On March 2, 2000, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) filed formal comments on behalf of its 14,000 members in opposition to OSHA’s proposed ergonomics rule, issued in November 1999.
“We believe OSHA’s proposed standard would impose very substantial costs on manufacturing sector businesses, and will inappropriately divert resources and attention from issues that have a more substantial impact on employee health and safety,” said Patrick J. Cleary, NAM’s vice president for human resource policy. “Beyond the challenge of reading through a 310-page preamble, a 1,400-page supplemental economic analysis, a 300-page health effects analysis and the actual regulatory text, our biggest obstacle in commenting on OSHA’s proposal was trying to keep up with an ever-changing set of materials the agency inserted — or failed to insert — in the public record.
“The cost burden is only one piece of this wasteful puzzle. Precious time and resources would be needlessly squandered and increased paperwork burdens would limit the flexibility of companies to address the health and safety needs of their employees,” noted Cleary. “Our greatest skepticism stems from the fact that even OSHA’s ergonomists cannot pinpoint the conditions that cause ergonomics-related injuries, and thus cannot identify preventive measures.”
For an executive summary of NAM’s comments on the ergonomics proposal access www.nam.org/hrp.
