-third of their total workers’ compensation costs. Thus, the
agency contends, savings on compensation costs could largely, if not fully, offset the
employers’ costs of the new ergonomics standard, which OSHA estimates to be about $5
billion per year. Industry estimates of the rule’s costs range much higher – as high as $90
billion per year, according to the Employment Policy Foundation.3
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 740 thousand lost-workday cases
during 1999 due to sprains and strains (some of which might not be considered
“ergonomic”) and another 45 thousand due to carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or tendinitis,
which together accounted for 46% of all lost workday injuries. While sprains and strains
are similar in severity to other types of injury (a median of 6 days away from work), CTS
1 For example, back-support belts for lifting jobs became popular in the 1980s, but no well-
controlled study of them was available until 1996. Rundle, Rhonda. Back Corsets Receive
Support in UCLA Study. Wall Street Journal, October 9, 1996. p. B1,B8. See also Oldenburg,
Don. The “Ergonomics” Boom. Washington Post, February 25, 1997. p. E5. Murphy, Kate.
What’s Correct Ergonomically? Good Question. New York Times, October 9, 1995. p. D3.
2 For example, the automotive industry has ongoing programs in cooperation with the United
Auto Workers. NUMMI, the California joint venture of General Motors and Toyota, reduced
ergonomic injuries by 73% from 1993 to 1998, and the company believes product quality has
benefited. Fernberg, Patricia. Ergonomics is Driving Quality. Occupational Hazards, May
1999. p. 79-83.
3 Details of their estimation can be found at the website:
[http://www.epf.org/documents/oshacomments.pdf].

CRS-3
cases have a median loss of 25 workdays.4 However, there is some question about
whether the problem is already coming under control. While the number of reported cases
of musculoskeletal disorders grew rapidly to 784 thousand in the decade ending in 1992,
they since backed down to 582 thousand by 1999. Labor representatives attribute the drop
to increased OSHA enforcement as well as labor-management programs in key industries.
But an industry coalition commented that the figures show that repetitive stress injuries
“are not an epidemic.”
OSHA Rulemaking
As the number of reported cases increased rapidly in the 1980s, OSHA started paying
more attention to ergonomics, relying on its general authority pending development of a
formal standard. Notable cases were brought and remedial settlements reached in the
meatpacking and automotive industries. In 1992, OSHA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking, and in 1994 circulated a draft proposal, and in 1995 a revised draft. The
1994 proposal received a negative reaction from major industry groups, and the National
Association of Manufacturers helped form the National Coalition on Ergonomics to
oppose its adoption. The 1995 draft was somewhat less extensive, particularly in
coverage. Rather than requiring comprehensive action by all employers, the revised
approach was to have employers do an initial self-evaluation to identify whether certain
“signal risk factors” were present.
Although OSHA was prohibited by appropriations riders, during most of fiscal 1995
through 1999, from promulgating formal ergonomics proposals, the agency was able to
continue development work, and issued its final standard on November 14, 2000. It
would apply to all employers in all industries (except construction, agriculture, railroads
and maritime) and firms of all sizes. It took effect formally on January 16, 2001, although
most of the employers’ responsibilities were not to begin until October, 2001. Before that
could happen, a congressional resolution voided the rule. (See below.)
The final regulation was a program standard, meaning that employers would be
required to establish ergonomic programs in their workplaces under the general guidelines
of the standard. The specific preventive and corrective measures to be taken were to
come out of those programs, rather than being mandated in detail by OSHA. Not all
employers would need to establish programs. The obligation to do so would be triggered
if and when a work-related “musculoskeletal disorder” (MSD) is reported, if it occurs in
a job that has certain risk factors – forceful exertions, repetition, vibration and awkward
postures – playing a significant part in each workday. (The risk factors are spelled out in
a 2-page “Basic Screening Tool.” The definition of MSDs is discussed further in this
report infra.) Whether or not a program is required, all covered employers must furnish
their employees with basic information about ergonomic injuries and how they are to be
reported and dealt with under this standard.
