OSHA published a comprehensive ergonomics standard that was subsequently rescinded by Congress using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Since that time, OSHA has been prohibited from passing another ergonomics standard. OSHA's current approach is to publish ergonomic guidelines, which are not legally enforceable, for industries with high incidence rates of MSDs and CTDs.
What is your opinion of OSHA's current approach to ergonomic issues in workplaces? Can you propose an approach that you believe would better address ergonomic issues?
Please respond to one posts from your peers. Please include the name of the person or question to which you are replying in the subject line. For example, "Tom's response to Susan's comment."
ALSO PLEASE REPLY TO ANOTHER STUDENTS COMMENT BELOW
William:
When functioning in a highly charged political environment as well as being subject to congressional approval for rule and law changes. The reality is OSHA can only make recommendations and let lawmakers decide on mandatory versus voluntary or recommended practices. Dudley (2001) argues that OSHA’s research was inadequate and did not provide both the numbers of musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD’s) and how the program would reduce those injuries as well as what casts versus saving would occur for businesses. OSHA indicated that businesses were underreporting these types of injuries and if reporting was accurate the number of incidents would be much higher. This likely supports the assumption that these standards will not become law unless additional research could support the true value as well as the true problem.
OSHA’s current enforcement mechanism outside of voluntary compliance is the use of the general duty clause. While this may be effective in some ways it does not give specific requirements as to the violations that should be accepted as law. One way to address the ergonomic issue could be system engineering as well as coordination with other agencies involved in the improvement of ergonomics. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is an organization that supports voluntary standards and conformity and has over 270,000 businesses listed as partners and is an international organization (ANSI, 2020). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges (ISO, 2020).
I point out these organizations since they could follow a model of either an Alliance Program or an OSHA Strategic Partnership Program with OSHA. Understanding that many companies conduct business internationally or buy equipment from foreign partners, starting to take on more of a global awareness could create an efficiency for OSHA. It also has the benefit of bringing in experts who work in the field of ergonomics and have credibility and insight to develop standards. From earlier studie.
OSHA published a comprehensive ergonomics standard that was subseque.docx
1. OSHA published a comprehensive ergonomics standard that was
subsequently rescinded by Congress using the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). Since that time, OSHA has been prohibited
from passing another ergonomics standard. OSHA's current
approach is to publish ergonomic guidelines, which are not
legally enforceable, for industries with high incidence rates of
MSDs and CTDs.
What is your opinion of OSHA's current approach to ergonomic
issues in workplaces? Can you propose an approach that you
believe would better address ergonomic issues?
Please respond to one posts from your peers. Please include the
name of the person or question to which you are replying in the
subject line. For example, "Tom's response to Susan's
comment."
ALSO PLEASE REPLY TO ANOTHER STUDENTS
COMMENT BELOW
William:
When functioning in a highly charged political environment as
well as being subject to congressional approval for rule and law
changes. The reality is OSHA can only make recommendations
and let lawmakers decide on mandatory versus voluntary or
recommended practices. Dudley (2001) argues that OSHA’s
research was inadequate and did not provide both the numbers
of musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD’s) and how the program
would reduce those injuries as well as what casts versus saving
would occur for businesses. OSHA indicated that businesses
were underreporting these types of injuries and if reporting was
accurate the number of incidents would be much higher. This
likely supports the assumption that these standards will not
become law unless additional research could support the true
2. value as well as the true problem.
OSHA’s current enforcement mechanism outside of voluntary
compliance is the use of the general duty clause. While this may
be effective in some ways it does not give specific requirements
as to the violations that should be accepted as law. One way to
address the ergonomic issue could be system engineering as
well as coordination with other agencies involved in the
improvement of ergonomics. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) is an organization that supports voluntary
standards and conformity and has over 270,000 businesses listed
as partners and is an international organization (ANSI, 2020).
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) brings
together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary,
consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that
support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges
(ISO, 2020).
I point out these organizations since they could follow a model
of either an Alliance Program or an OSHA Strategic Partnership
Program with OSHA. Understanding that many companies
conduct business internationally or buy equipment from foreign
partners, starting to take on more of a global awareness could
create an efficiency for OSHA. It also has the benefit of
bringing in experts who work in the field of ergonomics and
have credibility and insight to develop standards. From earlier
studies it was noted that OSHA can be slow to react to changing
environments and outside influences. Expanding this into a
Voluntary Participation Program (VPP) begins to place even
more onus on businesses for compliance. This not only frees up
OSHA personnel involved in inspections but opens up another
potential model of accreditation. Many accreditation agencies
utilize other agencies as checkpoints for evaluation of their
current model. Accredited organizations have been through a
process of self-evaluation and have been inspected and reviewed
by other agencies who were already accredited. Accreditation
3. can be used to evaluate best business practices, seek favorable
insurance and financing options, and also keep an organization
competitive among its peers. This wholly funded by
participating organizations or grants and keeps OSHA directly
out of the development process but still engaged as an
inspection and enforcement agency as needed.
References
ANSI. (n.d.).
About ANSI
. Retrieved
from https://www.ansi.org/about_ansi/overview/overview?menu
id=1
ISO, (n.d.).
About us
. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/about-us.html
Dudley, S. E. (2001). The Benefits and Costs of OSHA’s
Proposed Ergonomics Program Standard.
Journal of Labor Research
,
22
(1), 95. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.e
du/eds/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=e473a82f-bde6-41c9-b2fb-
e9e33fdd64f4%40pdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0
ZQ%3d%3d#AN=4031454&db=edb
