Tag: ergonomics

Does Obama Have Muscle to Win Ergonomics Fight?

Like actor Mickey Rourke’s amazing return to the Hollywood ring in The Wrestler, labor is back; and President Obama is in its corner cheering its revival. After eight years struggling on the ropes during the Bush administration, labor has bounced back into the Washington ring and is gaining strength — and it’s bringing the ergonomics fight with it.

“I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem; to me it’s part of the solution,” President Obama was widely quoted as saying recently. During his campaign, Obama repeatedly promised American workers a safer, healthier work environment. Industry watchers have taken that to mean a return to and an expansion of the ergonomic standards initiated during the Clinton administration but quickly rescinded under Bush. With a Democratic-controlled Congress backing him up, Obama appears to have the muscle to force ergonomics back into the legislative ring.

By naming California Democratic Representative Hilda Solis as his new Labor Secretary, Obama appears to be saying to U.S. industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a long-time vocal foe of ergonomics legislation, “Bring it on!” Although she’s still running the confirmation gauntlet, Solis has received the recommendation of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and is expected to be confirmed, possibly as soon as tomorrow.

The daughter of immigrants and union workers, Solis has long ties to labor groups and has been a champion of ergonomics in the workplace since joining the House of Representatives in 2001. Her home state of California is the only state in the U.S. that mandates ergonomic standards that force employers to provide a safe and healthy work environment for their workers. Concerned about the cost of implementing ergonomic standards, those opposed to ergonomic legislation fear that California’s tough ergonomics rules will be used to create a national model.

That Obama would eventually grapple with ergonomics to improve labor conditions has been a given since his campaign days. But there’s been a lot of speculation in the industry and in Washington about how and when Obama would try to take down ergonomic opponents. By calling Solis into his corner, Obama seems to be getting ready to enter the ring. It will be interesting to listen to the President’s State of the Union speech tomorrow night. A direct statement about ergonomics or workplace safety could indicate that the fight is on!

Adoption of Ergonomic Program Can Deflect Workforce Crisis

U.S. industry is headed toward a workforce crisis that will require critical changes in our national paradigm. Our workforce is not only declining in numbers, it is becoming increasingly multicultural. Even more challenging is the fact that workers now entering the workforce expect greater challenge and greater rewards from their jobs than their predecessors. In the keynote speech at last summer’s Material Handling and Logistics Summit, Benoit Montreuil, president of the College Industry Council on Material Handling Education, warned that long-term solutions to the pending workforce crisis will require American industry to adjust its attitude toward its workforce and develop new programs to protect the health and safety of that workforce. Continue reading “Adoption of Ergonomic Program Can Deflect Workforce Crisis”

Is OSHA Underreporting Injuries?

At a recent Congressional hearing, critics charged that OSHA is underreporting injuries. In questioning the competence of the federal agency designated to protect the health and safety of American workers, critics cited several independent studies, contending that nearly half of all workplace injuries go unreported to OSHA.

Independent studies cited both reviewed the impact of changes to OSHA’s injury-reporting rules and compared injury data reported to OSHA by employers with that reported to state workers’ compensation plans. In one study, a Michigan State University professor of medicine noted that while workplace fatalities have not declined over the years, reported injuries have declined significantly. He found the data suspect. According to the professor, a decline in injuries should have resulted in a similar decline in fatalities. 

The significant data discrepancies between OSHA and state worker’s compensation plans were attributed to numerous possible causes, including the underreporting of injuries to employers by immigrant workers concerned about job retention, reclassification of workers by employers into non-reporting job descriptions, managers discouraging injury reporting, and several other causes. Reports came just shy of charging employer fraud, criticizing OSHA for relying solely on employer statistics.

OSHA defended its reporting procedures, pointing out that in addition to employer submitted data, each year its agents conduct 250 record-keeping audits of employers. OSHA said audits indicate that 90% of employer-submitted data on injuries and illness is accurate. Defending OSHA before the House Committee on Education and Labor, OSHA assistant secretary Edwin Foulke, Jr. said, “In Fiscal Year 2008, of the almost 57,000 violations issued so far, 80% have been categorized as serious, willful, repeat or failure-to-abate, the highest percentage ever recorded by the agency. We are also effectively targeting our inspections.” While Foulke noted that violations were found on 78% of the construction worksites inspected this year, he contended that OSHA’s diligence is responsible for the lowest workplace injuries, illnesses and fatalities in U.S. history.

