I've known a couple of people with carpal tunnel syndrome from typing all day and this law would've given them time to heal instead of costing them their jobs. Business wins again. Senate votes to repeal workplace-safety rule By KAREN MASTERSON Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday voted to kill a worker-safety rule that took effect during the last days of the Clinton administration and was designed to protect millions of workers from repetitive-motion injuries. In a 56-44 vote, with six Democrats joining all 50 Republicans, the Senate invoked a never-before-used statute that gives Congress the ability to rescind federal regulations. The matter now moves to the GOP-controlled House, where Republicans intend to bring it up for a vote today or Thursday. "It'll be close, but we think it'll pass," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. Republicans hold a 220-211 advantage over Democrats in the House. Two seats are held by independents, and two others are vacant. The GOP also has the support of President Bush, who is expected to sign the measure. In a statement issued Tuesday, he said, "These regulations would cost employees, large and small, billions of dollars annually while providing uncertain benefits." House Democrats agree the vote will be close but say they may have enough support to defeat the resolution. The so-called ergonomic rule requires businesses to change certain practices and provide posture-friendly equipment, chairs and machinery. A coalition of businesses -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers -- argue that the rule is cumbersome and misguided and would require higher compensation levels than do most state workers'-compensation laws. Unions say the rule would foster needed investments to keep workers healthy and productive. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders affect 1.8 million people a year, causing 600,000 workers to lose time at work, according to federal data. Such disorders are mainly caused by repetitive motion, heavy lifting or awkward posture, affecting the wrist, back, neck, shoulder, elbow and hand. And if such an injury occurs, the new rule -- which applies to 6 million workplaces and 102 million workers -- would require employers to provide up to three months off with 90 percent pay. Unless Congress rescinds it. Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, lawmakers have 60 days after the rule's effective date -- which was Jan. 16 -- to adopt a resolution of disapproval. The statute does not allow a filibuster in the Senate, limits debate to 10 hours and prevents further consideration of the same rule or a similar rule. Tuesday's action was the first time the act was used to reverse a federal rule. Democrats voting for the resolution were Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, John Breaux and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Zell Miller of Georgia. Both of Texas' Republican senators said the rule reached too far. Phil Gramm called it "the most damaging regulation every implemented." And Kay Bailey Hutchison said the rule was not about the health care of workers. "It is so pervasive and vague that employers don't have clear guidance," she said. Meanwhile, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Barbara Boxer of California, all Democrats, charged that any vote to rescind the rule is a vote against women workers. According to the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 64 percent of workers who have suffered repetitive-motion injuries are women. OSHA estimates that businesses would bear roughly $4.5 billion annually in expenses associated with the ergonomic rule but would save $9.1 billion annually in worker productivity. Other cost estimates, however, are much higher. The Small Business Administration, which weighed in against the rule during a public comment period in 1999, expects it to cost businesses as much as $67 billion annually. This is the "most expensive, intrusive rule ever promulgated" on the way businesses operate, said Sen. Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican and assistant majority leader. He said Congress should kill the 600-page rule and send the issue back to newly appointed Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, who said she is willing to rework it. "Let me assure you that, in the event a joint resolution of disapproval becomes law, I intend to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics," Chao wrote in a letter sent to Congress this week. "I recognize this critical challenge and want you to understand that the safety and health of our nation's work force will always be a priority during my tenure as secretary," she wrote. But because the Congressional Review Act limits the administration's ability to rewrite any rule rescinded by Congress, Democrats don't believe she has the power to act. Some have accused the GOP of selling out to large corporations that they say are more concerned about saving money than protecting workers. "The greed is unbelievable," bellowed Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee. "I think the real proof is in the pudding," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said of Republicans' interest in redrafting the rule. "They're not interested in changing it, or they would attempt to change it. They want to repeal it, and that's exactly what the Senate is trying to do," he said before the vote. Daschle had hoped for more time to persuade wayward Democrats to stay with the party and vote against the resolution. "Because of the pressure that groups across the country are bringing to bear on many of my colleagues," several Democrats abandoned the party, Daschle said. "And there's no question, they are under enormous pressure." Even though Democrats hold a strong position in the Senate, which is split 50-50 between the two parties, the loss of six votes on ergonomics does not bode well for the future. Several of the senators who voted in support of killing the ergonomics rule are being pressured by Bush to support his 10-year, $1.6 trillion tax-cut package. Also, Miller and Breaux were two of the eight Democrats to side with Republicans during the Senate's confirmation of Attorney General John Ashcroft. That Feb. 1 vote was 58-42. But unlike the ergonomic rule, the tax-cut proposal is likely to be brought up under procedures that allow for a filibuster, giving Democrats more leverage to negotiate their interests. ------------------ Onions is all I eat!
