State plan states have been a strong national force in recognizing emerging workplace hazards and
originating new methods for addressing those hazards, including the adoption of new standards. State
plans emphasize that whatever the emerging issue, employers are still required to provide a safe and
healthful place of employment
In particular, California was the first state in the nation to adopt an
ergonomic standard in 1997. State plans are continuing efforts to reduce the number and severity of
musculoskeletal disorders caused by risk factors in the workplace. Several state programs are developing
formal rules as well as voluntary guidelines to help prevent workplace violence. In 1997,
Michigan developed an experimental variance to protect tower construction
workers.
Ergonomics
California
California’s Repetitive Motion Injury (RMI) standard, which became effective July 3, 1997, was the
first ergonomic standard adopted in the nation. The application of the standard is triggered when at
least two employees at the employer’s worksite report RMIs that were: (1) diagnosed by a licensed
physician and (2) predominantly caused by identical work activity, and (3) occurred within 12 months
of each other. However, ergonomics continues to be a difficult issue to regulate.
Last year, the California Labor Federation submitted a petition requesting that the standard be
amended to delete the two-injury trigger and paragraph (c) of the standard. Paragraph (c) puts the
burden on Cal/OSHA, when alleging a violation of the standard, to prove that the employer knew of
the proper compliance measures, and that those measures are not unreasonably costly and
"substantially certain" to cause a greater reduction in injuries than the measures taken by the
employer.
In the five years since Cal/OSHA has been enforcing the standard, a number of problems with the
two-injury trigger have become apparent. Some injured employees do not report their injuries, and
others do not go to a licensed physician for treatment. Physicians sometimes do not describe the
injury as "repetitive motion injury" and the issues of whether injuries were "predominantly caused"
by work or were caused by "identical work activity" are always difficult to address. These problems
require Cal/OSHA staff to spend considerable time on RMI inspections, often to come up with
equivocal results.
Cal/OSHA submitted its own suggestions for revising the standard to the Standards Board as an
alternative to those made by the California Labor Federation. Since California law requires all
employers to set up effective written injury and illness prevention programs (IIIP), Cal/OSHA
believes that an effective IIIP will capture ergonomic hazards as well as it captures other hazards.
Cal/OSHA’s proposal would make the IIIP the backbone of a revised ergonomics standard.
However, none of the proposals before the Standards Board have been capable of generating consensus
for change. Meanwhile, an advisory committee will continue to meet to search for possible consensus
on whether change is needed, and if so, how to change the standard. Cal/OSHA is committed to finding
a solution that works for all interests and will continue to attempt to use the consensus approach.
There is a strong commitment to the belief that control of ergonomics hazards needs to be based on
cooperation among industry, labor and Cal/OSHA to be effective.
Cal/OSHA Consultation Service has worked with industry, labor, the medical community and others to
develop best practices and programs for preventing repetitive motion injuries in specific
industries. The Consultation Service has issued a number of publications based on best practices and
programs actually adopted by employers in a particular industry for reducing musculoskeletal
disorders.
Publications are developed with input from industry associations, employers, labor organizations,
and others. A recent publication, Ergonomics in Action, describes best
ergonomics practices for the food processing industry. The Back Injury Prevention
Guide gives examples for lifting patients and other tasks in nursing homes. The Consultation
Service has also recently issued "Ergonomic Survival Guides" for workers
on construction sites.
Washington
Washington adopted a new ergonomics rule on May 26, 2000, which differs
from California’s workplace repetitive motion injury standard–its requirements are triggered by
specific hazards in the workplace rather than occurrence of musculoskeletal disorder symptoms or
injuries. Intended to reduce work-related musculoskeletal hazards (WMSDs) that cripple or injure
more than 50,000 Washington workers each year, the Washington rule was adopted after a 20-month
rulemaking process that included conferences across the state, extensive work with two large advisory
committees, publishing a proposed rule with supporting documents, and 14 public hearings in seven
cities statewide.
Requirements of Washington’s ergonomics rule are phased in over a two- through six-year period,
depending on the size of the business and its industry sector. First to comply in the state will be
larger businesses in the 12 industries showing the highest risk of WMSDs. These employers have two
years to come into compliance with several of the requirements and three years for total compliance.
