Masonry Magazine September 2002 Page. 13
In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposal, all job analysis, job design, modification and employee training would have to be documented by the employer for each facility, and possibly for each job.
appropriations fire and we may well have a fight on our hands related to this issue now that the Senate has returned from its August recess.
As reported in this magazine, the Fiscal Year 2003 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill contains $2 million for the promulgation of a new ergonomics standard by OSHA within two years. Although the Department of Labor is not bound by the appropriations language to actually come up with a new standard, it could just be the nose under the camel's tent, prompting action by the full Senate on S. 2184.
On the other Coast
In the interim, however, it is important that everyone in the industry keep an eye on ergonomics developments at the state level. Washington State, for instance, has an ergonomics regulation in place now-although actual enforcement of those standards has been delayed for two years in order to allow employers more time to understand the requirements of the State's rule.
In a nutshell, the purpose of the Washington State rule is to "reduce employee exposure to specific workplace hazards that can cause or aggravate work-related MSDs." Employers with "caution zone jobs"-jobs where an employee's typical work activities include a host of specific physical risk factors such as awkward posture, highly repetitive motion, heavy, frequent or awkward lifting, moderate to high hand-arm vibration, etc., are covered by the rule. Typical work activities are those that are a regular and foreseeable part of the job and occur on more than one day per week and more frequently than one week per year.
The problem with this approach, however, is that no consideration is given to any employment facility's safety and health history. In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposal, all job analysis, job design, modification and employee training would have to be documented by the employer for each facility, and possibly for each job. This would be a costly undertaking for every employer, no matter what its size.
Furthermore, the cost of instituting changes to each job could be prohibitive, particularly since the lack of any scientific and medical evidence will force employers to engage in costly trial and error experiments that are neither justified nor cost beneficial.
What is more disconcerting, however, is the physical risk factors in Appendix B of the rule were adopted as part of the Clinton Administration rule finalized in November 2000. Congress rescinded that rule in part because there was no guidance for how employers should measure time restrictions for hazardous activities.
For example, a squatting duration of four hours is the proposed threshold in Appendix B of the Washington state rule. But will employers be required to time the duration of each squat or the period over which many squats are taken? This type of analysis would require significant expertise and expensive equipment that is largely unknown to most employers. The specifications for hazardous exposures defined in these appendices have no basis in scientific research.
Although a group of Washington State businesses sued the Department of Labor Industries over the rule, claiming, among other things, that they exceeded their statutory authority, a County Court upheld the standard. Those same businesses are considering an appeal.
Because the State of Washington will not be enforcing these new standards for another two years, it is understandable that industries of all types would be slow to adopt changes in their work force habits. But it would also be shortsighted of those industries to rely on the overtures of gubernatorial candidates who might rescind these rules and completely ignore any evaluation of potential workplace hazards that could be minimized with little effort.
Much work has gone into the development of the Washington State standards and training and educational materials are available from resources within the masonry industry. We might all agree with the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but if the Washington State standards are here to stay and they continue to set a precedent for national standards, it is in everyone's interest to try and make them understandable, workable and cost effective.
Marian Marshall was named director of the MCAA Government Affairs office July 1, 2002. She has nearly 25 years experience working with the Congress and Executive branches of the U.S. government and oversees all MCAA legislative, regulatory and political action activities.
For Mason's Hydrated Lime...
Contractors and Architects Rely on MIRACLE MORTA-LOK Type "S" hydrated mason's lime Outstanding workability saves time and money A unique combination of strength and elasticity Meets all national specifications (ASTM, UBC, BOCA, SBCC) Available nationwide
ROCKWELL LIME COMPANY
4110 Rockwood Rd. Manitowoc, WI 54220-9619
Phone: (920)682-7771(800)558-7711
Fax: (920)682-7972
September 2002
Masonry 11