April 18, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for scheduling this important hearing today on the issue of ergonomic injuries. I welcome our panelists and I look forward to listening to their views on this important matter.

Like you, Mr. Chairman, I supported the ergonomics standard that was rescinded last year. I thought it was fair and flexible, and afforded strong enforcement authority. More than one year has transpired since President Bush signed that law which repealed the first and only ergonomics standard, and approximately 1.8 million ergonomic injuries have since occurred.

Just prior to that date, Secretary Chao made a commitment to "pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics, which may include new rulemaking. This approach will provide employers with achievable measures that protect their employees before injuries occur."

I was hopeful that the Secretary and her staff would present a balanced and comprehensive plan, so that employees would be assured of a safe and healthy work environment.

Instead, I am terribly disappointed with the ergonomics plan that was unveiled two weeks ago. As we approach Worker Memorial Day on April 28th - a day set aside to remember those workers who have been killed or injured on the job, I believe this plan sends the wrong message to our workers. It provides workers with virtually no protection against ergonomic hazards. Further, this appears to be a work in progress - a sort of plan for a plan. So, how are workers being helped today, or tomorrow, or next month? I contend that they aren't, and injuries will continue.

There are no visible guidelines and the targeted industries have not been determined. So, I can't adequately comment on that section except to say that I hope the drafting is done in an expedited fashion.

Beyond that, I believe this plan is still flawed in many ways. There is no standard that can be enforced, but instead, the agency relies on the general duty clause that the agency's own solicitor has criticized.

OSHA itself has been slow to invoke this clause in the past and there may be a reason for that. Some cases brought under the general duty clause have taken more than 9 years to be resolved.

What troubles me the most is that, during the intervening time that a case is pending, no action is undertaken to help the employees. I grant you that many employers are exemplary citizens, but this new plan has no teeth to rein in wayward employers, and that is wrong.

The administration has chosen to charter a brand new advisory committee - with no information given as to who will be appointed or how they will be appointed. The creation of this committee seems to be a way to circumvent the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Federal agency responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related disease and injury.

It is interesting to note that the proposed budget for NIOSH is cut by $28 million. This leads to some other budget anomalies. The proposed OSHA budget is cut by $9 million and by 83 positions, 64 of them in enforcement. Other reductions are targeted at safety and health standards, enforcement and training, and education for workers. Further, important training programs targeted at immigrants and non-english speaking workers are being cut.

Every year, millions of ergonomic injuries occur, so clearly a voluntary approach has not worked. I know you are concerned about employees and workplace injuries, but the department's actions are questionable. I urge you to re-examine your plan and make changes.

It's always easy to offer criticism, so I felt it was necessary to take a proactive stand. Yesterday, I, and many of my colleagues, joined Senators Breaux and Specter in introducing legislation to require the Secretary to issue a final ergonomics regulation within two years of enactment.