Smaller businesses not in the 12 highest-risk industries are given up to five years to come into
compliance with those requirements and six years for total compliance.
Some employers and labor organizations are eligible for direct financial incentives–safety and
health grants or workers’ compensation premium discounts–to help them implement the ergonomics rule.
The state has convened a panel of experts to help determine whether employer and employee technical
assistance activities are successful and sufficient before compliance with the new rule begins.
Washington has created an Ergonomics Ideas Bank, a searchable collection of ideas for preventing
workplace injuries and improving job safety and health. Many ideas were collected from companies
with existing ergonomics programs and employers who participated in Washington sponsored
demonstration projects. The bank is located at: www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/forms/ergoideassubmitform.htm.
Connecticut
Connecticut is developing training programs to complement its ergonomics
enforcement, and plans to make such training available on CDs.
Maryland
During FY 2002, Maryland created a roundtable discussion group to address the increasing
occupational safety and health issues in the non-acute healthcare industry. The roundtable group
included MOSH and OSHA staff and representatives of the non-acute healthcare industry. The group
identified three areas of occupational safety and health concerns: ergonomically induced
musculoskeletal disorders, control of occupationally acquired infections, and workplace violence.
MOSH scheduled two pilot outreach programs to address these three areas of concern; one was held in
October 2002, and the other in December 2002. These programs reached 91 participants from the
non-acute healthcare industry for a total of 637 training hours.
Michigan
Michigan’s Strategic Plan includes musculoskeletal disorders as a focus for reducing injuries and
illnesses by 15 percent. Without a standard, MIOSHA can rely on the General Duty requirement to
issue citations and penalties in the most extreme cases. Citations are issued where the state finds
repetitive motion injuries of which the employer was aware and knew how to prevent, but did not make
adequate reasonable effort to prevent them.
MIOSHA conducts extensive outreach and education focused at improving ergonomic conditions. Since
1991, the Ergonomics Committee has encouraged proactive voluntary compliance through training,
consultation and recognition of positive efforts. The committee oversees an ergonomics awards
program that recognizes voluntary ergonomic innovations and activities. Since the program began,
more than 79 Michigan companies have been recognized through this program for their proactive
efforts to improve the "job fit" for their workers.
In 2002, two MIOSHA standards commissions responsible for developing and adopting workplace safety
and health standards approved establishing an advisory committee to begin the process of exploring a
Michigan ergonomic standard. This advisory committee has responsibility for researching, drafting,
obtaining public input, and making recommendations to the commissions.
Minnesota
Although it does not have a state ergonomic standard, Minnesota was one of the first states to
examine and cite ergonomic problems in the workplace. The ergonomics team, which produced Guidelines
for Resident Handling in Long-term Care Facilities, conducts comprehensive inspections of selected
facilities that include a thorough review of injury and illness records, a complete walkaround
inspection, and abatement recommendations.
Minnesota OSHA had an ergonomics task force meet during the summer of 2002. The purpose of the task
force was to determine how best to reduce ergonomic-related injuries in the state. As a result of
this task force they are hiring two ergonomic positions in the consultation area to help employers
resolve ergonomic-related hazards.
Nevada
Nevada’s Safety Consultation and Training Section continued their ergonomic emphasis by providing
training that concentrated on ergonomic concerns connected with video display terminals. These
efforts are scheduled to be expanded to more targeted areas in the future.
North Carolina
North Carolina provides consultation on ergonomics, and the North Carolina Ergonomics Resource
Center (NCERC) is a partnership between the state’s Department of Labor and North Carolina State
University. Funds were appropriated to the Department of Labor for establishment of the center,
which is housed at the university. NCERC opened in November 1994. Its services cover ergonomics
consulting and training workshops, on-site ergonomic training individually tailored to a company’s
needs, a variety of publications, a series of ergonomics tips dealing with specific industries and
environments, and two employee video training packages.
Emphasizing applied research and timely delivery of programs, NCERC identifies, analyzes and
corrects ergonomic deficiencies in the workplace. Its primary goal is to act as a bridge for
technology transfer and information exchange between the university, state agencies and industry.
North Carolina established an alliance with the American Furniture Manufacturers Association to
produce voluntary ergonomics guidelines that will help the furniture industry reduce ergonomic
hazards and potential injuries.
