Labor Secretary takes ergonomics show on the road

As Labor Secretary Labor Elaine Chao kicked off the first of three public forums addressing the controversial issue of ergonomics Monday, her approach was already drawing criticism from labor groups and other observers.

"This is a 100 percent eyewash," said one observer of labor and safety matters. "How much substance can you get in 10-minute presentations?" Ergonomics is the applied science of designing equipment intended to reduce injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome and back pain, that are caused by workplace conditions. In November, during the final weeks of the Clinton administration, Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a rule compelling employers to install equipment and change practices to alleviate these injuries. The regulations went into effect in January. But arguing that this rule would cost businesses billions of dollars a year, Congress, with the help of the Bush White House, repealed it in March. Labor unions and their supporters contend that the rule would have prevented nearly 500,000 on-the-job injuries a year. Last month, Chao announced that she would be convening three forums to look at the ergonomics issue--on Monday in Arlington, Va., on July 20 in Chicago, and on July 24 in Palo Alto, Calif. "We are bringing everyone to the table to get this important issue moving forward and resolved," she said. "Defining the best approach for ergonomic injuries is not a simple process, and we need everyone's voice heard in the process." Giving all interested parties about 10 minutes to speak at these forums, Chao wants to discuss the definition of an ergonomics injury, whether it's possible to determine if these injuries were caused by work-related or nonwork-related activities, and what the federal government's response should be. But labor unions contend that these questions have already been beaten to death. They point out that last year's ergonomics rule had been in the works for more than 10 years, beginning with the tenure of then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in 1990. In addition, there were 10 weeks of public hearings, and approximately 1,000 witnesses testified on ergonomics last year. "If anything, [the Bush administration is] trying to forget about the 10 years of activity," said Eric Frumin, the director of safety and health at the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees. "We don't need new hearings. This has been debated ad nauseam. What we need is real leadership." Frumin adds that these forums have been set up only to create an "illusion of a promise of action," because the Bush administration isn't interested in creating a new ergonomics rule. "Workers don't need illusion--they need protection," he argued. Indeed, as it turns out, some members of Congress who voted to repeal the Clinton administration's ergonomics rule did so with the understanding that the Bush administration would establish a new one. "[P]eople who were strenuously opposed to the rule were able to persuade a number of us to vote to overturn that rule on the representation that there would be a new rule," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told Chao during a Senate hearing in May. Although Chao hasn't promised a new rule, she insists her department is working diligently on the issue. "[I] can assure you that we are proceeding with full speed and with absolute seriousness and intent to try to address ergonomics and musculoskeletal injuries," she remarked to Specter. Responding to labor's criticism, Stuart Roy, the Labor Department's deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, maintains that the upcoming hearings are needed because they're the first discussions on ergonomics that the department will host since the Clinton administration rule was overturned. "The Secretary believes that the forums are important to get the issue moving forward," Roy said. Pat Cleary, the vice president of human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, agrees that Chao is correct to convene these ergonomics forums. Past hearings on the issue, he claims, were slanted toward labor groups and their supporters. "Thank God they are asking the right questions," he said. "For once, the Labor Department isn't stacking the deck." Cleary says that labor shouldn't have any fears about answering these questions at the forums. But according to Richard W. Hurd, if the past is any indication no one should expect Chao to issue any type of decision on ergonomics that will please labor. Hurd, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell University, says that Chao's style thus far has been to present a positive and genteel attitude toward organized labor and its pet issues--but that this attitude hasn't necessarily translated into favorable policy decisions.

For example, Hurd recalls the Secretary's attendance at February's AFL-CIO conference in Los Angeles. "Elaine Chao came and spoke, and she was extremely cordial," he said. "I was impressed how she was able to pull that off. You could hear applause at the end of her speech." But just a few days later, Hurd points out, Bush signed executive orders intended to weaken organized labor. The truth about the Bush administration's interest in ergonomics will be obvious at the forum on July 16, explains one OSHA expert. If Chao leaves the forum after the opening statements, it will be evident that the administration isn't serious about the issue. "One of the key things to watch for is how long Chao stays," the expert said.