San Francisco Considers Law on VDT Safety : Health: Proponents argue for regulations to reduce work-related injuries and stress. Business lobbyists say the measure would be too costly.

Public hearings began here Tuesday on an ordinance that would be the only local measure in the nation setting protective standards for workers who use video display terminals in private businesses.

The proposed ordinance, drafted by a coalition of union officials, public health advocates and politicians, comes after a 15-month period in which virtually every effort to regulate VDTs at the local, state and national levels has failed.

Those losses illustrate that while the consequences of working at VDTs--aching wrists, shoulders and backs--have been widely documented for years, the political question of whether governments should set rules to limit this physical damage remains unclear.

The San Francisco ordinance, endorsed by nine of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, would require municipal and private employers in the city and county to spend millions of dollars on new office equipment.

Chairs, desks and computer keyboards would have to be made adjustable and adequately padded for the comfort of users. Office lighting would have to be altered to reduce glare from computer screens. Printers would have to be covered to reduce noise. VDT users would be assured of 15-minute breaks of rest or alternative work every two hours.

A final vote is not expected until the end of the year, but business lobbyists are already telling horror stories. Bank of America, which has about 6,000 VDT-using workers here, said Tuesday that it would have to spend $14 million to comply with the ordinance.

Illnesses caused by repetitive use of VDTs and other machines and tools are increasing in industries as varied as telecommunications, meat packing and grocery checking. They accounted for 48% of all workplace illnesses in private businesses in 1988, up from 18% in 1981.

Much of the increase is because of the burgeoning use of VDTs, which are used by nearly 30 million U.S. workers. In many industries, computers measure the keystrokes per minute of an employee, discouraging workers from taking breaks that can prevent injuries.

Work safety advocates contend that business has been slow to acknowledge the correlation between computer work and a variety of ailments.

Business interests contend that major corporations are paying considerable attention to VDT users’ problems and should not be hamstrung by regulations. They also contend, with some scientific support, that ergonomics--the art of making equipment fit the user, not vice versa--is a new, imprecise science that is not ready for political regulation.

So far, business is winning the argument:

The standards board of the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health last year turned down a petition by the Newspaper Guild to set VDT work standards in California.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors months later defeated a proposed ordinance to establish countywide standards.

A New York City measure that would have protected municipal workers was vetoed in late 1989 by then-Mayor Edward Koch, who said he feared that it would endanger the city’s business climate.

The same week, a New York State Supreme Court judge struck down a Suffolk County law similar to San Francisco’s proposal, saying VDTs should be regulated by the state, not local government.

Two months ago, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration overrode the recommendation of its ergonomics experts, who wanted the agency to immediately issue “general industry” ergonomic guidelines that would apply to all workplaces. Instead, at the direction of Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, OSHA decided to develop formal ergonomic rules, a process that may take up to three years.

Last month, Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a bill that would have required all California employers to comply with VDT design standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute.

Against this backdrop, proponents of the San Francisco measure contend that local communities must become involved in regulation.

“While data isn’t in on each and every assertion . . . there’s enough evidence to sound the alarm so we need not wait for disaster like we had in mining, and with asbestos,” Paul Varacalli, an international vice president of Service Employees International Union, said at Tuesday’s hearing.

Gwen Kaplan, president of a mailing company and an official of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the ordinance “will probably put many dozens of small firms out of business. . . . Should somebody be able to slam down a mandate upon a situation nobody understands?”

The ordinance would apply to businesses that have 15 or more VDT operators who spend at least half of their time at the machines. It would not go into effect until two years after final passage and would require safety training for all new employees. Companies that disciplined workers who asserted their rights could be fined.

Supporters of the ordinance have agreed to rework one provision, which required more space between work stations to reduce possible radiation emissions. Some studies, while inconclusive, have raised questions about whether pregnant women might have a higher risk of miscarriages from exposure to radiation from a terminal display screen.