Oregon
Oregon OSHA established an Ergonomics Advisory Committee to provide assistance in determining a
direction for ergonomics in Oregon as well as to provide guidance in the area of ergonomic outreach.
The committee includes representatives from management, labor and government. As a result of the
efforts of this committee, Oregon OSHA has published a web page that provides industry specific
ergonomic information and resources.
Utah
Utah has not adopted an ergonomics regulation, yet has worked with nursing homes and similar types
of businesses since 1993, on the benefits of applying ergonomic principles and practices to help
reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. In March of 2003, Utah OSHA participated with federal OSHA
and the airline industry in developing web-based ergonomic practices for the airline industry.
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands has not adopted state-specific ergonomics regulations, and its General Duty Clause is
used when an employer should have known existing abatement methods for an injury that occurred.
Workplace Violence
Workplace violence is an occupational safety and health hazard that demands action. Whether the risk
of violence comes from a coworker, client, patient or the public, employers must be provided with
tools to develop comprehensive plans that reduce levels of risk. State programs are developing
formal rules as well as voluntary guidelines to help prevent this type of workplace hazard.
Alaska
Alaska has issued two general duty clause citations for workplace violence and has had both
violations affirmed. One of the citations was issued to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute because
staff had been exposed to violent acts from their patients.
California
California’s 1994 conference on workplace security, the first of its kind, was part of a drive to
promote additional research and develop guidelines for preventing workplace violence. California
issued Guidelines for Security and Safety of Health Care and Community Service
Workers, Cal/OSHA Guidelines for Workplace Security and a Model Injury and Illness Prevention
Program for Workplace Security.
Cal/OSHA has been investigating violent worksite events since 1993. Although workplace violence is
part of a larger societal problem, the employer in California is still required to provide a safe
and healthful place of employment. Employers at risk of robbery or other violent assaults must
include workplace security in their injury and illness prevention program. And in response to the
growing recognition of violence in the workplace, government agencies that oversee workplace safety
are incorporating security issues into safetyplans. Fatalities from assaults and violent acts
accounted for 18.8 percent of the 1999 California workplace fatality total, down from 23.4 percent
in 1998 and decreasing steadily: from 194 in 1995 to 111 in 1999.
Michigan
Michigan has recently completed work on a "Violence in the Workplace" program. The heightened
awareness of the population to workplace exposures due to terrorism, domestic violence and
potentially out-of- control workers, along with many requests from employers for assistance, has led
to the development of outreach materials by the Consultation Education and Training (CET) Division.
Seminars, workshops and training materials are available to assist employers in developing their own
workplace violence prevention protocols. The CET Division has developed a program that can be
adapted to any workplace, however special segments are being developed that will focus on high-risk
areas such as nursing facilities, late-night establishments and occupations where employees work
alone.
Minnesota
Minnesota’s Workplace Violence Prevention Program helps employers and their employees reduce the
incidence of violence in their workplaces by providing on-site consultation, telephone assistance,
education and training seminars and a resource center. This program targets workplaces at high risk
of violence: convenience stores, service stations, taxi and transit operations, restaurants and
bars, motels, guard services, patient care facilities, schools, social services, residential care
facilities and correctional institutions. The program is administered by the Workplace Safety
Consultation (WSC) Division.
Outreach tools include a brochure, Workplace Violence: Are You at Risk?
to increase awareness of workplace violence and outline steps to minimize its threat, and a guide,
Minnesota Workplace Violence Prevention–A Comprehensive Guide for Employers
and Employees, providing sample policies, checklists and tools to help assess and prevent
violent incidents.
Minnesota OSHA has conducted training for all internal staff in regard to this issue. The training
was to help their staff to deal with potential threatening situations. The purpose was to train the
staff to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.
Oregon
Oregon takes a strong information and training approach to raise awareness and encourage action. By
creating several publications and working directly with the Associated Oregon Industries and other
groups, statewide education network training forums address this emerging area. Oregon offers
on-line training for employers: Developing Your Violence Prevention Program.
Utah
Utah believes that substance abuse and workplace violence need to be addressed together because of
their relationship to each other. Utah OSHA has provided seminars for employers and their employees
on workplace violence prevention.
