Update on Ergonomics Standards in the United States

Abstract

After two decades of dormancy, activity around ergonomics rulemaking has increased recently, primarily due to legislation passed at the state level. Several states have enacted laws addressing production quotas in warehouses and the impact they have on worker safety and health. Minnesota added an ergonomics program requirement for industries with known risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders to their safe patient handling and warehouse quota regulations in response to legislation passed in 2023. In that same year, the Washington State Legislature passed laws that resulted in a warehouse quota regulation and initiated industry-specific rulemaking efforts. This paper provides an overview of current ergonomics standards at the state level and offers a national perspective from federal OSHA.

Federal Osha Perspective

Ergonomics Regulations

We know the application of human factors and ergonomics enhances performance and reduces errors. Errors that can result in fatalities and serious injury to both the employee and others. We also know that overexertion injuries are still the majority of workers’ compensation claims and highest cumulative cost to insurers (Liberty Mutual, Workplace Safety Index 2023). The scientific evidence accumulated over the past 50 years clearly identifies the risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The science adds to centuries of knowledge that manual handling is associated with back disability. Even though repeated training in proper lifting technique has been debunked as a means to reduce injuries from lifting (Daltroy et al., 1997; Martimo et al., 2008; Snook et al., 1978), companies both small and very large still depend on the employee to lift properly to avoid a back injury from manual handling. For those companies regulation is a way to motivate a change to effective controls.

Another approach to reducing musculoskeletal disorders has been to regulate pace. Four States (California, Washington, Minnesota and New York) have passed regulations regarding production quotas in response to complaints from people who work in the fast-paced e-commerce industry. We know that paced highly repetitive work without adequate recovery leads to injury. These regulations do not set a pace but require transparency in how quotas are established and the rate cannot result in employees working through rest and meal breaks.

Developing an Ergonomic Standard is Difficult!

Even with the significant weight of evidence on the relationship between work and MSDs it took Federal OSHA 10 years in the 1990s to develop an ergonomic standard, then in three months Congress rescinded the standard. There is an aversion to having a standard by employers and even some employees, but regulations or standards are almost always created because of past abuse. An ergonomics standard strikes at the very essence of who determines how work is performed, the employer, the employee (or their representative) or is it negotiated? This tug of war is why there are fierce battles over a regulation. When in reality how work is performed is a dance with partners who often do not trust each other. An alternative to a standard is to allow economic factors to influence decisions, that is to charge employers the full cost of an injury/illness. Those costs go beyond medical costs and two-thirds of wages. The full economic cost would need to include payment to cover ongoing medical costs, loss of future earnings, and punitive costs to encourage employers to implement changes.

A second idea put forth by industry is for regulators to provide guidance and technical information rather than a standard. This works for the many good employers but fails for the others. Many employers know that good ergonomics is good economics and do the right thing to prevent injuries and illnesses. Usually because it is the right thing to do morally and it is the most cost effective alternative. Other employers attempt to hide the injuries and illnesses, fire injured employees or pressure them to quit.

Standards have traditionally focused on specific requirements pertaining to well defined hazards and risks. A prime example would be setting specific weight limits on lifting. Start with a specific weight. But we know the risk is significantly affected by numerous variables other than the weight involved in the lift. This makes creating a specific standard difficult if not impossible. The same can be said about other variables/risk factors such as repetition, force, posture, and temperature.

Specification or Performance Standards

The above leads to the repeatedly stated desires of industry concerning a standard in ergonomics whether a specification standard or a performance (program) standard. Industrial representatives invariably state that, if they had to have one, they wanted a standard that was flexible to meet their working conditions, also very clear when they are in-compliance (a bright line). Flexibility in compliance and a bright line endpoint do not go together.

Industry representatives repeated the idea that an ergonomics standard cannot be a “one size fits all standard” and that “One size doesn’t fit all.” The implication was that all standards were one size and therefore invalid. Industry also claims the estimated cost of compliance far outweighed the benefits. Their cost estimates tended to ignore the cost of doing nothing—increased injury and illness costs including lost work time. With any injury or illness there is always a human suffering cost that is rarely equated to dollars. But for the injured, ill or disabled the cost is real. Society is left to bear the burden of the cost of the disability as the injured and their family seek government assistance.

Balancing the Demands

Labor almost always wants stricter standards and industry wants to self-regulate. It’s difficult to get support when both labor and industry are not happy with the standard, but that may be the right place.

Minnesota

Overview of Minnesota Statutes 182.6553 and 182.6554, Safe Patient Handling Programs

In 2007, the Minnesota Legislature introduced Minnesota Statutes 182.6553 (Minnesota Legislature, 2007), in which health care facilities defined as a hospital, outpatient surgical center or nursing home were required to adopt a written safe-patient-handling program establishing the facility’s plan to minimize manual lifting of patients by using safe-patient-handling equipment. This plan needed to be in place by Jan. 1, 2011. By July 1, 2008, all covered facilities were required to establish a safe-patient-handling committee with specific activities to complete.

