[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 45 (Monday, April 22, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E594-E595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        BUSH ADMINISTRATION FAILS TO PREVENT ERGONOMIC INJURIES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 22, 2002

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Bush 
Administration's failure to promulgate rules to protect America's 
working men and women from the leading cause of workplace injury--
musculoskeletal disorders--is disgraceful. The Congress last year 
unwisely repealed the ergonomics safety standard developed by the 
Clinton Administration after years of study by the leading medical 
researchers in the country. At that time, Labor Secretary Chao pledged 
to develop a scientifically sound standard expeditiously.
  Now, more than a year later, with the findings of three major studies 
confirming the need for an ergonomics standard, the Bush Administration 
has proposed a replacement ergonomics policy that provides for no rule, 
but asks for voluntary compliance instead and, so far, targets only a 
single industry.
  As a result of the Administration's dilatory and simplistic approach, 
millions of workers will suffer preventable injuries and disabilities, 
and costly lawsuits will be used to resolve individual cases of injury.
  The Bush Administration's serious failure to protect our neighbors 
and friends who live with the pain of preventable ergonomic injuries 
has been the subject of extensive and justified criticism. I want to 
share the views of the Contra Costa Times (April 12, 2002) on the need 
for a sound ergonomics standard, and the failure of the Bush 
Administration to address the hazards that injure nearly 2 million 
Americans every year. (Excerpts from the editorial follow:)

                       Safe Job Not a Lot To Ask

       The Bush Administration has let the working person down by 
     allowing workplace rules, such as those regarding ergonomics, 
     to become voluntary. It would be going too far for the 
     government to mandate the brand of

[[Page E595]]

     pens, the type of chairs, the make of computer a company must 
     provide. That's not what safe-workplace laws are about. 
     However, enforceable rules that protect employees and make 
     the working environment safer are not too much to ask, and 
     that should be law, not choice.
       And that's what the administration pulled back from last 
     week. For 10 years the nation's been improving regulations to 
     help prevent muscular and skeletal disorders brought on or 
     intensified by working conditions. In fact, attention to such 
     matters as ergonomics can actually prevent much more serious 
     injuries and maladies that can cause substantial absenteeism.
       So why stop now? Why reverse a positive and still-necessary 
     thing? The government estimates 1.8 million U.S. workers per 
     year suffer ergonomic injuries; yet that's an improvement.
       The Labor Department will develop new guidelines for safe 
     and healthy work environments. Companies will be able to use 
     or ignore these and the present regulations at their 
     discretion.
       It is, of course, in companies' best interests to make the 
     job a place where the workers can work comfortably. It's 
     expensive when employees have to draw on their health 
     benefits, disability and workers' compensation. In the long 
     run it is more costly to have employees suffering from carpal 
     tunnel syndrome, repetitive strain injury, herniated discs 
     and other work-related illnesses than to create a worker-
     friendly environment.
       But many companies, especially those in highly competitive 
     industries, will choose to watch today's bottom line rather 
     than worry about long-term expense. Those people running 
     publicly traded companies may well feel additional pressure 
     to cut ergonomic costs so as to offer short-term profits to 
     the stockholders.

     

                          ____________________