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands’ Workplace Violence Prevention Program helps employers and their employees reduce the
incidence of violence in their workplaces by providing on-site consultation, telephone assistance,
education and training seminars and a resource center. In 1999, there were three workplace violence
employee-to-employee incidents that required workers’ compensation claims filing. VIDOSH recognizes
the need to address workplaces at high risk of violence: convenience stores, service stations, taxi
and transit operations, restaurants and bars, motels, guard services, patient care facilities,
schools, social services, residential care facilities and correctional institutions. Staff is being
trained to provide workplace violence prevention assistance.
Virginia
During the 2000 session of the General Assembly, the Virginia
Department of Labor and Industry was requested to study workplace violence in the commonwealth
and submit its written findings and recommendations to the governor and 2001 session of the
General Assembly.
Washington
Washington developed safety and health standards for the late-night retail industry in 1990, and
uses enforcement and consultation for hazard abatement and prevention. The Workplace Violence
Awareness and Prevention workshop helps participants assess risk factors and develop preventive
measures. A written guide covering these topics and a sample prevention program were developed by
WISHA with over 30 representatives of labor, business and the academic community. WISHA’s video Is
It Worth Your Life? with real-life scenarios demonstrates what workers and employers can do to
prevent injuries. The video is distributed to employer networks and associations.
In 1997, the Washington Department of Labor and Industries’ Safety and Health Assessment and
Research for Prevention program completed a comprehensive study of workplace violence based on
federal and state data for 1992-95. Homicide was the fourth leading cause of workplace deaths in
Washington, and most incidents were consistent with well-known risk factors. Most were committed by
persons unknown to the victims, and most of the victims worked in retail trade, security services or
transit. The majority of non-fatal injuries also occurred in predictable settings, but in contrast
to the fatal assaults, most of these injuries occurred in a setting where the victim and attacker
were in a custodial or client-caregiver relationship such as healthcare or social services. While
the trend for assaults against private-sector workers in the state was downward, that for state
government workers was rising. This study counters the notion that violence on the job is a random
event and impervious to remedy. Prevention strategies such as hazard assessment and de-escalation
training address risk factors in the work setting.
Tower Construction
Telecommunications tower construction is a booming industry, however it presents significant fall
hazards to construction workers. In 1993, a Grant Tower Inc. employee was fatally injured during the
erection of a telecommunications tower in Michigan. As the Construction
Safety Division investigated the fatality, accessing towers and heights became a key issue. After
the issues of the fatality were settled, Grant Tower continued to work with MIOSHA
to develop a safe method for accessing communications towers.
The discussions between Grant Tower and MIOSHA Construction Safety officials resulted in the
development of the first-ever "Experimental Variance"
for the MIOSHA program. An experimental variance was issued in July 1997, which allowed Grant
Tower to hoist employees on the gin pole load line, in accordance with mandated stipulations. The
variance was effective for three years, during which time MIOSHA monitored the safety benefits
and Grant Tower’s compliance with the variance.
An experimental variance is authorized by MIOSHA to demonstrate or validate new or improved
techniques to safeguard the health or safety of workers. When current standards do not recognize
changes in technologies or processes, the experiment may allow the collection of data to support the
promulgation of new or amended standards.
The variance spawned discussions between the National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) and
federal OSHA, along with MIOSHA officials, to develop a compliance directive to address
telecommunications tower safety. In August 1997, OSHA established a Tower Task Force of tower
industry employers and employees, OSHA and NIOSH staff, the Army Corps of Engineers, the FAA, the
U.S. Navy, and other interested groups involved in tower construction. The MIOSHA program was
invited to join the task force because of their proactive work with the industry.
This task force met over the next year and a half, and developed a federal compliance directive, CPL
2-1.29, Interim Inspection Procedures During Communication Tower Construction Activities, which
covers access and other lift conditions. The MIOSHA experimental variance was the
model for the compliance directive, which became effective Jan. 15, 1999. The directive
provides for uniform enforcement of regulations and policies in the tower industry.
OSHA’s Region V formed a partnership with the National Association of Tower Erectors in July 2002,
to provide a safe and healthful work environment for employees involved in the tower erection
industry. The partnership between the tower industry, MIOSHA and OSHA has improved safety and health
conditions for employees and has fostered an environment of cooperation that will continue to
protect workers in the future.
Next Section: State Incentives: Promoting Voluntary Compliance»
|
Back to Top
Printing Instructions