City Attorney Advises Against VDT Ordinance : Safety: State regulations would preempt any by Los Angeles, he says. But Councilman Yaroslavsky says workers need protection.

A roadblock to a proposed Los Angeles ordinance governing video display terminals surfaced Wednesday when the city attorney advised that a local VDT law could be successfully challenged in court.

The city attorney’s office said that VDT safety issues are the purview of state regulators and advised city officials that any local ordinance on the subject would be preempted.

The legal opinion was presented during the City Council’s Human Resources and Labor Relations Committee’s first fact-finding hearing on a VDT law proposed by Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky.

Yaroslavsky wants the council to adopt an ordinance similar to one enacted by the City and County of San Francisco in December, 1990. That law requires businesses with 15 or more employees to provide VDT workers with adjustable chairs and terminals, education in their proper use and periodic rest periods.

The San Francisco law is being challenged in Superior Court there by two businesses whose owners argue that only the state has authority to set safety rules for the workplace.

Such an ordinance in Los Angeles also would be challenged, said Deputy City Atty. Preston Mike.

In a letter to City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie, Mike said any such local ordinance would be preempted by the California Occupational Safety and Health Act and state officials are currently drafting VDT regulations of their own. He also noted that two bills that would provide state laws similar to the one in San Francisco have been introduced in the Assembly.

Another obstacle to Yaroslavsky’s proposal, Mike said, is that Los Angeles does not have a public health agency or a staff within the city government authorized to enforce such a law. San Francisco is both a city and county and thus has a county health department to enforce worker safety regulations.

But Yaroslavsky dismissed such arguments and urged that the three-member committee forge ahead in hearings and try to draft an ordinance that could withstand a legal challenge.

“I think it is important that this city’s power and will to act in this area not be held hostage by some legal opinion or a parade of business people who say it will be preempted,” Yaroslavsky said.

The meeting was chaired by Councilwoman Joy Picus, who agreed that the committee should try to draft an ordinance. Councilwoman Rita Walters also attended the hearing. Councilman Hal Bernson was absent.

Several business leaders expressed concern that an ordinance would worsen the city’s financial crisis and cost Los Angeles employers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Among them was Ray Remy, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, who said such a law might drive away small businesses already burdened by governmental regulations.

“We’d prefer that the city not adopt an ordinance,” Remy said. “The economic consequences need to be studied carefully.”

Prolonged use of VDTs has been blamed for a variety of health problems, including headaches, eye strain, backaches and inflammation of the wrists and neck.

Many Los Angeles businesses, however, take the position that an ordinance would be costly and unnecessary because specially designed chairs, desks and lighting do not always alleviate health problems linked to the use of computers.

But Jerry Morris, a vice president with the Communications Workers of America Local 9000, said an ordinance is the only way of ensuring that businesses provide safe working conditions for their employees.

“If a company is willing to incur the cost of computerizing their operations,” Morris said, “we say they should complete the task with appropriate furniture.”