LANSING – Rules that would require Michigan businesses to train their employees on the hazards of improper body position are one step closer to reality, but they appear to still have a ways to go.
The Ergonomics Standard Rule Advisory Committee referred a consensus draft of the rules to the two standards commissions that created it, but still with some concerns over how, or if, the proposed rules would be applied.
Members of the advisory committee generally agreed on the language of the rules, which would require businesses to train all employees on the ergonomic considerations of their jobs. But John Bavin representing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was the sole vote against passing on the draft, arguing the committee should have found a way to limit the scope of the proposal.
The report to the standards commission will indicate there was a desire on the part of some committee members to not have the rule apply to all businesses, but the committee could not agree on language to determine who would be left out.
“We couldn’t come up with a technically cogent way to limit scope,” said Mark Spence, manager of health and safety regulatory affairs for Dow Chemical Company.
Union officials at the meeting Friday argued the rules should cover all employees of all businesses. Several noted that more than half of worker’s compensation claims are sprain and strain injuries that might have been prevented with ergonomically proper equipment.
“Apparently businesses are not taking advantage of these guidelines,” said Mike Spacil, an ergonomics trainer at Chrysler. “So another guidelines not the answer. It has to be a mandatory standard.”
But Wendy Block, director of health policy and human resources with the Michigan Chamber, said businesses were implementing ergonomics programs. “Employees are coming to managers and union representatives and saying there’s a problem and employers are responding,” she said.
She said business groups are not objecting to good ergonomics practices. “We want to see Michigan employees and employers happy and healthy,” she said.
Amy Shaw, director of education and employment relations for the Michigan Manufacturers Association, said the rules as drafted could be prohibitively expensive for business because they would leave it to the agency, not the employer, to decide what was a cost-effective solution to an ergonomics problem.
“We have no idea what kind of accommodation requests we’re going to get,” she said, arguing the rules would place the burden on the employer to prove the request is excessive or unnecessary.
And she argued ergonomics is as much how the equipment is used as how it is designed. “How much time is going to spent enforcing proper posture?” she said.
Spacil also argued that complying with the rules would not be expensive for most businesses because many larger companies, like Chrysler, have their ergonomics guidelines and training programs available to the public. Businesses would be able to use those rather than having to hire a consultant, he said.
Charlie Owens, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, argued the committee should not have even been formed. He said the first discussion should have been over the need for the rules, not their form.
“For 35 years this has been the process,” countered Marsha Parrot-Boyle with MIOSHA. “They never set up an advisory committee to look at whether there should be rules. The commission does that itself.”
Parrot-Boyle said both the General Industry Safety Standards Commission and the Occupational Health Standards Commission, which had jointly created the advisory committee, had already had some discussions on the need for the rules and would likely have more as they moved the rules to public comment and as a result of any public comment to that subject.
Owens said there were few rules that, once they reach the point of being drafted as these have, do not end up on the books eventually.
Because the rules apply to all employers, regardless of experience or size, Owens said the proposal would be the most stringent in the nation. California is the only other state currently with mandatory ergonomics rules, as Washington voters repealed the rules there.
Owens also faulted the process for developing the rules. “You said you’d only move forward if there was unanimous consensus and yet you just moved forward without unanimous consensus,” he said.
The two standards commissions are expected to schedule a special joint meeting before May to receive a presentation from the advisory committee (though many of the commissioners attended Friday’s meeting) as well as some public comment on the draft. The commission would then have to decide whether to move the rules on for legal drafting and public comment.
The draft was amended slightly Friday. The original version provided an exemption to certain provisions for businesses that already had documented ergonomics training. The amended drafted provided that such companies would be considered to be in compliance with the rule.
This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com
a>>
