ALERT: OSHA natl. ergonomics conference 1/8-9/97

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (robert)]

--- Forwarded mail from http://www.uclink2.berkeley.edu/~lstock

>From http://www.uclink2.berkeley.edu/~lstock  Thu Dec 12 13:48:58 1996
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199612122152.http://www.uclink4.berkeley.edu/~NAA20812>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert
From: http://www.uclink2.berkeley.edu/~lstock
Subject: OSHA natl. ergonomics conference 1/8-9/97
Cc: 
X-Mailer: <Windows Eudora Version 2.0.2>

Hi, Robert,
        If injured workers want to get material to people at the OSHA
natl. ergonomics conference in Chicago, they should: send email messages
to Chris Gjeffing at OSHA (http://www.niopse1.em.cdc.gov/~ccg0) and ask him to print
them out for Gary Orr; write to Joseph Dear (Asst. Sec. of Labor and OSHA
director): and/or (and I haven't tried it yet): http://www.dol.gov./~jdear
        We should all send letters to our congressional representatives to
tell them how these injuries have changed and/or devastated our lives and
urge them to support OSHA ergonomics standards to prevent RSIs/RMIs. The
important point is *to personalize* the issues involved; that that usually
gets attention.

(Here's a brief description from the SF Chronicle article Wed. 12/11 (p.
A8): "White House Revives Push for Rules on Repetitive Stress Injuries"
(Steve Lohr, NY Times): 
        "With congressional restrictions removed in the new budget year, the
Clinton administration said yesterday that it plans to renew its attempts to
set mandatory rules to prevent repetitive motion injuries at work. . . .
        " . . . Since 1990, OSHA has been working on an ergonomic standard
to protect workers. But until now, the effort was bogged down by the heated
politics surrounding the field of ergonomics, a discipline that tries to
design jobs and tools to fit the physical limits of workers.
        "Supporting business groups, conservative Republicans last summer
attached an amendment to the budget bill that would have eliminated money
for OSHA'S ergonomic effort and barred collection of information on the
problem. The amendment was defeated after some Republicans, who had
supported earlier cuts, joined Democrats in opposing it.
        "In the current fiscal year, which began October 1, the safety
agency no longer faces congressional prohibitions on setting ergonomic
standards.
        "Yet the Clinton administration appears to be taking a more
conciliatory approach toward the rule-writing process than it had a few
years ago. Reich would ot predict when OSHA might issue ergonomic rules.
        "The new plan, Reich said, emphasizes building a consensus among
business groups, workers and medical experts. An earlier draft proposal
covered much of industry, but now, Reich said, OSHA is considering different
standards for different activities, such as computer keyboard typing,
lifting and assembly-line work. 
        *"An early move in the consensus-building effort will be a two-day
conference in Chicago early next year, sponsored by OSHA and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a research agency. The
conference, to be held January 8 and 9, will include companies and ergonomic
experts who will discuss programs for preventing repetitive stress injuries.*
        "Soon after the conference, the government will compile, publish and
distribute a 'technical assistance manual of best practices by companies,'
Dear said. 'We want to make the successes of companies that have made real
progress available to other companies.'" [end]

        One of the main problems with the California effort, many activists
now believe, was the attempt to pass a standard that would apply to
everyone; and the CalOSHA Standards Board, with its Governor
Wilson-appointed members, refused to do anything on the grounds that they
couldn't achieve consensus between business and labor . . . The effort to
achieve consensus, however, is antithetical to OSHA's regulatory approach
(upheld in numerous court decisions), which does not allow for bartering
employer costs against people's right to a safe place to work. 

e-mail http://www.uclink2.berkeley.edu/~lstock

--- End of forwarded message from http://www.uclink2.berkeley.edu/~lstock