IIAA Speaks Out Against Proposed Ergonomic Standards

Independent agents oppose ergonomics standards offered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) because they could trump the state-based workers' compensation system and because of the uncertainty of their compliance costs, says the Independent Insurance Agents of America (IIAA).

The IIAA position came in written comments submitted to the federal agency this week on the proposed ergonomics standards offered last fall. After publicly releasing the standards, OSHA solicited comments from interested groups. IIAA and many other business groups in the nation's capital have come out in opposition and are planning to submit remarks before today's deadline for comment.

In its comments, IIAA focused on the displacement of the state-based workers' compensation system, the costs of compliance and a National Academy of Science (NAS) study of workplace ergonomics and the relationship of repetitive stress injuries.

IIAA President-Elect William F. Hofmann III, CPCU, CLU who will be testifying on Capitol Hill on this issue, noted that the current workers' compensation system has worked well for both employers and employees. "There is no need to reinvent this successful program merely to provide federal regulators a toe-hold into an area long regulated by the states," says Hofmann.

"IIAA is greatly troubled that OSHA's proposed medical care and wage placement requirements directly overlap existing state-based systems and present a significant and unwarranted intrusion into what has heretofore been a successful social insurance program," noted IIAA in its written comments. "OSHA's statutory charter limits the agency to the prevention of injury, and in fact, the OSH Act prohibits the agency from interfering with workers' compensation programs. Yet, by requiring employers to pay for medical treatment and continue full wages and benefits when the proposed injury standard is triggered, OSHA has gone far beyond its statutory mandate of injury prevention and moved into the realm of injury compensation."

IIAA charged that the ergonomic standards could lead workers to file claims for injuries not resulting from workplace tasks. "Currently, the workers' compensation systems defined by each state provide compensation to those workers whose injuries arise solely out of and in the course of employment," IIAA noted. "Under the OSHA proposal, claims could and likely will be filed alleging injury due to multiple causes not exclusive to the workplace, yet employers will undoubtedly bear the cost and burden of these few claims."

In its comments, IIAA countered OSHA's $4.2 billion estimate of employer costs to implement the ergonomic standard. The House of Representative's Committee on Education and the Workforce has noted in a report adopted by the House that these estimates are significantly underestimated.

"Indeed, there is evidence that the actual costs could be as much as 10 times the OSHA estimate and that the costs borne by the trucking industry alone could exceed OSHA's overall estimate," explained IIAA. "This great uncertainty is reason alone to delay implementation of the ergonomic standards until a definitive projection of the cost of this proposal to the U.S. economy can be made. Forcing employers, insurance agents, insurance companies, and state regulators to absorb such a significant potential cost
is unconscionable."

IIAA urged OSHA to wait for the results of a NAS study that will determine the relationship that may exist between workplace tasks and repetitive stress injuries. This study was mandated in legislation approved
by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. NAS is to report back to Congress by January 2001.

"IIAA strongly believes that any proposed ergonomic standards must be based upon sound scientific data-like that to be completed by the NAS early next year, and that there is no reason to press forward with such a broad and significant rulemaking prior to the completion of the study," IIAA stressed.

"Delaying consideration of the proposed ergonomic rule until the scientific evaluation by the nation's premier research organization is completed is the only proper road to follow," IIAA continued. "The incredible disparity in assessing the costs to the economy of such a sweeping rulemaking in and by itself justifies the temporary delay until all of the scientific evidence is in."

IIAA said the state-based workers' compensation system is performing as designed, providing employees with fair coverage at reasonable and predictable cost to employers. "Adding a new and uncertain layer of federalization to this well-functioning system without the benefit of sound scientific knowledge is the wrong way to achieve a solution to the problems of workplace ergonomics," said IIAA.