ANSI Upholds Construction Ergonomic Standard

The American National Standards Institute recently upheld its adoption of ergonomic standards in the construction industry. Rejecting an appeal by the Construction Industry Employer Coalition to withdraw adoption of the approved voluntary consensus standard on the reduction of musculoskeletal problems (ANSI/ASSE A10.40-2007), ANSI reaffirmed the importance of ergonomic design and safe practices in preventing injuries to construction workers.

The appeal by a coalition of five construction trade associations was the latest attempt to derail the ANSI standard approved last year. The coalition first appealed the ergonomic standard during hearings held in May 2007. An appeals panel found those complaints to be without merit, a decision supported by the American Society of Safety Engineers, and the standard was formally approved on July 23, 2007. Shortly thereafter, the coalition filed the formal appeal that was just rejected.

“We are pleased with ANSI Board of Standards Review’s decision to uphold the approval and publication of the A10.40 standard, said ASSE VP James Smith, CSP.” At ASSE we are committed to the protection of people, property and the environment and this standard is an excellent step in protecting workers from injury and in helping to create safer and more healthy workplaces.”

“National consensus standards, such as A10.40, reflect the insights of the final users and the opinions of professionals who work at all levels of public and private sectors in technology development, safety and health, manufacturing, training, financial analysis, personnel and academia,” said A10 Committee Chair Richard King, CSP, CRSP. “This balanced perspective enables standards to be crafted in a manner that benefits and protects standard users.”

The Rise of Ergonomics in Industrial Design

The staggering cost to American industry (see our previous post), coupled with the movement to make the workplace healthier and safer gave rise to the use of ergonomics in industrial design. Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker with an emphasis on worker safety and comfort. Its goal is to maximize efficiency and productivity by reducing worker fatigue and discomfort. The implementation of ergonomic principles in America signifies a radical change in the way industry approaches equipment design.

According to Wikipedia, “The term ergonomics is derived from the Greek words ergon (work) and nomos (natural laws)” and was first coined by Wojciech Jastrzebowski in an article written in 1857.  But the idea of ergonomics is not new. In the 5th century BC, the ancient Greeks used ergonomic principles in designing tools and performing certain tasks. Hippocrates’ description of a surgeon’s workplace shows ergonomic principles at work. Frederick Taylor, who pioneered Scientific Management in the late 1800s, sought the optimum method of performing a task. In experiments, he was able to triple the amount of coal workers could shovel by reducing the size and weight of the shovel. In the early 1900s, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth built on his method with their Time and Motion Studies. The Gilbreths worked to increase task efficiency by eliminating unnecessary steps and movements. In application, they reduced the number of motions required to lay bricks from 18 to 4.5, tripling hourly productivity. But it was the industrial demands of World War II that allowed the principles of ergonomics to be applied across a broad range of applications, heralding the modern birth of this new branch of applied science.

California was the first state to adopt an ergonomics standard in 1997, prompting other states to consider similar standards. While there is no overriding federal ergonomic safety standard, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has developed ergonomic standards for specific industries and tasks. Compliance is addressed under OSHA’s General Clause.

Next time: The practical benefits of ergonomics

Using Ergonomic Equipment to Reduce Injury Rates

In our last post we talked about the challenges of managing a multicultural workforce in material handling, logistics, warehousing, fulfillment and other businesses. OSHA has reported higher than normal injury and on-the-job death rates for foreign-born Hispanic workers who comprise a growing segment of America’s hourly workforce. While language and cultural differences appear to be at the root of the problem, injury and death rates can be cut by using intuitive, ergonomically-designed, powered equipment to meet your material handling needs.

When communication is an issue, equipment that is easy to operate can improve training speed and reduce potential worker operation errors that can lead to injury. When controls are intuitively designed, communication gaps are narrowed further. What might not be grasped or fully remembered in verbal communication can be intuited by gesture or familiarity with similar equipment. This is not to say that a thorough training and safety program is not necessary, only that easy-to-operate equipment shortens the time between initial training and competent operation. Ergonomically-designed equipment is built around the worker, not the task, making it extremely user-friendly and an excellent choice in multicultural work environments.