Upon report of an MSD, the employer must either fully control the reported
ergonomic hazard within 90 days (the “Quick Fix” option) or implement a full
4 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lost-Worktime Injuries and Illnesses:
Characteristics, 1997. Washington: the Bureau, 1999.

CRS-4
ergonomics program. In either case, the employer must also take steps to prevent
aggravation and promote healing of those injuries that were reported (“MSD
management”).
An ergonomics program consists of management leadership, employee participation
and training, hazard analysis and control, medical management for those suffering
injuries, and program evaluation. Hazard analysis means that problem jobs must be
looked at closely by management in consultation with affected employees “to pinpoint the
cause of the problem.” Corrective actions include (in order of preference) physical
redesign of the workstation or equipment, modification of work procedure or technique,
reduction of exposure (e.g., through job rotation), and personal protective equipment.
Medical management means referral to a qualified health care practitioner (at the
employer’s expense), compliance with the practitioner’s recommendations, and
continuation of pay and benefits during any necessary work restriction (for up to three
months).
An ergonomics program could be discontinued when the risk factors for all jobs have
been reduced below the levels described in the Basic Screening Tool. Unless and until
that is achieved, the employer must continue trying to reduce the hazards to the extent
feasible, with formal reviews of progress and options at least every three years.
In the initial response to the proposed standard, the most controversial of these
provisions was work restriction protection (WRP). In cases where continued work could
cause aggravation of an ergonomic injury, WRP would require that the employer maintain
the employee’s pay and benefits at their normal level for up to 90 days if assigned to less
productive work, or with 90% of pay (and full benefits) if not able to work at all. Critics
charge that WRP constituted a substantial expansion of workers compensation benefits
without legislative authority and that workers compensation has always been a matter of
state legislation. OSHA contended that it has sufficient authority and that a number of
previous health standards have included such provisions. The agency said that WRP was
especially needed for this standard because so much depends on employees reporting their
injuries. Without WRP, they might fear being laid off without pay or with relatively
meager workers compensation benefits.
The scope of the rule – which employers and which jobs require action – did depend
to a great extent on the triggering event of a work-related MSD. Turning, then, to its
definition, an MSD is a disorder of the soft tissues associated with the skeleton, and that
is caused by cumulative trauma (also known as repetitive stress). The definition in
OSHA’s standard explicitly excludes injuries caused by single events, such as trips and
falls. To constitute a “MSD incident,” the injury must be serious enough to require
medical treatment beyond first aid, or to have “signs or symptoms” that last more than
seven consecutive days. Finally, “work-related” means that “exposure in the workplace
caused or contributed to an MSD or significantly aggravated a pre-existing MSD.” (Note
also that action need not be taken unless the employee reporting the injury is in a job that
routinely involves exposure to the risk factors spelled out in the Basic Screening Tool.)
Since key responsibilities under the rule would be triggered by the reporting of one
MSD, there is something of a stochastic (random) element to its scope. Large
establishments with ergonomically problematic jobs would probably have to start
corrective programs fairly soon after the rule goes into effect, while other establishments

CRS-5
with less hazardous jobs could go years without such responsibilities. However, this is
not a hard and fast rule, but would depend on when and where MSDs are reported. The
stochastic element would play a further role in the case of the Quick Fix. The employer
could use that option only if there were no more than one incident reported in a job, and
two in the establishment, over the preceding 18 months. In short, smaller employers
would be more likely to avoid some requirements, at least for periods, but this was not
assured.
Opposition to the OSHA Standard
Riders to Labor Department appropriations bills prohibited OSHA from issuing a
proposed or final standard on ergonomics during FY1995, 1996 and 1998. (In a close
floor vote, the rider proposed for FY1997 was deleted.)
By 1997, the argument that scientific knowledge of ergonomics was inadequate for
rulemaking had come to the fore. Specifically, many Members proposed that further work
on the rulemaking should be suspended until independent research institutions could
report on the state of scientific knowledge. It was argued that an independent, expert
review was needed because OSHA had shown bias in its interpretation of available
studies. Over the next few years, a number of governmental reviews of the scientific
literature were published. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH, a research agency in the Department of Health and Human Services) released
its extensive review of the literature in July, 1997.5 Pursuant to congressional mandates,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued reports in October, 1998 and January
2001 summarizing the results of a 2-day workshop and an extensive review of the
literature. 6 Basically, these reports found a significant statistical link between workplace
exposures and musculoskeletal disorders, but also noted that the exact causative factors
and mechanisms are not understood. For example, it is recognized that non-work
activities may interact with work exposures to aggravate symptoms, so that separating the
effects of each is problematic.
