Since we’re giving the Associated Builders and Contractors accolades today, we also note ABC’s excellent statement on OSHA’s plans to add reporting requirements for musculoskeletal definitions just posted online. From “ABC Urges OSHA to Abandon Proposed Musculoskeletal Reporting Rule“:

ABC March 30 objected to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed rule that would revise the OSHA Form 300 to include an additional reporting column for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). The proposed rule would amend OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation, although OSHA claims it would not require employers to implement any new controls in the workplace.

In its comments, ABC expressed concern over the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) largely due to the vague and subjective definition of what would constitute an MSD. The NPRM defines MSDs as “disorders for the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs, except those caused by slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents, or other similar accidents.” ABC pointed out that the definition groups together a variety of disorders and symptoms that are not necessarily related. In addition, ABC noted that even the scientific community has been unable to settle on a reliable definition or cause of most MSDs, making OSHA’s definition seem even more arbitrary.

“In light of the inability to define, diagnose or determine the cause of MSDs with any degree of precision, the logical conclusion, mandated by the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Act criteria, is that OSHA must acknowledge the limitations it faces in drafting a workable MSD provision and ultimately abandon the NPRM,” ABC stated in its comments.

The Labor Policy Institute, an initiative of the National Association of Manufacturers, has a fact sheet on OSHA’s proposed MSD recordkeeping, which the NAM also sees as a precursor to a broad, new and troubling ergonomics standard.

The issue arose several times in an online chat that OSHA officials held Wednesday on the Department of Labor’s strategic plan. A transcript of the chat is here.

Kudos to the Obama Administration and the Department of Labor for conducting webchats about the department and its sub-cabinet agencies’ regulatory agendas on Monday. They seemed to work well and provided useful information. (Earlier post.)

We’ll admit to be frustrated by the online comments from Jordan Barab, the acting administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), on the topic of ergonomics. Next week Barab will become deputy administrator after the newly confirmed David Michaels assumes the top spot. This week, he offered conflicting commentary on whether the agency would propose new ergonomics regulations.

Here are two exchanges:

Monday December 7, 2009 4:08

[Comment From Judie Smithers] From the Secretary’s chat: The agenda has an entry at the proposed rule stage to add requirements to record musculoskeletal disorders in a separate column on the 300 log. Does this signifiy that OSHA is considering future action to promulgate an ergonomics standard?

Jordan : Judie, This is not a prelude to a broader ergonomics standard. No, we are simply putting the MSD column back on the OSHA log as was originally intended in the 2001 issuance of OSHA’s recordkeeping standard. MSDs continue to be a major problem for American workers, but at this time, OSHA has no plans for regulatory activity.

Monday December 7, 2009 4:32

[Comment From Holly] In a speech recently, you called ergonomics a “huge health and safety problem” and said the govt must “take the field and make some fundamental changes.” Given these comments, why WOULDN’T OSHA have plans for regulatory activity?

Jordan: Holly: You’re right. I called musculoskeletal disorders a “huge health and safety problem.” I also called it a “huge political issue” and that we are in the process of determining how we are going to address it. Our new Assistant Secretary will arrive later this week, and we will intensify the process of determining how we are going to address ergonomics.

So OSHA has no plans for a new ergonomics rule, but it might have plans next week after Michaels arrives? Repetitive stress disorders are a “huge health and safety problem,” but OSHA’s goal now is merely to “intensify the process?” What in the world is “intensify the process”?

Since Barab’s all over the map in those responses, let’s pin him down to Milwaukee, Wisc., where he gave a speech to the AFL-CIO on September 25, the speech that commenter Holly cites in her question.

Here’s what he said to the labor audience, with lawyers the primary constituency for new rules:

And soon we must confront the 60,000-pound elephant in the room: Ergonomics. Let’s acknowledge a couple of obvious things about “ergo.” First, it’s a huge health and safety problem, recognized by strong science. Second, it’s a huge political football that some very big players don’t want to see on the field. Well, for the sake of our working men and women, we have to take the field and make some fundamental changes in America’s workplaces.

That sounds like OSHA will propose a new rule, doesn’t it? The Clinton Administration used a “midnight regulation” to establish an ergonomics standard in 2001, repealed by Congress using the Congressional Review Act because of the rule’s multi-billion-dollar cost, ambiguity, and potential to destroy jobs.

We’ve put more of Barab’s map-skittering responses in the extended entry below. Judging from the answers, we suspect that if OSHA issues a new rule — President Obama’s inclination as announced on the campaign trail — it will try to disguise its costs and burdens to escape political backlash.

It’s a shame the Senate HELP Committee could not manage to hold a confirmation hearing for David Michaels to allowing a public examination of issues like ergonomics. Well, welcome aboard, Mr. Assistant Secretary.

(continue reading…)