In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature introduced Minn. Stat. 182.6554 (Minnesota Legislature, 2008), which required all clinical settings that move patients to have a written safe-patient-handling plan. This plan had the same elements as the written plan in Minn. Stat. 182.6553, with the expectation that this plan needed to be in place by Jan. 1, 2012. “Clinical settings that move patients” means physician, dental and other outpatient care facilities, except for outpatient surgical settings, where service requires movement of patients from point to point as part of the scope of service.

Following the enactment of these statutes, sample programs for the covered industry with hazard assessments were developed and the MNOSHA WSC: Safe patient-handling webpage (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, 2009) was established.

In 2011, Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA) Workplace Safety Consultation started a networking work group—the facilitated hospital group—which met approximately three times a year to discuss issues associated with safe patient-handling. The group continued to meet for the next more than 12 years and planned three statewide conferences.

July 2023 Minnesota Legislature Establishes Two New Statutes

Minnesota Statutes 182.6526, Warehouse distribution worker safety (Minnesota Legislature, 2023a) went into effect Aug. 1, 2023. This statute requires warehouse distribution centers in specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to disclose quotas and work-speed data to certain current and former employees to inform them about their job performance and rights in the workplace. Additionally, covered employers must have monthly safety committee meetings until, for two consecutive years, the worksite or the employer does not have an employee incidence rate 30% higher than the average yearly incidence rate for the relevant NAICS code.

Answers to frequently asked questions about these requirements are available on the FAQs for warehouse workers (Minn. Stat. 182.6526) webpage (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, 2023a).

As of Jan. 1, 2024, another ergonomics statute went into effect, Minn. Stat. 182.677, Ergonomics (Minnesota Legislature, 2023b). This statute requires covered employers to: develop a written ergonomics program; annually evaluate the program; train and involve employees; and maintain certain records. The specifically covered industries include hospitals, skilled care facilities, outpatient surgical centers, meatpacking sites, and warehouse distribution centers.

A webpage for each statute (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, 2023b, 2023c) was developed, with FAQs and resources, to assist sites in complying with the new statutes. Outreach began in July 2023 and was conducted through MNOSHA’s main points of contact: webinars; training sessions; conferences; and the publication of multiple articles in its quarterly newsletter Safety Lines.

Washington State

The Washington State Legislature passed two bills in 2023 that change how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) can enforce requirements related to preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs).

Warehouse Distribution Centers

Second Substitute House Bill (2SHB) 1762 (Washington State Legislature, 2023a) establishes requirements for warehouse distribution centers and is similar to bills passed in Minnesota, New York, and California. The draft rule developed by L&I, Safety Standards for Quotas for Warehouse Distribution Centers, codifies the requirements in the bill and is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024.

Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders

Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5217 (Washington State Legislature, 2023b) lifted a 20-year-old prohibition on ergonomics rulemaking in Washington State. This bill allows L&I to adopt rules to prevent WMSDs in industries or risk classes that are at least two times the overall state rate. As part of the process, L&I will publish a list of industries eligible for rulemaking each year, but can only adopt one rule for an eligible industry in a 12 month period. The first rule would have an effective date of July 1, 2026 or later.

Prioritizing Industries for Rulemaking

L&I narrowed down the larger list of eligible industries to 31 that are considered a higher priority for regulation. The priority list (Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 2023) includes industries in the construction, manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, retail/wholesale, and emergency services sectors. L&I continues to narrow down the list to a smaller group of industries to a smaller set of candidate for the first rulemaking. Criteria for selecting these industries include:

• • A high number and/or rate of WMSD workers compensation claims.

• • The number of workers and employers in the industry.

• • Injury trends that indicated the industries’ WMSD rates would remain above twice the state average for the next several years.

• • Industries with known hazards and solutions.

• • Current efforts by employers and trade associations to address WMSD hazards in an industry.

Involving Industry Stakeholders

As part of the rule writing process, L&I will convene an advisory committee made up of employer and worker representatives from the industries selected for rulemaking. There will also be opportunities to engage with other industries on the priority list, to identify common WMSD hazards and ergonomics best practices. Solutions identified during this collaboration will be added to a searchable database of ergonomics ideas. Employers can also ask for free and confidential technical help from L&I’s ergonomics consultation services.

Providing Technical Assistance

L&I also plans to develop and distribute learning tools for employers to help them identify and assess risks, and implement ergonomics processes to reduce risks for their employees. Education and outreach to employers and workers was an important part of the roll out of the prior ergonomics rule in Washington State in 1999 and 2000. An evaluation of those training efforts concluded: “Training should be part of any program aimed at improving work and the work environment.” (Shad Syed et al., 2001). The evaluation concluded that the training was effective in increasing knowledge of ergonomics and the rule requirements, particularly for participants without much knowledge about ergonomics before the training.