State Regulators Approve Ergonomics Standard

Re “A First for Workplace Safety,” editorial, Nov. 18:

Your editorial praising state regulators for a “breakthrough” when they imposed the nation’s first ergonomics standard should, instead, be mourning the loss of jobs and business Californians will suffer should this rule actually take effect.

The regulation is so ridiculous and costly that the trucking industry is going to court to stop it. There is a complete lack of consensus among the experts as to how many repetitive movements, and what kind, result in so-called repetitive stress injuries--or why the frequency of such injuries varies so greatly among similar people doing identical jobs.

The respected independent research firm, National Economic Research Associates, based in California, has just completed a study showing that a national ergonomics standard would cost just one industry--trucking--at least $6.5 billion a year.

There’s no glory in being the “first in the nation” to make a devastating mistake that will cost state residents billions of dollars worth of jobs and commerce--all without guaranteeing the prevention of one single workplace injury.

THOMAS J. DONOHUE

President

America Trucking Assns.

Alexandria, Va.

* We share your concern for the health and safety of workers, but not your enthusiasm for our “first in the nation” ergonomic regulation--which amounts to a medical prescription written by government bureaucrats.

In fact, no doctor would have written such a “prescription,” because the doctors are the first to say we don’t yet know enough about these repetitive stress injuries (RSI) to prescribe either cures or preventive measures across the board. Your editorial ignored these medical question marks, as well as the astronomical costs that come with such a regulation.

The price tag will be paid by taxpayers as well as business. For instance, a school could be ordered to spend scarce dollars on chairs and desks in the administration building, instead of on books in the classroom.

The alternative to this regulation is not inaction. The alternative is for government to throw its resources behind more research into RSI, to allow us to make a diagnosis before prescribing a cure.

In imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, ergonomic regulation offers the prospect of enormous costs, without the promise of relief to anyone with a repetitive stress injury.

KEVIN R. GORDON

Assistant Executive Director

Governmental Relations

Calif. School Boards Assn.

West Sacramento