Of course, I would guess that most workers, if given the choice, would prefer to bring their own ergonomic keyboard or back brace or what-have-you and be paid a little more. If the Government requires these things, it just means the company can't pay as much, or can't hire as many people. And since you get paid less, you can't afford that better car with all the whiz-bang safety features. So when the guy in the Ford Expedition accidentally rams your little Chevy Metro, you die a premature death. If you could've afford the Cadillac, you'd still be alive today. So now you're dead, all because the government required ergonomic keyboards in your business. (And let's not even get started on how requiring ergonomic keyboards would increase homelessness). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Please tell me you're joking mrpaige. If a worker gets hurt due to their working conditions, whether it is in a factory or in a corporate office, why shouldn't they be entitled to compensation? ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
I agree that a business shouldn't have to put an ergo keyboard on every employee's desk, but that option should be available for people who want it. Personally, I can't type for **** on an ergo keyboard, so I never asked for one. Carpal-tunnel syndrome be dammned! ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
You couldn't tell from that post whether I was joking? I don't see anything here, though, that says that workers can't get compensation for on-the-job injuries. That seems to be off-point. The thing here is rescinding workplace rules that may or may not cost far more than the gain. It is an honest question. As shanna mentioned, if a rule costs $25K to implement and saved $5K, is it worth it? Is it worth it knowing that salaries might have to be reduced? Or fewer people hired? Some examples that I heard that were supposedly from these rules seemed over-the-top to me, but I didn't read and interpret all 600 pages of the rules, so perhaps the examples I heard were out-of-context and, therefore, exaggerated or flat-out wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that everything has a cost. And those costs have to be weighed against the benefits. Many times, we don't see the costs. Sometimes we don't see the benefits. I know there are stupid regs out there, and I know there are good regs out there. I don't know which these fall under (and I don't think any of us do. I am willing to bet that none of us has read the regs in question, nor studied the potential costs and potential benefits in full). I just thought it would be fun to try and see if I could come up with a scenario where ergonomic keyboards were responsible for increased homelessness and premature death. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Just checking. It was funny. As to your increased cost argument, sometimes I think it is overplayed. Some businesses will always claim that any government-mandated cost is too much, whether it is increasing wages or safety. People in high-risk and low-pay jobs have little leverage. That's why the government has to step in and set some minimum standards. Plus, not everything can be measured from a dollars-and-cents standpoint. Long-term health and quality of life are important, too. ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
That's fine, but a worker should have the right to sue if something in their job caused the problem. If you prove that it was caused by the employer's negligence, you can already do that. People in high-risk and low-pay jobs have little leverage. That's why the government has to step in and set some minimum standards. So is white-collar work now considered "high-risk"? I don't know, but there seems to me to be a difference between getting your hand sliced off in a factory vs. developing carpal tunnel syndrome over a period of 10 years. One major difference being that the latter can be identified early and you can stop doing that job. Maybe we should require all employers to provide massage chairs and natural light / open-air buildings too. After all, these would improve employee health. Sure, it might put most companies out of business and workers out of the jobs we were trying to improve, but who cares -- cost doesn't matter, right? Some businesses will always claim that any government-mandated cost is too much, whether it is increasing wages or safety. Similarly, many unions and employees will always claim that any regulation is absolutely vital and fair, no matter what the cost. The question I (still) have is has anyone actually looked at the details before making their conclusions about the bill? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
While I did mention dollars specifically, I really meant costs and benefits in general, not necessarily limited to money. Long term health and welfare is very important. But implementing over-reaching regs (which these may be) may be harmful to many people. Any dollar a company has to spend means on regs is one less dollar they can spend elsewhere in the business. Even if that dollar would normally go in the shareholder's pocket, that can still be a benefit to the overall economy, oftentimes exceeding the benefit that the regs would've otherwise gained. And it really is no joke that over-reaching regs can harm the quality of life. There has to be a balance. Not every reg is good. And keeping costs in mind is not necessarily due to greed. Sure, there have to be minimum stadards, but again, are we talking about minimum standards when talking about these regs? I don't know. It doesn't sound like it to me, but I didn't read the things, so I don't know for sure. One thing to keep in mind when talking about regulations is that small businesses are often where these regs cause problems. And more people are employed by small businesses than by large corporations. We need to keep in mind that when we talk about employers, the average employer is nowhere near the Fortune 500. I know business owners who teeter on the line between profitability and bankruptcy. A few extra regs and they have to close up shop, putting people out of work. Just thought I'd mention that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Shanna, I meant high-risk and/or low-paying jobs. Those in relatively low-paying jobs actually have less leverage than those in high-risk jobs. Last time I checked, factory workers were mostly unionized, while secretaries and service-industry workers are not. And arguing that those developing carpel-tunnel syndrome should just find another line of work is a cop-out. These women (and 90+% of secretaries are women) shouldn't have to choose between the occupation that they are skilled at (and the job that supports their families) versus their long-term health. Especially if there is a proven way to prevent repetitive typing-related injuries. And using an example like massage chairs doesn't help your argument, because there is no long-term injury that they prevent. mrpaige, of course regs can be over-reaching. I haven't read this one specifically, so I don't know whether it is or not. But if a cost/benefit analysis using economic and health factors demonstrates that it is too far-reaching, the remedy should be to scale it back rather than abandon a legitimate social objective. And of course some small businesses will go under, and people will lose jobs. A third of small businesses fail. That's a fact. Many others have tiny profit margins. My viewpoint is that such losses have to be given consideration, but the bottom line is that if a business can't adhere to what the government sets as minimum safety standards and turn a profit, well then it can't afford the cost of doing business. ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