Ergonomic material handling equipment that is electric or battery powered can further reduce injury and workplace death rates. In material handling situations, most injuries come from pulling, pushing or lifting loads and are the result of over-stretching or over-straining muscles. Powered equipment removes most of the need for heavy physical exertion from pulling, pushing and lifting tasks. By allowing the equipment to do the heavy lifting, so to speak, fewer situations are presented during the workday that might place workers at risk of injury.

To find out more about ergonomically-designed material handling equipment, visit the DJ Products website.

Ergonomic Wheel Design Improves Productivity

In our last post we talked about the importance of wheel design in reducing friction. But why is that important? The answer is that any design element that decreases the force that must be exerted by the operator to manipulate a piece of equipment increases efficiency and decreases the risk of potential injury. The result is greater productivity. This is the goal of ergonomic design both in the design of equipment and the environment in which it will be used.

When a wheeled piece of equipment is used, the operator must first overcome inertia and friction. The initial force necessary to start an object in motion is far greater than the sustained force necessary to keep it moving. Once in motion, optimum sustained, or rolling, force is achieved when a steady, constant velocity is achieved. Any need to decrease or increase velocity requires increased force to combat inertia. This is particularly noticeable during turning and maneuvering when significant force must be applied to change direction. Stopping a piece of wheeled equipment requires the same high level of force as starting it. As when accelerating, the operator must overcome high levels of inertia and friction to decelerate.

The four physical elements required to move a piece of wheeled equipment — starting, rolling, turning and stopping — can place tremendous stress on the operator’s musculoskeletal system. If performing these tasks manually, workers frequently overexert and strain muscles while applying the necessary force to start or stop a piece of equipment. Turning and positioning equipment can cause operators to assume asymmetric body postures during exertion which can cause musculoskeletal injury.

Ergonomically designed carts and tugs seek to achieve the optimal wheel size, type, placement and composition to decrease the force an operator must exert to move a piece of equipment.

Ergonomics Opponents Girding for Battle

California Democratic Representative Hilda Solis was confirmed yesterday as President Obama’s Secretary of Labor by a Senate vote of 80-17. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is already said to be marshalling its forces. With a very pro-labor Solis at the helm, the chamber is anticipating a pitched battle over reinstatement — and probably toughening and expansion — of ergonomics laws instituted under Clinton but quickly wiped off the books by Bush.

Solis hails from California, the only state with ergonomics laws that have any bite to them — though Michigan is struggling to pass similar measures. California forces employers into compliance when workplace practices are found wanting. Business leaders and chamber executives fear that Solis will use the tough California model to craft national laws mandating ergonomic practices. Solis has been a persistent champion of labor rights and national ergonomics laws since her election to the U.S. House in 2001.

Solis can expect to have the President’s backing. On the campaign trail last year, Obama discussed the need to address musculoskeletal injuries, telling the Charlotte Observer that OSHA “must attack this problem with all of the tools at its disposal — regulations, enforcement, training and compliance assistance.” He is expected to reverse the Bush administration’s stance on national ergonomic standards.

The chamber considers national ergonomics standards to be “the mother of all regulations,” charging that they would cost businesses millions of dollars, which they call unconscionable at any time, but particularly given the current economy. In stumping against ergonomics regulations, the Chamber cites not only prohibitive expense, but suggests potential for substantial abuse. Opponents of ergonomics laws fear that businesses will be held legally liable for employee musculoskeletal and repetitive motion injuries that happen off the job.

“Let’s fact it: We all go through things in our lives as simple as bad sleeping habits or exercise or recreational activities that would cause our bodies to feel discomfort,” Mare Freedman, director of labor law policy for the chamber told Rob Hotakainen, a reporter with McClatchy Newspapers.

Supporters of national ergonomics laws cite rising health care costs and continuing workplace hazards that take a serious toll on U.S. workers as compelling reasons for instituting national ergonomics standards. Freedman said the chamber doesn’t dispute that providing a safe and healthy workplace is good business practice; however, the group thinks efforts should be voluntary, not mandated. Supporters of ergonomics, charge that many employers won’t act unless forced.