Stand-alone measures, H.R. 987 (Blunt) and S. 1070 (Bond), were introduced in the
106th Congress, to prohibit OSHA from issuing an ergonomics rule before the NAS
completed its second study. H.R. 987 was passed by the House in August, 1999 by a vote
of 217-209.7 On November 23, 1999 – shortly after the Congress recessed without further
action on these measures – OSHA issued its draft standard and expressed the intention of
finalizing the rule by the end of 2000.
5 Bernard, Bruce, ed. Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) and Workplace Factors. Available via
World Wide Web at: [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ergosci1.html].
6 Sandler, Howard. Evaluating the Science of Ergonomics. Occupational Health, November
1998. p. 73-74. The second NAS report, Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review
of the Evidence, is available at the Academy website: [http://www.nas.edu/].
7 Debate in Congressional Record of August 3, 1999. pp. H6901-H6927. The Senate took up
a similar measure (a rider to an appropriation), but it was withdrawn in the face of a threatened
filibuster. Congressional Record, October 7, 1999. pp. S12,159-12,176.

CRS-6
In June, 2000 opponents were able to get a restrictive rider attached to Labor’s
appropriation bill (H.R. 4577) in both chambers, which would have prohibited issuance
of a final rule through FY2001,8 but a final bill was still not passed, leaving the issue
unresolved when Congress recessed for the elections. During that recess, on November
14, OSHA issued the final rule.
As soon as the rule was issued, opponents launched actions to overturn it in various
forums, both judicial and legislative. Two industry groups filed suit in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, arguing variously that the standard exceeded
OSHA’s authority, that the agency did not follow proper procedure, and that the standard
was vague, incomprehensible, and not based on sound medical science or economic
analysis. Labor groups also sued in separate actions, arguing that employers should be
required to act proactively, before an injury “trigger.”
However, the more expeditious course for opponents proved to be the Congressional
Review Act (CRA – 5 U.S.C. Sections 801-808). In the first-ever application of that
statute, a “resolution of disapproval,” S.J.Res. 6 (Nickles et al.), was introduced March
1, 2001, passed by the Senate on March 6 by vote of 56-44, and passed by the House the
next day by a vote of 223-206. The President signed the measure into law as P.L. 107-5
on March 20. Thereupon, the standard was nullified.
The Bush Administration, after its own study of the matter, announced a new action
plan on April 5, 2002, consisting of four parts: guidelines, outreach, enforcement and
research. The guidelines will be advisory rather than mandatory, and tailored to particular
industries or tasks, with a draft of the first one (pertaining to the nursing home industry
and the task of lifting patients) issued in August 2002. Although the guidelines are not
mandatory, enforcement will be accomplished by pursuing clearly negligent employers
via an existing, broad provision of law known as the “general duty clause.”
Some Members of Congress, believing that a new, formal rulemaking leading to a
mandatory standard is called for, sponsored S. 2184 (Breaux et al.) in the 107th Congress,
(approved by the Senate HELP Committee in June 2002). This would have directed
OSHA to produce an ergonomics rule within two years that would: apply only to work-
related disorders, state employers’ obligations “in clear terms,” and not expand
employers’ obligations under the workers compensation laws. Sponsors of the bill, many
of whom voted for the resolution of disapproval, emphasized that they believe ergonomic
problems need to be controlled even if OSHA’s previously attempted approach was not
acceptable.
8 The House provision, authored by Ms. Northup, was adopted by the Appropriations Committee
and upheld in a floor vote June 8, 2000 on Mr. Traficant’s motion to strike (debate at
Congressional Record pages H4094-4104). The Senate amendment, authored by Mr. Enzi, was
added on the floor on June 22 (debate at pages S5590-5609, 5629-35 and 5641-5646).