Sam, And arguing that those developing carpel-tunnel syndrome should just find another line of work is a cop-out. These women (and 90+% of secretaries are women) shouldn't have to choose between the occupation that they are skilled at (and the job that supports their families) versus their long-term health. Sure they should. People do this in all their jobs. When you take an investment banking job, you deal with the additional stresses that are harmful to your health. When you work as a volunteer in Bosnia, you know you could get killed. When you pick a factory job, you accept the risks of occasionally dangerous physical conditions and bad air. When you choose to be a basketball player, you know that you could get injured on the job. Any job you take, you take certain risks with it -- that's just a part of life. We can reduce these risks, but at what cost? Basketball would eliminate most injuries by implementing a regulation that players aren't allowed to jump, but that's bad for the business. Besides, I never said they should choose another line of work. However, they can make their own decisions to improve their workplace situation if they'd like. For example, A ergonomic squishy-pad costs $5. And using an example like massage chairs doesn't help your argument, because there is no long-term injury that they prevent. Actually, the example holds perfectly. Massage chairs can help reduce back injuries, which can be extremely debilitating over the long-term. But if a cost/benefit analysis using economic and health factors demonstrates that it is too far-reaching, the remedy should be to scale it back rather than abandon a legitimate social objective. That's all that I am (and mrpaige, I believe) saying. You have to look at the particulars and weighs the costs and benefits. Unfortunately, Congress didn't have that option because Clinton already pushed the bill into law through the executive order. All Congress could do was kill it or let it go as-is. They chose to kill it. Now, they can always go back and try to craft a more balanced proposal, at which time they can look at the details and maybe scale it back if need be. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited March 09, 2001).]
But factories do make efforts to reduce risks, due to government intervention and organized labor. Sports do the same thing: see helmets and padding mandated for football, baseball, hockey. Basketball would not be basketball without jumping; clerical work is going to be the same product with or without safety measures. But its office equipment! And those damned squishy pads aren't always enough. I guess cops should buy their own flack jackets if they are concerned about being hit by bullets? Welders should bring their own masks? But that isn't the result here, is it? Is there a bill pending in the Republican-controlled Congress that would "craft a more balanced" proposal? Will there be one under the current regime? Maybe that was the reason for the executive order; Clinton figured that was the only way something would get done about this concern. Politics being what it is, I expect to see this issue tabled for the next four years. Anyway, off to buy one of those massage chairs for my office. Only I want the model that comes with a masseuse named Inga. ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. [This message has been edited by SamCassell (edited March 09, 2001).]
Sports do the same thing: see helmets and padding mandated for football, baseball, hockey. I guess cops should buy their own flack jackets if they are concerned about being hit by bullets? Welders should bring their own masks? You're illustrating my point exactly. These businesses weighed the pros and cons and determined these would be worth the costs. Football could require bigger and better helmets and pads, but they've determined that would be in the best interests of the business. A determination was made of where to draw the line. But that isn't the result here, is it? Is there a bill pending in the Republican-controlled Congress that would "craft a more balanced" proposal? That's not an option until the current law is cancelled. You can't implement something like this and change it down the road. At that point, businesses might already have incurred unnecessary expenses. Will there be one under the current regime? Again, we won't know that until the current law gets cancelled. Maybe that was the reason for the executive order; So instead of weighing the merits of the law, he decided to skip that whole process and just decide "it's good workers, so it's the right thing to do". Wonderful. Politics being what it is, I expect to see this issue tabled for the next four years. It's possible. Then again, I'd rather have people representing all the affected parties craft any potential legislation rather than just looking at the needs of one group. When you do the latter, all you get are really bad laws. Anyway, off to buy one of those massage chairs for my office. Only I want the model that comes with an actual masseuse named Inga. Sweet. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited March 09, 2001).]
Let me first disclaim that I did not read the entire OSHA standard, nor am I qualified to determine what kinds of standards make appropriate legislation. But, if I can take the workstation checklist included as an appendix to the standard as representative (again, I am assuming that page 550 of the standard doesn't require employers to provide massage chairs), it doesn't seem to be overly burdensome. This checklist sets forth a few basic requirements about how your terminal is set up, so that you can be in a comfortable working position. It doesn't even require ergo wrist rests or keyboards. I'll agree that I don't know what the whole thing says and therefore couldn't endorse it hands down, but I'd like to also point out that this was clearly a partisan move. 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. Even if Bill Clinton passed this through in a rush, the standard had been drafted last November. Plenty of time to be reviewed. Who knows how many congressmen voted along party lines rather than bothering to read it? ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
I don't understand this part. There is no Congressional review of Executive Orders, nor of OSHA Regulations. The way it usually works is that Congress passes a law and OSHA (or whoever) works out the specific regs to enforce the spirit of the law. Here, the President (without Congress) signed an Executive Order mandating certain things and OSHA set forth an implementation. There was no review by Congress prior to now. Of course, I've never said whether what Congress is doing is wrong or not. I can't know since I can't possibly know whether the requirements within the regs are overreaching or not. To me, it's just interesting to see how quickly everyone is willing to jump all over something (pro or con) even when we admit we don't have all the facts. I don't personally care about any of this, as it doesn't affect me right now at all. If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, it's going to be because I spend too much time arguing with people on this message board. I can't really blame my employer for that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
