Masonry Magazine September 2001 Page. 6
A CALL FOR REASONABLE MEASURES FROM OSHA
During the past few months, U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao initiated a series of public hearings for the purpose of receiving input from the business community, labor, the public health field as well as members of Congress to discuss possible approaches to addressing ergonomic injuries. The Secretary has made public her belief that a consensus has not been reached on this issue. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences has issued a new report on ergonomic injuries noting that "no single strategy is or will be effective for all types of industry".
Four days before George Bush took office back in January, the Clinton Administration issued a 600-page OSHA Ergonomics Standard. Shortly after Bush took office, the Congress rescinded that new OSHA regulation and Bush signed the bill, which stopped its implementation. Now Secretary Chao, through careful deliberations, is looking to take a more reasonable approach to ergonomic injuries and possible government regulations for the workplace. The Secretary will use several principles that will guide any new ergonomic standard. They are prevention: emphasizing the prevention of injuries before they occur; sound science: based on the best available science and research; incentive driven: focusing on cooperation between OSHA and employers; flexibility: taking account the varying capabilities and characteristics of different businesses and workers; feasibility: recognizing the cost of compliance to small business; and clarity: which would include short, simple and common sense instructions.
During hearings, the Secretary sought answers to three questions, which would aid the Secretary in her determination of any new ergonomics standard. They were: (1) What is an ergonomic injury? (2) How can OSHA, employers and employees determine whether an ergonomic injury was caused by work-related activities or non-work related activities and if the ergonomic injury was caused by a combination of the two what should be the appropriate response? (3) What are the most useful and cost-effective types of government involvement to address workplace ergonomic injuries (such as rulemaking, guidelines, best practices, consultations, or partnerships)?
An ergonomic standard is of critical importance to the Mason Contractors Association of America and the entire masonry industry for a number of reasons. First, few construction trades would feel the impact of an ergonomic regulation harder than the masonry trade since our trade is so labor intensive. Our trade has not enjoyed the same impact of technological advances as other trades. We simply cannot build masonry walls in a factory and ship them to a jobsite as easy and cost-effectively as other trades. We also do not enjoy the technology of items such as power tools to install our products. Masonry is installed today, much the same way as it was decades and even centuries ago, and that is by hand. Since our materials are hand-installed at a jobsite, our labor force would be impacted as much if not more than any other trade by an ergonomic standard. The method of installing a brick or the weight of installing a concrete block is of deep concern to our industry, especially with our limited labor force. We are open to any reasonable method of easing the strain of installing our materials especially if it can retard the attrition our labor force experiences every year.
president's message
This, of course, is not to say that we are resistant to the sensitivities that ergonomics plays in our industry. We have exhibited for years our industry's commitment to easing the burden on our labor force. Innovations in masonry scaffolding has eased our workers efforts to handle the installation of both brick and block. With these advances, workers are no longer required to bend down to reach materials. Most recently, advances in developing lighter weight concrete block have eased the strain of backs and wrists. We believe that these advances, not mandated by OSHA or ergonomic standards, are good for the future of the masonry industry and the health of our labor force upon which we are so reliant. Our industry must take care of our labor force or we simply will be out of business.
Given the importance of an ergonomic regulation and the severity of its financial impact it can have on an industry so reliant on its labor force and the inability the industry has in applying "factory installation techniques, "I urge Secretary Chao to carefully consider the economic impact any regulation will have on the masonry industry.
In written testimony to Secretary Chao, the MCAA urged her to include the following recommendations:
• An ergonomic regulation should emphasize voluntary participation based on recommended guidelines and advisories on practices that could eliminate ergonomic injuries.
• OSHA should seek partnerships with trade associations to develop industry-specific guidelines for adoption and implementation by industry employers and labor unions. Incentives should be provided by OSHA to those contractors that are voluntarily implementing safety programs.
• OSHA should implement a comprehensive educational program to assist in educating the nation's workforce on the means to minimize ergonomics issues not linked to the workplace.
• A complete cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine the potential economic devastation that an ergonomic standard could have on the masonry industry.
Although OSHA's focus initially remains in the manufacturing area, the opportunity of implementing an issued ergonomic regulation by future administrations to the construction industry will be based on the ergonomic initiatives now being considered by OSHA for manufacturing. We urge Secretary Chao to consider the impact that a manufacturing ergonomic standard would have on other industries as well as the construction industry, should a future administration choose to regulate the construction industry.
Richard M. Johnston, President MCAA