Fairness and Good Business Too
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. announced Monday that it has stopped a year-old program of secret genetic testing of some of its workers. The blood tests were performed on personnel who filed claims and sought medical attention for work-related injuries stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. Company doctors said they thought the tests would identify a genetic predisposition in the injured workers to these repetitive motion ailments of the hand and wrist.
Talk about blaming the victim: Injure yourself on the job and the company might tell you your genes are at fault.
The railroad company backed away from its testing scheme only in the face of a lawsuit filed last week by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of six railroad maintenance workers tested without their knowledge. That the company never should have engaged in such deceit is obvious. What’s less clear is why so many firms still balk at reasonable ergonomic rules formulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration that are designed to prevent these injuries in the first place.
First proposed in late 1999, the new federal standard has three main requirements: that employers provide information about musculoskeletal or repetitive stress disorders to their employees, that they eliminate as much as possible conditions that can cause injury and that they help an injured worker with medical treatment and, if necessary, disability pay.
The new standard took effect last month, but employers have until October to comply fully. The rules were under discussion for years, but fierce opposition from business to any added costs succeeded in delaying implementation.
With a White House friendlier to business interests, the fledgling rules are now under review and a rollback is possible. That would be unwise, and certainly uneconomic. In our speeded-up, just-in-time economy, ergonomic-related injuries take a high toll, affecting some 1.8 million workers a year. Prevention is cost-effective. Even in highly repetitive assembly line jobs, sometimes simple changes like allowing workers to take regular breaks or to switch work stations can trim injury claims without a heavy hit to the bottom line. That’s what a Missouri cabinetry maker did and it reported a $42,000 drop in workers’ compensation costs as a result. Similarly, an Illinois diesel engine maker saw injury costs fall 66% after educating its employees on safe ergonomic practices and instituting some production changes.
The real bottom line, however, is that implementing the federal rules is the right thing to do, certainly better than secretly testing injured workers in the hope that they can somehow be blamed for their misfortunes.