HEY as long as they have their HELLIFIED retirement fund Where the collect their checks FOREVER! they don't give a d*mn about the people in the country . . . The look for ways to PROTECT the RICH/Companies and f*ck the poor. . . they are nothing but spare parts [politicians in general] Rocket River Stop frivolous lawsuits TRANSLATION If a unsafe machine cuts off your hand you can only get 200$ and a Turnakit THE COMPANY IS SAFE! and can still us unsafe machines.s.. becuase it's cost efficient ------------------ [This message has been edited by Rocket River (edited March 07, 2001).]
How can I argue with something as well-written as RocketRiver's last post? I think the Democratic handling of this issue is deplorable. The GOP has said that based on the very valid concerns raised in both articles posted here, they want the regulations repealed and reworked. The response is that this is emblematic of "greed" and a "vote against women". How constructive. What an excellent way to ensure that America's workers get the protection that the Democrats seem to feel has suddenly become so important. I mean, I'm curious about one thing: if this is such a pressing issue that we should proceed with it (valid arguments to the contrary be damned), if it's one that will save millions of workers from serious injury, why did Clinton wait until four days before Bush took office to issue the orders? House Poised to Vote On Ergonomics Rules Wednesday, March 7, 2001 By Leigh Strope WASHINGTON — Organized labor is bracing for yet another blow from a Republican-led Congress and White House poised to repeal Clinton administration regulations aimed at reducing repetitive motion injuries in the workplace. The House could vote as early as Wednesday following the Senate's quick approval Tuesday to kill the regulations, which business groups — with Republicans and the Bush administration as allies — have derided as too costly and extreme. Passage there would give President Bush his first chance to sign substantive legislation since he took office a little more than six weeks ago. All 50 Republican senators voted to overturn the regulations, as did six Democrats. The White House called the rules "vague and cumbersome." And Senate GOP Whip Don Nickles, R-Okla., who led the GOP effort, said the ergonomics standard was the "most intrusive, expensive and job-killing regulation ever handed down" by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But union officials said it appeared that organized labor was paying the price for its support of Democrats and former Vice President Al Gore in the November elections. "It's a shameful portrayal of what this Congress is all about when I thought we were entering into a new era of bipartisanship," said Bill Borwegen, occupational health and safety director for the Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the Senate vote was "a naked payoff to big business contributors who have opposed every effort to enact a standard protecting workers." OSHA says the repetitive motion rules would cover 102 million workers at 6.1 million work sites around the country. The agency estimated that the rules would prevent 4.6 million musculoskeletal disorders, and save businesses $9.1 billion annually the first 10 years. Health problems such as carpal tunnel syndrome would be covered, as well as other ailments related to repetitive motion, force, awkward postures, contact stress and vibration. OSHA said compliance could cost businesses $4.5 billion annually. But Republicans and business organizations counter the regulations are too broad and would impose far higher costs — as much as $100 billion a year. The new ergonomics regulations, which had been the subject of a decade-long political fight, were issued four days before Bush took office. They could require businesses to make adjustments to work stations and to pay for some health care and medical leave if they determine an employee suffers from repetitive stress injuries caused by work. Businesses were given until October to comply. Rep. Anne Northrup, R-Ky., said she thought the House would follow the Senate and vote to repeal the regulations. Opposition "gets stronger because more and more members are understanding this rule lacks balance," said Northrup, one of the House Republicans leading the charge against the regulations. "You'd be surprised how many understand how this could push our best jobs offshore, which are often manufacturing jobs," she said. Since Bush took office Jan. 20, he has rolled back a handful of other policies favored by unions. He issued new regulations that include making it easier for union members to stop their dues from financing political activities and revoking the "project labor agreement," which requires contractors in many federally financed projects to be unionized. To bring the workplace rules to a vote, Senate Republicans adopted a little-used legislative maneuver that blocks any opportunity for delay, filibuster or compromise and would prevent any similar ergonomics regulations from being issued. House officials on Tuesday paved the way for a floor vote under similarly restrictive rules. "This is about shortcutting the deliberative process," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., complained. "But most important, this is about denying American workers, your constituents, the reasonable, medically sound and scientifically justified protection of their government." In the House, organized labor and Democrats were aiming their lobbying efforts at about a dozen Republicans who have supported the regulations in the past. ------------------ Things are tough all over, I know what you mean... --Damon Johnson
Attack the Form . . . when ya cannot attack the argument The good ole boy Party's BAIT n Switch Tactics Distract from the real issue That the Repubs are Big Bid'ness LapDawgs Rocket River ------------------
Does anyone here actually know any details about the legislation? If not, it's a bit silly to be making judgements about why it should or shouldn't be passed, and it shows the inherent bias in people's views. For all we know, the bill could be extraordinarily expensive to implement and thus a stupid idea. Worker safety is important, but there have to be limitations. I'd be a much healthier worker if my office provided a free gym and free jumba juice, but that doesn't mean they should be required to do so. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
That was sorta why I included the text of the article. RocketRiver, you genius you, you've got me all figured out.
If the correct use of those two things would provide a healthier environment and would result in less time missed by workers, then it wouldn't be a bad thing. Instead of big business lining their pockets with a little extra cash that they'd never be able to spend anyway, they should start giving a **** about the people who make the company in the first place. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
That was sorta why I included the text of the article. Yeah, I actually agree with you on this issue (at least until I learn more about the details, which I probably never will ). I find this quote particularly funny: "This is about shortcutting the deliberative process," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., complained. "But" blah blah blah.. I'm curious how an executive order is more deliberative than a vote by Congress.. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
If the correct use of those two things would provide a healthier environment and would result in less time missed by workers, then it wouldn't be a bad thing. If it costs a business $25,000 to create a healthier environment that reduces lost time by $5,000, is that a good thing? If a business could spend $3,000 to save $10,000 and have happier employees, as OSHA claims, they'd already be doing it -- big business isn't stupid when it comes to profits. Maybe big business should provide quality housing, bus service, and in-house grocery too, so we can ensure employees are at work on time, sleeping well, and eating properly. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
That's where we disagree. I think employers just look at the immediate financial gain or loss. They see regulation where they'd have to spend so and so amount to help ensure that workers don't lose time due to these work-related injuries. What I don't think they see is that they'd ultimately save more in the long run by not having employees miss work, and also work much more effectively without pain. My other argument is that the company should be more loyal to the workers who are the cause of its success in the first place. And people wonder why many of the rich are demonized in society as greedy bastards. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
The rule may (or may not) be found here. Sorry, I didn't have time to run through the entire thing. Things are pretty hectic in the office today. http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_toc/OSHA_Std_toc_1910_SUBPART_W.html ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
My other argument is that the company should be more loyal to the workers who are the cause of its success in the first place. And people wonder why many of the rich are demonized in society as greedy bastards. Sure, but how far should we go on this? You could make new regulations and rules improving employee health forever (as I tried to show with the gym, etc). The question is how many should be required by law and why? My only point was that we have no idea what particulars this bill requires. If it required in-building gyms and in-house grocery for any company with 5 employees or more, then I think it should be rejected. If it requires a $5 squishy wrist-rest in any company with a 50% rate of carpel-tunnel syndrome, then I think it should be passed. However, without knowing any specifics, it's silly to assume that big business "won" or employees "lost. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
You are Jack's obsession with a movie. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 07, 2001).]
Experience shows Worker will very rarely The issue is kinda like the auto recalls the 'BEAN COUNTERS' could figure out that 20 Cars will wreck for a Defect 10 Will link it to the Defect 7 will settle out of court for less than 50K 2 of the case will be lost 1 will get a semi payday of at max 500K That factors to less that 2 million bucks Which is far less than a 20 million bucks for a Recall So what if in the 20 accidents 5 people died I feel companies do this with employees if 50% of employees get carpul tunnel how many will sue? How many will win? How much work is loss? How easily can they be replaced? If the sume total says 100K to the BEAN COUNTER to figure this out. . . and it comes to 2 mill versus a plan to help these employee that comes out to 3 million . .. . guess what . . .better to take ya chances on no BIG Payday Rocket River numbers. . .. people get ground up in the numbers ------------------
People don't start businesses to make happy employees, they start them to make money. If you are working at a job and you don't like how the company treats you, quit. There are other jobs. It is not fair for an employee to get the government to cost their boss money because they don't take the proper precautions in their work. ------------------ "We messed with the Bull, and we got the horns." -- Larry Brown "quote" from AirBullard.com
Business don't provide a safe working environment to make employees happy, business provide a safe working environment to make money. If an employee gets carpal tunnel syndrome on the job because the company didn't buy them a wrist rest and an ergonomic keyboard, they'll quit. There are other jobs. It's not fair for businesses to complain about the high cost of implementing ergonomics programs even though they are paying for the high cost of turnover because they didn't take the proper precautions in their working environment. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Hydra's right. The only purpose of business is to make money for the owners/stockholders. ------------------
It's not fair for businesses to complain about the high cost of implementing ergonomics programs even though they are paying for the high cost of turnover because they didn't take the proper precautions in their working environment. I'm not sure I understand this. Right now, it's a business' choice whether to pay for ergonomics or deal with turnover. They'll do what benefits them the most. Why wouldn't they complain if that choice is being taken away from them? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
That's fine, but a worker should have the right to sue if something in their job caused the problem. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
Ergonomics programs are the same as when your employer supplies a weight belt if you're required to lift heavy things. It's a safety issue. As a programmer, I shouldn't have to bring in my own natural keyboard, monitor stand, ergo chair and wrist rest. Fortunately, I work for a company that provides those things (when requested) without government intervention. Not every employee is that lucky. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
